Coach Stitt Podcast - Skyline Sports

[PlayerRep]

It is evident Coach Stitt works very hard. He stated that he spent over 100 hours on the phone with kids last year and that he has done 40 different 45 minute to 1 hour interviews this year. He said he was doing one on that day even though he and his family are on vacation. I love that work ethic. Colter even pointed out it was a pretty new-age process the amount of time and interviews Stitt and coaches are doing to create a brotherhood and team chemistry. Wow some tell tale talk about the challenges he and Gregorak faced and the separation of offense vs defense. Seems to confirm a lot of what folks speculated.

I'm excited to see how all this plays out!

Never happened.....PR told me so......

Listen to the podcast, Box. Stitt said no such thing in the podcast. So, you are right, it never happened--in the podcast. If you think I missed it, quote the words for us.

 

[PlayerRep]

Stitt was as blatant as blatant could be about the issue in this interview. He said:

- there was a separation of offense and defense
- I need a D coordinator who is on board with what we are doing on offense and if we go for it on 4th down and don't make it he needs to be okay with that instead of complaining
- we have worked hard to make this a Griz unit with no more divide between offense and defense

He made lots of references to what Semore is now doing and how great he is. He used a lot of what we are doing now compared to what we were doing then and how it's all improvement. I mean if this stuff doesn't slap you right in the face as blatant truths (directly from the head coach's mouth) then you're just being dishonest with yourself.

Hooked, your summary is not accurate. Don't think Stitt said there was a separation of the offense and defense, but he did say they need to be more on the same page and progress was made this spring. However, I won't pick at that one. Close enough.

Stitt said nothing about needing a DC needing to be on board with going for it on fourth down. He said the defense needs to be on board and not complain. No mention of DC, from what I heard.

Your 3d bullet is fairly accurate.

I don't know what you wanted to make this stuff about Stitt and TG. I sure didn't heard that. I was fine with what Stitt said.

 

[PlayerRep]

"I didn't recruit Reece in to take Brady's spot. Brady is the guy and he's gotten even better."

Also pointed out that John Nguyen is by far the best RB we've got.

Two statements that make the collective heads of egriz explode, lol

I think Stitt said Nguyen was "unbelievably" good in pass protection. It was a term like that.

 

[mtgrizrule]

I sure hope our offense picks apart defenses better than egrizzers pick apart this interview with Stitt.

 

[UMGriz75]

I sure hope our offense picks apart defenses better than egrizzers pick apart this interview with Stitt.

It does give the term "blatant" a whole different meaning ...

 

[brewskis]

Stitt was as blatant as blatant could be about the issue in this interview. He said:

- there was a separation of offense and defense
- I need a D coordinator who is on board with what we are doing on offense and if we go for it on 4th down and don't make it he needs to be okay with that instead of complaining
- we have worked hard to make this a Griz unit with no more divide between offense and defense

He made lots of references to what Semore is now doing and how great he is. He used a lot of what we are doing now compared to what we were doing then and how it's all improvement. I mean if this stuff doesn't slap you right in the face as blatant truths (directly from the head coach's mouth) then you're just being dishonest with yourself.

Hooked, your summary is not accurate. Don't think Stitt said there was a separation of the offense and defense, but he did say they need to be more on the same page and progress was made this spring. However, I won't pick at that one. Close enough.

Stitt said nothing about needing a DC needing to be on board with going for it on fourth down. He said the defense needs to be on board and not complain. No mention of DC, from what I heard.

Your 3d bullet is fairly accurate.

I don't know what you wanted to make this stuff about Stitt and TG. I sure didn't heard that. I was fine with what Stitt said.

Thank you for identifying that it was the DEFENSE that Stitt identified, and not one individual. All this mess is being caused by selective hearing on that particular topic.

 

[HookedonGriz]

Stitt was as blatant as blatant could be about the issue in this interview. He said:

- there was a separation of offense and defense
- I need a D coordinator who is on board with what we are doing on offense and if we go for it on 4th down and don't make it he needs to be okay with that instead of complaining
- we have worked hard to make this a Griz unit with no more divide between offense and defense

He made lots of references to what Semore is now doing and how great he is. He used a lot of what we are doing now compared to what we were doing then and how it's all improvement. I mean if this stuff doesn't slap you right in the face as blatant truths (directly from the head coach's mouth) then you're just being dishonest with yourself.

Hooked, your summary is not accurate. Don't think Stitt said there was a separation of the offense and defense, but he did say they need to be more on the same page and progress was made this spring. However, I won't pick at that one. Close enough.

Stitt said nothing about needing a DC needing to be on board with going for it on fourth down. He said the defense needs to be on board and not complain. No mention of DC, from what I heard.

Your 3d bullet is fairly accurate.

I don't know what you wanted to make this stuff about Stitt and TG. I sure didn't heard that. I was fine with what Stitt said.

