Coaching vs. Execution

[PSLGriz]

Guys weren't out of position. That suggests that were lined up wrong. The game plan was good. The one play call mistake mistake was sending the house in 3rd and forever which resulted in a 70 TD untouched up the middle when all they needed to do was prevent a 1st down and they would have forced a punt.
As far as the game plan, it was sound. I know what it was.the D line was to play man up, take on the Oline straight up, don't shoot gaps and don't create open lanes and let the LB's clean up. For the most part that is what the Dline did. There were missed assignments by the second level. Not many but it only takes a few. As the game went on you could see that the interior guys started to shoot gaps which opened lanes which didn't happen in the 1st half.
Playing defense against MSU is no different than playing a triple option team. You have to stay with your assignments. MSU ran the ball 56 times. Miss assignments on a half dozen run plays and that's all it takes.
Definitely execution over coaching. The coaches didn't drop drive killing wide open passes in the 1st half. They didn't throw an interception at the worst possible time. They didn't miss assignments. They didn't call the phantom pass interference on MSU's first score, they didn't call the a fumble on a clear forward pass and they didn't not call a clear pass interference on their final offensive play.
Hats off to MSU. They had a game plan they stuck with. They ran the ball and they burned the clock. Murray played as well as he will ever play.
We stopped ourselves more than they stopped us.

OMG, hard to believe anyone is either that naïve or so invested in the coaching staff. Execution is the main product of coaching. Most coaching staffs can stop a QB draw when it keeps coming, especially against a one dimensional QB that you can overload. When he reads pressure he draws. Real complicated.

This thread is titled Coaching vs Execution. I made my case for execution. Unlike you I know what the game plan was and when guys freelance and shoot gaps or get over aggressive or not play their responsibilities lanes will be created. As the game went on players not coaches got away from these things.

 

[Washgrizfan1]

Guys weren't out of position. That suggests that were lined up wrong. The game plan was good. The one play call mistake mistake was sending the house in 3rd and forever which resulted in a 70 TD untouched up the middle when all they needed to do was prevent a 1st down and they would have forced a punt.
As far as the game plan, it was sound. I know what it was.the D line was to play man up, take on the Oline straight up, don't shoot gaps and don't create open lanes and let the LB's clean up. For the most part that is what the Dline did. There were missed assignments by the second level. Not many but it only takes a few. As the game went on you could see that the interior guys started to shoot gaps which opened lanes which didn't happen in the 1st half.
Playing defense against MSU is no different than playing a triple option team. You have to stay with your assignments. MSU ran the ball 56 times. Miss assignments on a half dozen run plays and that's all it takes.
Definitely execution over coaching. The coaches didn't drop drive killing wide open passes in the 1st half. They didn't throw an interception at the worst possible time. They didn't miss assignments. They didn't call the phantom pass interference on MSU's first score, they didn't call the a fumble on a clear forward pass and they didn't not call a clear pass interference on their final offensive play.
Hats off to MSU. They had a game plan they stuck with. They ran the ball and they burned the clock. Murray played as well as he will ever play.
We stopped ourselves more than they stopped us.

OMG, hard to believe anyone is either that naïve or so invested in the coaching staff. Execution is the main product of coaching. Most coaching staffs can stop a QB draw when it keeps coming, especially against a one dimensional QB that you can overload. When he reads pressure he draws. Real complicated.

Since you are so vocal on the situation, what is your solution? Please provide a realistic name, not just bs like "we need a new coach" or "Chip Kelly is available". How many years are you willing to give your coach to win the Big Sky, what happens if he loses to the cats or doesnt make the playoffs? We all would love for the Griz to return to dominance and hope your guy can get it done.

Don't have a guy; just the fortitude to go for change when you can tell what you have is not going to get it done. I trust Haslam would not make the same mistake the second time. He has to have the balls to do it, though. Fear of change is not a virtue.