Sorry, man, I disagree. I know the lawyer in you needs Stitt to name Ty as the problem for the "evidence" to be there for you, and that is fine. But if you take away the lawyer point of view and approach it with no bias and raw emotional intelligence, it is very clear they butted heads. How else do you explain his references to what "they were" last season compared to what "they are" now. How else do you explain his points on needing a guy who is on board with what he wants to accomplish offensively and not complain. Do you feel he is referring to someone else?

 

[Sam A. Blitz]

Its not unordinary for coaches to butt heads or to even fight. Happens a lot, even with coaches that respect each other and have good working relationships. Pure speculation to assume on the relationship between Stitt and TG, but seemed to me to be just a difference in philosophy. Bob Stitt needs to be the chief and even if there are other coaches that challenge him and fight him on stuff, he needs to be the guy that the players look at as the chief. I don't see anything he said as an indication that he didn't respect TG or think of him as a bad coach. He's the boss and you need to have employees who buy into what you are trying to accomplish and the strategy of how you want to accomplish those goals. If there isn't that, then that person and the team are both better off with that person taking their talents elsewhere, regardless of how talented they are.

 

[PlayerRep]

Stitt was as blatant as blatant could be about the issue in this interview. He said:

- there was a separation of offense and defense
- I need a D coordinator who is on board with what we are doing on offense and if we go for it on 4th down and don't make it he needs to be okay with that instead of complaining
- we have worked hard to make this a Griz unit with no more divide between offense and defense

He made lots of references to what Semore is now doing and how great he is. He used a lot of what we are doing now compared to what we were doing then and how it's all improvement. I mean if this stuff doesn't slap you right in the face as blatant truths (directly from the head coach's mouth) then you're just being dishonest with yourself.

Hooked, your summary is not accurate. Don't think Stitt said there was a separation of the offense and defense, but he did say they need to be more on the same page and progress was made this spring. However, I won't pick at that one. Close enough.

Stitt said nothing about needing a DC needing to be on board with going for it on fourth down. He said the defense needs to be on board and not complain. No mention of DC, from what I heard.

Your 3d bullet is fairly accurate.

I don't know what you wanted to make this stuff about Stitt and TG. I sure didn't heard that. I was fine with what Stitt said.

Sorry, man, I disagree. I know the lawyer in you needs Stitt to name Ty as the problem for the "evidence" to be there for you, and that is fine. But if you take away the lawyer point of view and approach it with no bias and raw emotional intelligence, it is very clear they butted heads. How else do you explain his references to what "they were" last season compared to what "they are" now. How else do you explain his points on needing a guy who is on board with what he wants to accomplish offensively and not complain. Do you feel he is referring to someone else?

Stitt didn't say he needed a "guy" who is on board with what he wants to do offensively and not complain. Feel free to listen and provide a quote supporting your view. I sure didn't hear what you said.

While Stitt and TG may have not been on the same page as the season went on, I don't know if they butted heads or not. There are multiple explanations for what they were last season and what they are now. I didn't take any of those comments to be references to TG.

In my opinion, you mischaracterized, misinterpreted, and misstated what Stitt said in the interview.

You are the one who is biased. Not me.

 

[HookedonGriz]

Stitt was as blatant as blatant could be about the issue in this interview. He said:

- there was a separation of offense and defense
- I need a D coordinator who is on board with what we are doing on offense and if we go for it on 4th down and don't make it he needs to be okay with that instead of complaining
- we have worked hard to make this a Griz unit with no more divide between offense and defense

He made lots of references to what Semore is now doing and how great he is. He used a lot of what we are doing now compared to what we were doing then and how it's all improvement. I mean if this stuff doesn't slap you right in the face as blatant truths (directly from the head coach's mouth) then you're just being dishonest with yourself.

Hooked, your summary is not accurate. Don't think Stitt said there was a separation of the offense and defense, but he did say they need to be more on the same page and progress was made this spring. However, I won't pick at that one. Close enough.

Stitt said nothing about needing a DC needing to be on board with going for it on fourth down. He said the defense needs to be on board and not complain. No mention of DC, from what I heard.

Your 3d bullet is fairly accurate.

I don't know what you wanted to make this stuff about Stitt and TG. I sure didn't heard that. I was fine with what Stitt said.

Sorry, man, I disagree. I know the lawyer in you needs Stitt to name Ty as the problem for the "evidence" to be there for you, and that is fine. But if you take away the lawyer point of view and approach it with no bias and raw emotional intelligence, it is very clear they butted heads. How else do you explain his references to what "they were" last season compared to what "they are" now. How else do you explain his points on needing a guy who is on board with what he wants to accomplish offensively and not complain. Do you feel he is referring to someone else?

Stitt didn't say he needed a "guy" who is on board with what he wants to do offensively and not complain. Feel free to listen and provide a quote supporting your view. I sure didn't hear what you said.

While Stitt and TG may have not been on the same page as the season went on, I don't know if they butted heads or not. There are multiple explanations for what they were last season and what they are now. I didn't take any of those comments to be references to TG.

In my opinion, you mischaracterized, misinterpreted, and misstated what Stitt said in the interview.