What gives you confidence that Kent Haslam "would not make the same mistake the second time"? If the rumors are true, Haslam is now in the process of extending the current contract for 2 years.

 

[first11]

4th down wildcat play blowing up..... almost like cats knew exactly what was coming. Statement play of game imo

 

[Spanky]

OMG, hard to believe anyone is either that naïve or so invested in the coaching staff. Execution is the main product of coaching. Most coaching staffs can stop a QB draw when it keeps coming, especially against a one dimensional QB that you can overload. When he reads pressure he draws. Real complicated.

Since you are so vocal on the situation, what is your solution? Please provide a realistic name, not just bs like "we need a new coach" or "Chip Kelly is available". How many years are you willing to give your coach to win the Big Sky, what happens if he loses to the cats or doesnt make the playoffs? We all would love for the Griz to return to dominance and hope your guy can get it done.

Don't have a guy; just the fortitude to go for change when you can tell what you have is not going to get it done. I trust Haslam would not make the same mistake the second time. He has to have the balls to do it, though. Fear of change is not a virtue.

What gives you confidence that Kent Haslam "would not make the same mistake the second time"? If the rumors are true, Haslam is now in the process of extending the current contract for 2 years.

If the rumors are true, he has made the same mistake twice which spells disaster for UM football for years to come. I would imagine that both the current and new president signed off on his decision.

 

[Ursus1]

Guys weren't out of position. That suggests that were lined up wrong. The game plan was good. The one play call mistake mistake was sending the house in 3rd and forever which resulted in a 70 TD untouched up the middle when all they needed to do was prevent a 1st down and they would have forced a punt.
As far as the game plan, it was sound. I know what it was.the D line was to play man up, take on the Oline straight up, don't shoot gaps and don't create open lanes and let the LB's clean up. For the most part that is what the Dline did. There were missed assignments by the second level. Not many but it only takes a few. As the game went on you could see that the interior guys started to shoot gaps which opened lanes which didn't happen in the 1st half.
Playing defense against MSU is no different than playing a triple option team. You have to stay with your assignments. MSU ran the ball 56 times. Miss assignments on a half dozen run plays and that's all it takes.
Definitely execution over coaching. The coaches didn't drop drive killing wide open passes in the 1st half. They didn't throw an interception at the worst possible time. They didn't miss assignments. They didn't call the phantom pass interference on MSU's first score, they didn't call the a fumble on a clear forward pass and they didn't not call a clear pass interference on their final offensive play.
Hats off to MSU. They had a game plan they stuck with. They ran the ball and they burned the clock. Murray played as well as he will ever play.
We stopped ourselves more than they stopped us.

OMG, hard to believe anyone is either that naïve or so invested in the coaching staff. Execution is the main product of coaching. Most coaching staffs can stop a QB draw when it keeps coming, especially against a one dimensional QB that you can overload. When he reads pressure he draws. Real complicated.

This thread is titled Coaching vs Execution. I made my case for execution. Unlike you I know what the game plan was and when guys freelance and shoot gaps or get over aggressive or not play their responsibilities lanes will be created. As the game went on players not coaches got away from these things.

Yet coaches didn't put a stop to it....player goes against what you tell them to do and you don't pull their ass? That is bad coaching

 

[PlayerRep]

Guys weren't out of position. That suggests that were lined up wrong. The game plan was good. The one play call mistake mistake was sending the house in 3rd and forever which resulted in a 70 TD untouched up the middle when all they needed to do was prevent a 1st down and they would have forced a punt.
As far as the game plan, it was sound. I know what it was.the D line was to play man up, take on the Oline straight up, don't shoot gaps and don't create open lanes and let the LB's clean up. For the most part that is what the Dline did. There were missed assignments by the second level. Not many but it only takes a few. As the game went on you could see that the interior guys started to shoot gaps which opened lanes which didn't happen in the 1st half.
Playing defense against MSU is no different than playing a triple option team. You have to stay with your assignments. MSU ran the ball 56 times. Miss assignments on a half dozen run plays and that's all it takes.
Definitely execution over coaching. The coaches didn't drop drive killing wide open passes in the 1st half. They didn't throw an interception at the worst possible time. They didn't miss assignments. They didn't call the phantom pass interference on MSU's first score, they didn't call the a fumble on a clear forward pass and they didn't not call a clear pass interference on their final offensive play.
Hats off to MSU. They had a game plan they stuck with. They ran the ball and they burned the clock. Murray played as well as he will ever play.
We stopped ourselves more than they stopped us.