You are the one who is biased. Not me.

I thought you were going to take the lawyer out of the equation, Jack .

Here are his direct quotes followed by some of my thoughts. We can agree to disagree:


"We are a much more disciplined team, especially on the defensive side" (well the only change on the defensive side was promoting Semore to DC, so I interpreted this to mean that it is due to Semore and his changes in culture, schemes, teaching, and philosophy. I don't think that's a stretch by any means)

"Semore is awesome. The defense did a great job in spring" (just some high praise for his new DC)

When asked by Colter about the new identity of the defense, Stitt's reply was, "It will be more of a team concept. Last year we prided ourselves on on how many sacks we could come up with and suffered in the run game because of it. Too many guys get wrapped up in the statistics." (I took this as meaning a team concept was lacking last year and that guys just wanted big stats and did what they could to pad their stats. I also think that is managed by the leader of the defense, the DC.)

"Coach Semore is so in tune to the team and what I want to do with the spread offense. He's got to be aware of what's going on our side of the ball. We have to have the defense buy into the fact we are going to go for it on fourth down and we might not get it but we need the defense to help us and buy into it rather than complain about it. We need the team to become Griz rather than offense vs defense."(I don't think it's a stretch here at all to interpret this as Stitt saying what needs to change from last year. His stating this means these were the types of things that happened last year. This type of stuff is again managed by the leader of the defense, the DC. When he started this quote he was talking directly about his new DC, Semore, so in my opinion he was comparing him and his philosophies to our old DC.)

Connor Straham is a guy that probably should have played more last year. (In my opinion, another jab at the former leader, the DC, on not getting some young guys who deserved to be out there more PT)

Again, we can agree to disagree if you don't see this the way I do. Like I said, I think the lawyer in you wants him to spell it out and say "Ty" when it came to these differences. But to me it is very clear and he doesn't have to spell out "Ty" for me to see it. Maybe we're just different that way and that is fine.

 

[mtgrizrule]

For some, Stitt has to come out and directly say certain things and names (which very few coaches do). For others, we all have our own interpretations. In my opinion and a few things I was told, yes there was some dissension between Stitt and Gregorak. To some, it was a big deal. To some, it was minor. To others, it was irrelevant, or did not exist.

Fact is, Stitt is the head coach. It is the responsibility of each staff member and player to respect what and how he wants things done. For those that won't or cannot, they are free to find a more comfortable situation for themselves. That is exactly what Ty and few of the players have done.

 

[PlayerRep]

I thought you were going to take the lawyer out of the equation, Jack .

Here are his direct quotes followed by some of my thoughts. We can agree to disagree:


"We are a much more disciplined team, especially on the defensive side" (well the only change on the defensive side was promoting Semore to DC, so I interpreted this to mean that it is due to Semore and his changes in culture, schemes, teaching, and philosophy. I don't think that's a stretch by any means)

"Semore is awesome. The defense did a great job in spring" (just some high praise for his new DC)

When asked by Colter about the new identity of the defense, Stitt's reply was, "It will be more of a team concept. Last year we prided ourselves on on how many sacks we could come up with and suffered in the run game because of it. Too many guys get wrapped up in the statistics." (I took this as meaning a team concept was lacking last year and that guys just wanted big stats and did what they could to pad their stats. I also think that is managed by the leader of the defense, the DC.)

"Coach Semore is so in tune to the team and what I want to do with the spread offense. He's got to be aware of what's going on our side of the ball. We have to have the defense buy into the fact we are going to go for it on fourth down and we might not get it but we need the defense to help us and buy into it rather than complain about it. We need the team to become Griz rather than offense vs defense."(I don't think it's a stretch here at all to interpret this as Stitt saying what needs to change from last year. His stating this means these were the types of things that happened last year. This type of stuff is again managed by the leader of the defense, the DC. When he started this quote he was talking directly about his new DC, Semore, so in my opinion he was comparing him and his philosophies to our old DC.)

Connor Straham is a guy that probably should have played more last year. (In my opinion, another jab at the former leader, the DC, on not getting some young guys who deserved to be out there more PT)

Again, we can agree to disagree if you don't see this the way I do. Like I said, I think the lawyer in you wants him to spell it out and say "Ty" when it came to these differences. But to me it is very clear and he doesn't have to spell out "Ty" for me to see it. Maybe we're just different that way and that is fine.

I am just listening to the tape, thinking about what was said, and reading )and not trying to read things into it that were not sad, or even insinuated). Not being a lawyer at all.

1. The below statement doesn't say, indicate or prove anything that you said. Many things have changed since last season, in addition to a new DC. Spring ball has occurred, multiple new personnel, 2 new defensive coaches and shifts in coaching positions. Most of the starters were not starters last year. Discipline doesn't just magically occur because of new DC, especially when the DC and several of the position coaches were also here last season.

""We are a much more disciplined team, especially on the defensive side"

2. Yes, we know Stitt like Semore. That's why he brought him with him and promoted him to DC.

3. The below quote doesn't support your view at all. It doesn't mentioned TG, nor even allude to him. It certainly doesn't say that we need a DC who helps and buys into the offense. In fact, it refers to the "team" and the "defense", not the DC.

"We have to have the defense buy into the fact we are going to go for it on fourth down and we might not get it but we need the defense to help us and buy into it rather than complain about it. We need the team to become Griz rather than offense vs defense."

4. I heard the Strahm comment, but who would you have played in in front of? The starters all made all-conference teams, and Lebsock was also a very good player.

5. It wasn't clear that he was talking about TG at all. In fact, it was fairly clear that he wasn't talking about TG most of the time. You need to work on your listening and reading comprehension. You completely misrepresented to the board, initially, what Stitt said.

 

[getgrizzy]

I thought you were going to take the lawyer out of the equation, Jack .

Here are his direct quotes followed by some of my thoughts. We can agree to disagree:


"We are a much more disciplined team, especially on the defensive side" (well the only change on the defensive side was promoting Semore to DC, so I interpreted this to mean that it is due to Semore and his changes in culture, schemes, teaching, and philosophy. I don't think that's a stretch by any means)

"Semore is awesome. The defense did a great job in spring" (just some high praise for his new DC)

When asked by Colter about the new identity of the defense, Stitt's reply was, "It will be more of a team concept. Last year we prided ourselves on on how many sacks we could come up with and suffered in the run game because of it. Too many guys get wrapped up in the statistics." (I took this as meaning a team concept was lacking last year and that guys just wanted big stats and did what they could to pad their stats. I also think that is managed by the leader of the defense, the DC.)

"Coach Semore is so in tune to the team and what I want to do with the spread offense. He's got to be aware of what's going on our side of the ball. We have to have the defense buy into the fact we are going to go for it on fourth down and we might not get it but we need the defense to help us and buy into it rather than complain about it. We need the team to become Griz rather than offense vs defense."(I don't think it's a stretch here at all to interpret this as Stitt saying what needs to change from last year. His stating this means these were the types of things that happened last year. This type of stuff is again managed by the leader of the defense, the DC. When he started this quote he was talking directly about his new DC, Semore, so in my opinion he was comparing him and his philosophies to our old DC.)

Connor Straham is a guy that probably should have played more last year. (In my opinion, another jab at the former leader, the DC, on not getting some young guys who deserved to be out there more PT)

Again, we can agree to disagree if you don't see this the way I do. Like I said, I think the lawyer in you wants him to spell it out and say "Ty" when it came to these differences. But to me it is very clear and he doesn't have to spell out "Ty" for me to see it. Maybe we're just different that way and that is fine.

You keep talking about your interpretation of what Stitt said, but you're interpreting his interpretation (actually spin) of things. The team hasn't played a game, yet he's calling it more disciplined based on spring scrimmages where guys are fighting for starting spots and trying to impress coaches by following everything they say to the letter. He also needs to justify and support his statement that he ran TG off. So we're more disciplined now, see it's working already. B.S.

Stitt seems to have felt obligated being in front of a sCat reporter to hammer home his points about Gregorak. He didn't want the sCats to think they pulled something off, so he has to paint TG in a bad light. Considering that, his words about players wrapped up in stats and not being team first players begin to wilt. I'd be interested to hear if very many of the players under TG felt like he wasn't team first.

He's been trying to blame the defense for how last season went for the better part of 7 months now. If we had an offense to match the defense, we'd probably been conference champions last year and had a first round bye and a second round home win last year. But our offense (the great Stitt offense) was in the bottom third of the conference and didn't carry its weight.

This is an age old tactic used by everyone in every line of work. If something fails in accounting, blame it on the guy who just retired from the mail room.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

I thought you were going to take the lawyer out of the equation, Jack .

Here are his direct quotes followed by some of my thoughts. We can agree to disagree:


"We are a much more disciplined team, especially on the defensive side" (well the only change on the defensive side was promoting Semore to DC, so I interpreted this to mean that it is due to Semore and his changes in culture, schemes, teaching, and philosophy. I don't think that's a stretch by any means)

"Semore is awesome. The defense did a great job in spring" (just some high praise for his new DC)

When asked by Colter about the new identity of the defense, Stitt's reply was, "It will be more of a team concept. Last year we prided ourselves on on how many sacks we could come up with and suffered in the run game because of it. Too many guys get wrapped up in the statistics." (I took this as meaning a team concept was lacking last year and that guys just wanted big stats and did what they could to pad their stats. I also think that is managed by the leader of the defense, the DC.)

"Coach Semore is so in tune to the team and what I want to do with the spread offense. He's got to be aware of what's going on our side of the ball. We have to have the defense buy into the fact we are going to go for it on fourth down and we might not get it but we need the defense to help us and buy into it rather than complain about it. We need the team to become Griz rather than offense vs defense."(I don't think it's a stretch here at all to interpret this as Stitt saying what needs to change from last year. His stating this means these were the types of things that happened last year. This type of stuff is again managed by the leader of the defense, the DC. When he started this quote he was talking directly about his new DC, Semore, so in my opinion he was comparing him and his philosophies to our old DC.)