OMG, hard to believe anyone is either that naïve or so invested in the coaching staff. Execution is the main product of coaching. Most coaching staffs can stop a QB draw when it keeps coming, especially against a one dimensional QB that you can overload. When he reads pressure he draws. Real complicated.

This thread is titled Coaching vs Execution. I made my case for execution. Unlike you I know what the game plan was and when guys freelance and shoot gaps or get over aggressive or not play their responsibilities lanes will be created. As the game went on players not coaches got away from these things.

Yet coaches didn't put a stop to it....player goes against what you tell them to do and you don't pull their ass? That is bad coaching

If you don't have depth at the position, it's hard to sit the player making the mistake. Easier at running back. Maybe receiver. Maybe o-line. But tougher in secondary.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Coaches sat Epperly.

 

[kemajic]

Guys weren't out of position. That suggests that were lined up wrong. The game plan was good. The one play call mistake mistake was sending the house in 3rd and forever which resulted in a 70 TD untouched up the middle when all they needed to do was prevent a 1st down and they would have forced a punt.
As far as the game plan, it was sound. I know what it was.the D line was to play man up, take on the Oline straight up, don't shoot gaps and don't create open lanes and let the LB's clean up. For the most part that is what the Dline did. There were missed assignments by the second level. Not many but it only takes a few. As the game went on you could see that the interior guys started to shoot gaps which opened lanes which didn't happen in the 1st half.
Playing defense against MSU is no different than playing a triple option team. You have to stay with your assignments. MSU ran the ball 56 times. Miss assignments on a half dozen run plays and that's all it takes.
Definitely execution over coaching. The coaches didn't drop drive killing wide open passes in the 1st half. They didn't throw an interception at the worst possible time. They didn't miss assignments. They didn't call the phantom pass interference on MSU's first score, they didn't call the a fumble on a clear forward pass and they didn't not call a clear pass interference on their final offensive play.
Hats off to MSU. They had a game plan they stuck with. They ran the ball and they burned the clock. Murray played as well as he will ever play.
We stopped ourselves more than they stopped us.

OMG, hard to believe anyone is either that naïve or so invested in the coaching staff. Execution is the main product of coaching. Most coaching staffs can stop a QB draw when it keeps coming, especially against a one dimensional QB that you can overload. When he reads pressure he draws. Real complicated.

This thread is titled Coaching vs Execution. I made my case for execution. Unlike you I know what the game plan was and when guys freelance and shoot gaps or get over aggressive or not play their responsibilities lanes will be created. As the game went on players not coaches got away from these things.

You don't know what I knew or didn't know about the game plan. But your insistence that disciplined execution is independent of coaching is preposterous. Execution is not independent of Coaching. It is a primary product of coaching.

 

[PlayerRep]

Coaches sat Epperly.

This was my earlier post. I trust that you played close attention to it.

"Safeties were supposed to have contain several times but didn't, especially on speed options. Assume that resulted more from execution than scheme, but suppose it could have been caused in part by a new wrinkle put in by Cats. Cats have the essence of the triple option in their playbook, and have used it at times this season. They probe with it, to see what may work, and then use it more. On one play, a safety was in perfect position to make the tackle or force the play inside, but let the runner get outside. In the first half, there were 2 or 3 plays where there was no one seeming to be in contain or to have the pitch man. Many of you have noted the same thing."