Connor Straham is a guy that probably should have played more last year. (In my opinion, another jab at the former leader, the DC, on not getting some young guys who deserved to be out there more PT)

Again, we can agree to disagree if you don't see this the way I do. Like I said, I think the lawyer in you wants him to spell it out and say "Ty" when it came to these differences. But to me it is very clear and he doesn't have to spell out "Ty" for me to see it. Maybe we're just different that way and that is fine.

You keep talking about your interpretation of what Stitt said, but you're interpreting his interpretation (actually spin) of things. The team hasn't played a game, yet he's calling it more disciplined based on spring scrimmages where guys are fighting for starting spots and trying to impress coaches by following everything they say to the letter. He also needs to justify and support his statement that he ran TG off. So we're more disciplined now, see it's working already. B.S.

Stitt seems to have felt obligated being in front of a sCat reporter to hammer home his points about Gregorak. He didn't want the sCats to think they pulled something off, so he has to paint TG in a bad light. Considering that, his words about players wrapped up in stats and not being team first players begin to wilt. I'd be interested to hear if very many of the players under TG felt like he wasn't team first.

He's been trying to blame the defense for how last season went for the better part of 7 months now. If we had an offense to match the defense, we'd probably been conference champions last year and had a first round bye and a second round home win last year. But our offense (the great Stitt offense) was in the bottom third of the conference and didn't carry its weight.

This is an age old tactic used by everyone in every line of work. If something fails in accounting, blame it on the guy who just retired from the mail room.

Ask 10 people spread on four street corners who see an accident happen how it happened and you will get 10 different stories on most of the minor details. However, most will agree the blue car ran the red light and hit the red car. PR, GG and HG are arguing over the minute details when the big picture is clear. Stitt's biggest perceived problem for overall team performance is gone, and it was paying dividends in spring ball. If you don't see that problem as Ty and his "culture" you just don't want to or won't see it.

The real conclusion to reach here is it was a bad idea to hold Ty over the first year. He could have moved on to another team, not the Bobcats, and none of this scrutiny would be wasting space on this board.

 

[HookedonGriz]

I thought you were going to take the lawyer out of the equation, Jack .

Here are his direct quotes followed by some of my thoughts. We can agree to disagree:


"We are a much more disciplined team, especially on the defensive side" (well the only change on the defensive side was promoting Semore to DC, so I interpreted this to mean that it is due to Semore and his changes in culture, schemes, teaching, and philosophy. I don't think that's a stretch by any means)

"Semore is awesome. The defense did a great job in spring" (just some high praise for his new DC)

When asked by Colter about the new identity of the defense, Stitt's reply was, "It will be more of a team concept. Last year we prided ourselves on on how many sacks we could come up with and suffered in the run game because of it. Too many guys get wrapped up in the statistics." (I took this as meaning a team concept was lacking last year and that guys just wanted big stats and did what they could to pad their stats. I also think that is managed by the leader of the defense, the DC.)

"Coach Semore is so in tune to the team and what I want to do with the spread offense. He's got to be aware of what's going on our side of the ball. We have to have the defense buy into the fact we are going to go for it on fourth down and we might not get it but we need the defense to help us and buy into it rather than complain about it. We need the team to become Griz rather than offense vs defense."(I don't think it's a stretch here at all to interpret this as Stitt saying what needs to change from last year. His stating this means these were the types of things that happened last year. This type of stuff is again managed by the leader of the defense, the DC. When he started this quote he was talking directly about his new DC, Semore, so in my opinion he was comparing him and his philosophies to our old DC.)

Connor Straham is a guy that probably should have played more last year. (In my opinion, another jab at the former leader, the DC, on not getting some young guys who deserved to be out there more PT)

Again, we can agree to disagree if you don't see this the way I do. Like I said, I think the lawyer in you wants him to spell it out and say "Ty" when it came to these differences. But to me it is very clear and he doesn't have to spell out "Ty" for me to see it. Maybe we're just different that way and that is fine.

You keep talking about your interpretation of what Stitt said, but you're interpreting his interpretation (actually spin) of things. The team hasn't played a game, yet he's calling it more disciplined based on spring scrimmages where guys are fighting for starting spots and trying to impress coaches by following everything they say to the letter. He also needs to justify and support his statement that he ran TG off. So we're more disciplined now, see it's working already. B.S.

Stitt seems to have felt obligated being in front of a sCat reporter to hammer home his points about Gregorak. He didn't want the sCats to think they pulled something off, so he has to paint TG in a bad light. Considering that, his words about players wrapped up in stats and not being team first players begin to wilt. I'd be interested to hear if very many of the players under TG felt like he wasn't team first.

He's been trying to blame the defense for how last season went for the better part of 7 months now. If we had an offense to match the defense, we'd probably been conference champions last year and had a first round bye and a second round home win last year. But our offense (the great Stitt offense) was in the bottom third of the conference and didn't carry its weight.

This is an age old tactic used by everyone in every line of work. If something fails in accounting, blame it on the guy who just retired from the mail room.

Ask 10 people spread on four street corners who see an accident happen how it happened and you will get 10 different stories on most of the minor details. However, most will agree the blue car ran the red light and hit the red car. PR, GG and HG are arguing over the minute details when the big picture is clear. Stitt's biggest perceived problem for overall team performance is gone, and it was paying dividends in spring ball. If you don't see that problem as Ty and his "culture" you just don't want to or won't see it.

The real conclusion to reach here is it was a bad idea to hold Ty over the first year. He could have moved on to another team, not the Bobcats, and none of this scrutiny would be wasting space on this board.

Perfectly stated, thank you.

 

[mtgrizrule]

I thought you were going to take the lawyer out of the equation, Jack .

Here are his direct quotes followed by some of my thoughts. We can agree to disagree:


"We are a much more disciplined team, especially on the defensive side" (well the only change on the defensive side was promoting Semore to DC, so I interpreted this to mean that it is due to Semore and his changes in culture, schemes, teaching, and philosophy. I don't think that's a stretch by any means)

"Semore is awesome. The defense did a great job in spring" (just some high praise for his new DC)

When asked by Colter about the new identity of the defense, Stitt's reply was, "It will be more of a team concept. Last year we prided ourselves on on how many sacks we could come up with and suffered in the run game because of it. Too many guys get wrapped up in the statistics." (I took this as meaning a team concept was lacking last year and that guys just wanted big stats and did what they could to pad their stats. I also think that is managed by the leader of the defense, the DC.)

"Coach Semore is so in tune to the team and what I want to do with the spread offense. He's got to be aware of what's going on our side of the ball. We have to have the defense buy into the fact we are going to go for it on fourth down and we might not get it but we need the defense to help us and buy into it rather than complain about it. We need the team to become Griz rather than offense vs defense."(I don't think it's a stretch here at all to interpret this as Stitt saying what needs to change from last year. His stating this means these were the types of things that happened last year. This type of stuff is again managed by the leader of the defense, the DC. When he started this quote he was talking directly about his new DC, Semore, so in my opinion he was comparing him and his philosophies to our old DC.)

Connor Straham is a guy that probably should have played more last year. (In my opinion, another jab at the former leader, the DC, on not getting some young guys who deserved to be out there more PT)

Again, we can agree to disagree if you don't see this the way I do. Like I said, I think the lawyer in you wants him to spell it out and say "Ty" when it came to these differences. But to me it is very clear and he doesn't have to spell out "Ty" for me to see it. Maybe we're just different that way and that is fine.

You keep talking about your interpretation of what Stitt said, but you're interpreting his interpretation (actually spin) of things. The team hasn't played a game, yet he's calling it more disciplined based on spring scrimmages where guys are fighting for starting spots and trying to impress coaches by following everything they say to the letter. He also needs to justify and support his statement that he ran TG off. So we're more disciplined now, see it's working already. B.S.

Stitt seems to have felt obligated being in front of a sCat reporter to hammer home his points about Gregorak. He didn't want the sCats to think they pulled something off, so he has to paint TG in a bad light. Considering that, his words about players wrapped up in stats and not being team first players begin to wilt. I'd be interested to hear if very many of the players under TG felt like he wasn't team first.

He's been trying to blame the defense for how last season went for the better part of 7 months now. If we had an offense to match the defense, we'd probably been conference champions last year and had a first round bye and a second round home win last year. But our offense (the great Stitt offense) was in the bottom third of the conference and didn't carry its weight.

This is an age old tactic used by everyone in every line of work. If something fails in accounting, blame it on the guy who just retired from the mail room.

Ask 10 people spread on four street corners who see an accident happen how it happened and you will get 10 different stories on most of the minor details. However, most will agree the blue car ran the red light and hit the red car. PR, GG and HG are arguing over the minute details when the big picture is clear. Stitt's biggest perceived problem for overall team performance is gone, and it was paying dividends in spring ball. If you don't see that problem as Ty and his "culture" you just don't want to or won't see it.

The real conclusion to reach here is it was a bad idea to hold Ty over the first year. He could have moved on to another team, not the Bobcats, and none of this scrutiny would be wasting space on this board.

Perfectly stated, thank you.

Yes, well stated, regardless of how anyone interprets the Stitt/Gregorak issue. It is amazing how anyone can tell someone their interpretation of whatever is wrong, regardless of what the subject is. We all think differently, to come to the conclusions and outcomes that we do. In coaching, there is a lot of coach speak. For those of us who are not part of the team, etc. All we can do is form our own opinions of what we think of our teams, coaches, programs, etc.