Epperly was not the safety who I mentioned in reference to one play above.

 

[PSLGriz]

Guys weren't out of position. That suggests that were lined up wrong. The game plan was good. The one play call mistake mistake was sending the house in 3rd and forever which resulted in a 70 TD untouched up the middle when all they needed to do was prevent a 1st down and they would have forced a punt.
As far as the game plan, it was sound. I know what it was.the D line was to play man up, take on the Oline straight up, don't shoot gaps and don't create open lanes and let the LB's clean up. For the most part that is what the Dline did. There were missed assignments by the second level. Not many but it only takes a few. As the game went on you could see that the interior guys started to shoot gaps which opened lanes which didn't happen in the 1st half.
Playing defense against MSU is no different than playing a triple option team. You have to stay with your assignments. MSU ran the ball 56 times. Miss assignments on a half dozen run plays and that's all it takes.
Definitely execution over coaching. The coaches didn't drop drive killing wide open passes in the 1st half. They didn't throw an interception at the worst possible time. They didn't miss assignments. They didn't call the phantom pass interference on MSU's first score, they didn't call the a fumble on a clear forward pass and they didn't not call a clear pass interference on their final offensive play.
Hats off to MSU. They had a game plan they stuck with. They ran the ball and they burned the clock. Murray played as well as he will ever play.
We stopped ourselves more than they stopped us.

OMG, hard to believe anyone is either that naïve or so invested in the coaching staff. Execution is the main product of coaching. Most coaching staffs can stop a QB draw when it keeps coming, especially against a one dimensional QB that you can overload. When he reads pressure he draws. Real complicated.

This thread is titled Coaching vs Execution. I made my case for execution. Unlike you I know what the game plan was and when guys freelance and shoot gaps or get over aggressive or not play their responsibilities lanes will be created. As the game went on players not coaches got away from these things.

You don't know what I knew or didn't know about the game plan. But your insistence that disciplined execution is independent of coaching is preposterous. Execution is not independent of Coaching. It is a primary product of coaching.

So if all week in practice you tell the LB or safety he has pitch man and he doesn't do it in the game that's the coaches fault? Okay
If all week in practice you tell the Dlineman not to shoot gaps and play man up and you get in the game and they shoot gaps that's the coaches fault? Okay.

Push your agenda somewhere else.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

So if all week in practice you tell the LB or safety he has pitch man and he doesn't do it in the game that's the coaches fault? Okay
If all week in practice you tell the Dlineman not to shoot gaps and play man up and you get in the game and they shoot gaps that's the coaches fault? Okay.

Push your agenda somewhere else.

So if a player continually doesn't do what he was told in practice, is it the coaches fault if he doesn't replace him or work to remedy the situation?

 

[Fathergriz]

Always feel like they take too long to get the play calls in secondary always looks like they aren’t sure what they’re supposed to be doing

 

[stilwtrgrizz]

OMG, hard to believe anyone is either that naïve or so invested in the coaching staff. Execution is the main product of coaching. Most coaching staffs can stop a QB draw when it keeps coming, especially against a one dimensional QB that you can overload. When he reads pressure he draws. Real complicated.

This thread is titled Coaching vs Execution. I made my case for execution. Unlike you I know what the game plan was and when guys freelance and shoot gaps or get over aggressive or not play their responsibilities lanes will be created. As the game went on players not coaches got away from these things.

You don't know what I knew or didn't know about the game plan. But your insistence that disciplined execution is independent of coaching is preposterous. Execution is not independent of Coaching. It is a primary product of coaching.

So if all week in practice you tell the LB or safety he has pitch man and he doesn't do it in the game that's the coaches fault? Okay
If all week in practice you tell the Dlineman not to shoot gaps and play man up and you get in the game and they shoot gaps that's the coaches fault? Okay.
Push your agenda somewhere else.