Yes, it is possible for some people to be so biased toward a person or situation, that no matter what anyone says or does, that person will never change their mind. Nor should they have to. It is very possible for coaches, players, and others close to a program to tell things to someone confidentially that they would never dare say publicly. According to a few, there was some animosity and tension between Stitt and Gregorak. To me, that is understandable and perfectly fine. By the way, none of that was stated publicly by anyone associated with the team. I am sure those of us who have been told a few things by various players and/or coaches will protect that privacy and trust by the individuals who gave their opinion of it.

Based upon that principle, PR is right every time. Most of us will not put a player or coach under the bus by revealing who said what about whom. Honestly, as much as Gregorak bled GRIZ, why would he leave if there was not something to what some on here are claiming? Why would Stitt let a quality coach just move onto the instate rival, that easily? I feel, the parting was a mutual one. One that the public will never hear Stitt or Gregorak acknowledge publicly, as to the real reasons for Gregorak moving on. I honestly wish him the best. I think highly of both Stitt and Gregorak. Why can't we learn to agree to respectfully disagree with one another on this one? There is no right or wrong on anyone's interpretation.

 

[RobGriz]

I thought you were going to take the lawyer out of the equation, Jack .

Here are his direct quotes followed by some of my thoughts. We can agree to disagree:


"We are a much more disciplined team, especially on the defensive side" (well the only change on the defensive side was promoting Semore to DC, so I interpreted this to mean that it is due to Semore and his changes in culture, schemes, teaching, and philosophy. I don't think that's a stretch by any means)

"Semore is awesome. The defense did a great job in spring" (just some high praise for his new DC)

When asked by Colter about the new identity of the defense, Stitt's reply was, "It will be more of a team concept. Last year we prided ourselves on on how many sacks we could come up with and suffered in the run game because of it. Too many guys get wrapped up in the statistics." (I took this as meaning a team concept was lacking last year and that guys just wanted big stats and did what they could to pad their stats. I also think that is managed by the leader of the defense, the DC.)

"Coach Semore is so in tune to the team and what I want to do with the spread offense. He's got to be aware of what's going on our side of the ball. We have to have the defense buy into the fact we are going to go for it on fourth down and we might not get it but we need the defense to help us and buy into it rather than complain about it. We need the team to become Griz rather than offense vs defense."(I don't think it's a stretch here at all to interpret this as Stitt saying what needs to change from last year. His stating this means these were the types of things that happened last year. This type of stuff is again managed by the leader of the defense, the DC. When he started this quote he was talking directly about his new DC, Semore, so in my opinion he was comparing him and his philosophies to our old DC.)

Connor Straham is a guy that probably should have played more last year. (In my opinion, another jab at the former leader, the DC, on not getting some young guys who deserved to be out there more PT)

Again, we can agree to disagree if you don't see this the way I do. Like I said, I think the lawyer in you wants him to spell it out and say "Ty" when it came to these differences. But to me it is very clear and he doesn't have to spell out "Ty" for me to see it. Maybe we're just different that way and that is fine.

You keep talking about your interpretation of what Stitt said, but you're interpreting his interpretation (actually spin) of things. The team hasn't played a game, yet he's calling it more disciplined based on spring scrimmages where guys are fighting for starting spots and trying to impress coaches by following everything they say to the letter. He also needs to justify and support his statement that he ran TG off. So we're more disciplined now, see it's working already. B.S.

I disagree with your interpretation JK. In fact, however, discipline has to to with much more than what happens on the field, either in games or practice. Team discipline means showing up to meetings on time or going to non-mandatory workouts or staying in Missoula for the summer to work out with the team etc... Not disputing your point per se, just saying there's a lot he can base his view on.

 

[HookedonGriz]

You keep talking about your interpretation of what Stitt said, but you're interpreting his interpretation (actually spin) of things. The team hasn't played a game, yet he's calling it more disciplined based on spring scrimmages where guys are fighting for starting spots and trying to impress coaches by following everything they say to the letter. He also needs to justify and support his statement that he ran TG off. So we're more disciplined now, see it's working already. B.S.

Stitt seems to have felt obligated being in front of a sCat reporter to hammer home his points about Gregorak. He didn't want the sCats to think they pulled something off, so he has to paint TG in a bad light. Considering that, his words about players wrapped up in stats and not being team first players begin to wilt. I'd be interested to hear if very many of the players under TG felt like he wasn't team first.

He's been trying to blame the defense for how last season went for the better part of 7 months now. If we had an offense to match the defense, we'd probably been conference champions last year and had a first round bye and a second round home win last year. But our offense (the great Stitt offense) was in the bottom third of the conference and didn't carry its weight.

This is an age old tactic used by everyone in every line of work. If something fails in accounting, blame it on the guy who just retired from the mail room.

Ask 10 people spread on four street corners who see an accident happen how it happened and you will get 10 different stories on most of the minor details. However, most will agree the blue car ran the red light and hit the red car. PR, GG and HG are arguing over the minute details when the big picture is clear. Stitt's biggest perceived problem for overall team performance is gone, and it was paying dividends in spring ball. If you don't see that problem as Ty and his "culture" you just don't want to or won't see it.