Is this really a serious question for God's sake? You GOD DAMN RIGHT it's the coaches fault. If that is what happens, you chew their ass off, and then sit them down till it sinks in that THE COACH IS IN CHARGE !!!!!!! No different than when Stitt sat Caleb Hill down after he ignored the play that he called against NAU, and would not pay attention to him on the sideline.

 

[PSLGriz]

This thread is titled Coaching vs Execution. I made my case for execution. Unlike you I know what the game plan was and when guys freelance and shoot gaps or get over aggressive or not play their responsibilities lanes will be created. As the game went on players not coaches got away from these things.

You don't know what I knew or didn't know about the game plan. But your insistence that disciplined execution is independent of coaching is preposterous. Execution is not independent of Coaching. It is a primary product of coaching.

So if all week in practice you tell the LB or safety he has pitch man and he doesn't do it in the game that's the coaches fault? Okay
If all week in practice you tell the Dlineman not to shoot gaps and play man up and you get in the game and they shoot gaps that's the coaches fault? Okay.
Push your agenda somewhere else.

Is this really a serious question for God's sake? You GOD DAMN RIGHT it's the coaches fault. If that is what happens, you chew their ass off, and then sit them down till it sinks in that THE COACH IS IN CHARGE !!!!!!! No different than when Stitt sat Caleb Hill down after he ignored the play that he called against NAU, and would not pay attention to him on the sideline.

I don't want to get into a dissertation about football 101 so I'll keep it simple.
It's not like they missed assignments all game but when a team runs 56 times and you miss assignments 7 or 8 times that's enough to do you in.
It wasn't the same player every time. So if on 8 or 9 different plays 1 guy misses an assignment and 4 or 5 different guys each miss a different assignment on different plays, your saying they should pull 4 or 5 starters out of the game? Yeah that would work out well. Lol

 

[ordigger]

I notice people seem to avoid putting much responsibility for the secondary fiasco on the secondary coach. Why is that? Is he not at fault? Is it because he is a Griz legend? I personally am not sure what to think, but I do believe that the position coaches overall should also accept some accountability. This isn't all on Semore, or Stitt.

Probably sacrilegious of me for suggesting such a thing. What also do people think in general of the age and inexperience of many of our position coaches?

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I notice people seem to avoid putting much responsibility for the secondary fiasco on the secondary coach. Why is that? Is he not at fault? Is it because he is a Griz legend? I personally am not sure what to think, but I do believe that the position coaches overall should also accept some accountability. This isn't all on Semore, or Stitt.

Probably sacrilegious of me for suggesting such a thing. What also do people think in general of the age and inexperience of many of our position coaches?

Everybody is accountable, and the secondary wasn't the only group with issues.

 

[UMAlum]

It was coaching … as far as defensive play calls go. Beating a dead horse here … but sending the house in on those third and longs seemed inappropriate to me … though yes, im no expert. Murray has difficulty throwing anything beyond 15 yards. Why not play straight up in those situations … ensuring the qb draw is accounted for … and then let the chips fall wherever. If he executes he can have that short to 15 yard pass in that situation. Then its 4th down with a punt to follow.

Maybe its my imagination but we seemed to have lost the play way too many times on those 3rd and long situations this year … not just yesterday.

 

[stilwtrgrizz]

You don't know what I knew or didn't know about the game plan. But your insistence that disciplined execution is independent of coaching is preposterous. Execution is not independent of Coaching. It is a primary product of coaching.

So if all week in practice you tell the LB or safety he has pitch man and he doesn't do it in the game that's the coaches fault? Okay
If all week in practice you tell the Dlineman not to shoot gaps and play man up and you get in the game and they shoot gaps that's the coaches fault? Okay.
Push your agenda somewhere else.