The real conclusion to reach here is it was a bad idea to hold Ty over the first year. He could have moved on to another team, not the Bobcats, and none of this scrutiny would be wasting space on this board.

Perfectly stated, thank you.

Yes, well stated, regardless of how anyone interprets the Stitt/Gregorak issue. It is amazing how anyone can tell someone their interpretation of whatever is wrong, regardless of what the subject is. We all think differently, to come to the conclusions and outcomes that we do. In coaching, there is a lot of coach speak. For those of us who are not part of the team, etc. All we can do is form our own opinions of what we think of our teams, coaches, programs, etc.

Yes, it is possible for some people to be so biased toward a person or situation, that no matter what anyone says or does, that person will never change their mind. Nor should they have to. It is very possible for coaches, players, and others close to a program to tell things to someone confidentially that they would never dare say publicly. According to a few, there was some animosity and tension between Stitt and Gregorak. To me, that is understandable and perfectly fine. By the way, none of that was stated publicly by anyone associated with the team. I am sure those of us who have been told a few things by various players and/or coaches will protect that privacy and trust by the individuals who gave their opinion of it.

Based upon that principle, PR is right every time. Most of us will not put a player or coach under the bus by revealing who said what about whom. Honestly, as much as Gregorak bled GRIZ, why would he leave if there was not something to what some on here are claiming? Why would Stitt let a quality coach just move onto the instate rival, that easily? I feel, the parting was a mutual one. One that the public will never hear Stitt or Gregorak acknowledge publicly, as to the real reasons for Gregorak moving on. I honestly wish him the best. I think highly of both Stitt and Gregorak. Why can't we learn to agree to respectfully disagree with one another on this one? There is no right or wrong on anyone's interpretation.

Also spot on and well stated. Thank you.

 

[garizzalies]

Anyone who listened to the pod cast and came away thinking Stitt was not talking about Traitorak is a bobcat fan. Plain. And. Simple.

 

[PlayerRep]

Stitt was as blatant as blatant could be about the issue in this interview. He said:

- there was a separation of offense and defense
- I need a D coordinator who is on board with what we are doing on offense and if we go for it on 4th down and don't make it he needs to be okay with that instead of complaining
- we have worked hard to make this a Griz unit with no more divide between offense and defense

He made lots of references to what Semore is now doing and how great he is. He used a lot of what we are doing now compared to what we were doing then and how it's all improvement. I mean if this stuff doesn't slap you right in the face as blatant truths (directly from the head coach's mouth) then you're just being dishonest with yourself.

Hooked, your summary is not accurate. Don't think Stitt said there was a separation of the offense and defense, but he did say they need to be more on the same page and progress was made this spring. However, I won't pick at that one. Close enough.

Stitt said nothing about needing a DC needing to be on board with going for it on fourth down. He said the defense needs to be on board and not complain. No mention of DC, from what I heard.

Your 3d bullet is fairly accurate.

I don't know what you wanted to make this stuff about Stitt and TG. I sure didn't heard that. I was fine with what Stitt said.

Thank you for identifying that it was the DEFENSE that Stitt identified, and not one individual. All this mess is being caused by selective hearing on that particular topic.

Hooked is trying to say that Stitt saying this: "Coach Semore is so in tune to the team and what I want to do with the spread offense. He's got to be aware of what's going on our side of the ball. We have to have the DEFENSE buy into the fact we are going to go for it on fourth down and we might not get it but we need the DEFENSE to help us and buy into it rather than complain about it. We need the team to become Griz rather than offense vs defense."

MEANS this: "Wow some tell tale talk about the challenges he and Gregorak faced and the separation of offense vs defense. Seems to confirm a lot of what folks speculated."

Stitt's words don't mean, indicate or support what Hooked says at all. TG is even mentioned. Challenges between the two of them were not mentioned or even alluded to. Nothing bout what some people speculated was confirmed in any respect. I don't think TG or the prior DC was ever mentioned by Stitt in the entire interview.

Hooked just made up most of what he said. Now he is trying to say it's his opinion. If so, then his opinion is dead wrong.

As for GrizRule ("It is amazing how anyone can tell someone their interpretation of whatever is wrong"), people and posters disagree with opinions all day long. It is perfectly okay to disagree with opinions and to say that opinions that are wrong, are wrong. Just because someone says something is his opinion does make the opinion right, nor does it prevent anyone one else from disagreeing with it or pointing out that it's wrong. It's amazing to me that GrizRule would not understand that "opinions" are wrong all the time.

GrizRule, no one has ever said that there wasn't tension between Stitt and TG. So why are you creating that straw man argument. Much of the discussion in this thread on this general point, was whether Stitt said what Hooked at said at the beginning of the thread. Stitt didn't say what Hooked had said he did. Hooked essentially admitted that.

Again, to be clear, the discussion/debate is not about whether there was tension between Stitt and TG, at least towards the end of the season. The discussion/debate is about what Stitt said in the interview/podcast.

I may not be right on every issue, but I am right on this one. Jeez, even you essentially agreed in your initial post.