Is this really a serious question for God's sake? You GOD DAMN RIGHT it's the coaches fault. If that is what happens, you chew their ass off, and then sit them down till it sinks in that THE COACH IS IN CHARGE !!!!!!! No different than when Stitt sat Caleb Hill down after he ignored the play that he called against NAU, and would not pay attention to him on the sideline.

I don't want to get into a dissertation about football 101 so I'll keep it simple.
It's not like they missed assignments all game but when a team runs 56 times and you miss assignments 7 or 8 times that's enough to do you in.
It wasn't the same player every time. So if on 8 or 9 different plays 1 guy misses an assignment and 4 or 5 different guys each miss a different assignment on different plays, your saying they should pull 4 or 5 starters out of the game? Yeah that would work out well. Lol

What I am saying is, that anyone who consistently doesn't do what the coach wants and tells him to do, should be pulled out until he decides to play the way he is being coached. Whether that is one or 5, YES, that is what I am saying. After all, isn't what we have coaches for, is to COACH? Obviously not doing that hasn't worked out extremely well !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ursus1]

So if all week in practice you tell the LB or safety he has pitch man and he doesn't do it in the game that's the coaches fault? Okay
If all week in practice you tell the Dlineman not to shoot gaps and play man up and you get in the game and they shoot gaps that's the coaches fault? Okay.
Push your agenda somewhere else.

Is this really a serious question for God's sake? You GOD DAMN RIGHT it's the coaches fault. If that is what happens, you chew their ass off, and then sit them down till it sinks in that THE COACH IS IN CHARGE !!!!!!! No different than when Stitt sat Caleb Hill down after he ignored the play that he called against NAU, and would not pay attention to him on the sideline.

I don't want to get into a dissertation about football 101 so I'll keep it simple.
It's not like they missed assignments all game but when a team runs 56 times and you miss assignments 7 or 8 times that's enough to do you in.
It wasn't the same player every time. So if on 8 or 9 different plays 1 guy misses an assignment and 4 or 5 different guys each miss a different assignment on different plays, your saying they should pull 4 or 5 starters out of the game? Yeah that would work out well. Lol

What I am saying is, that anyone who consistently doesn't do what the coach wants and tells him to do, should be pulled out until he decides to play the way he is being coached. Whether that is one or 5, YES, that is what I am saying. After all, isn't what we have coaches for, is to COACH? Obviously not doing that hasn't worked out extremely well !!!!!!!!!!!!!

And we have been hearing the same thing for two years...wasnt like this was first time they freelance. Apparently coach can't get the point across...that is on him, IT IS HIS JOB

 

[stilwtrgrizz]

So if all week in practice you tell the LB or safety he has pitch man and he doesn't do it in the game that's the coaches fault? Okay
If all week in practice you tell the Dlineman not to shoot gaps and play man up and you get in the game and they shoot gaps that's the coaches fault? Okay.
Push your agenda somewhere else.

Is this really a serious question for God's sake? You GOD DAMN RIGHT it's the coaches fault. If that is what happens, you chew their ass off, and then sit them down till it sinks in that THE COACH IS IN CHARGE !!!!!!! No different than when Stitt sat Caleb Hill down after he ignored the play that he called against NAU, and would not pay attention to him on the sideline.

I don't want to get into a dissertation about football 101 so I'll keep it simple.
It's not like they missed assignments all game but when a team runs 56 times and you miss assignments 7 or 8 times that's enough to do you in.
It wasn't the same player every time. So if on 8 or 9 different plays 1 guy misses an assignment and 4 or 5 different guys each miss a different assignment on different plays, your saying they should pull 4 or 5 starters out of the game? Yeah that would work out well. Lol

What I am saying is, that anyone who consistently doesn't do what the coach wants and tells him to do, should be pulled out until he decides to play the way he is being coached. Whether that is one or 5, YES, that is what I am saying. After all, isn't what we have coaches for, is to COACH? Obviously not doing that hasn't worked out extremely well !!!!!!!!!!!!!