Petersen Article by Ted Miller And Some Thoughts
Surprisingly good article by Ted. He brings up a good point about UW being the first time Petersen took over from scratch. I know everyone here likes to point out how incredibly successful Petersen was at Boise (which is true), but every Boise coach since Nutt has had success and parleyed that success into a bigger job. None had quite the success Petersen did, but the fact is that they were all successful. Harsin is adding to the list with a Fiesta Bowl win in year one. They have a long standing culture that began before Petersen got there. Petersen took over a program that had won four straight conference titles and took them to a new height. It's entirely different than taking over a mediocre Pac 12 program and trying to bring it back to excellence. It's why I believe it's stupid to completely discount 92-12, but it's also far from a guarantee of success.
A concerning quote from the article: “We needed to hammer in the details of the new concepts more," Smith said. "We probably should have done less, just learning from last year. We had too much volume to be really detailed at what we did.”
First off, just seeing Jonathon Smith's name pisses me off. If the article attached his mortician looking photo, I might have smashed my computer screen. This was painfully obvious (at least to me) last year. Cyler looked less comfortable against WSU and Oklahoma State than he did in his second start vs Illinois. He looked confused in every game and so did Lindquist and Williams when they had their chance. I would be naïve to say it didn't concern me. Why does the offense need to be so complicated? Some of the best offenses in college football are remarkably simple.
I'm cautiously intrigued by Carta Samuels and especially Browning. I really like Petersen, but something really stinks about this offense. Reading this article brought back some of the shitty feelings from last season. It has to get better.
Comments
-
-
I'm with Road. Why do the guys getting paid six figs need to review the years film to realize they are overwhelming the players with content when i could tell staring cross-eyed drunk at the screen after Stanford.
My biggest fear is we put too much of the onus on the generally fucktarded looking nature of Cyler and the little babushka is going to lather, rinse, repeat with whomever steps in.
It's on Pete no matter which way it goes. -
I'm concerned that it took them all year to realize that Cyler isn't that cerebral (Hi Hugh!) but I think this head coach and probably the staff as a result are most likely smart enough to have a no bullshit self assessment/performance review process after the season and take steps to improve rather than just having a couple rounds of shots of patron and a high five.
-
If this fanbase is about bashing patron I'm out.section8 said:I'm concerned that it took them all year to realize that Cyler isn't that cerebral (Hi Hugh!) but I think this head coach and probably the staff as a result are most likely smart enough to have a no bullshit self assessment/performance review process after the season and take steps to improve rather than just having a couple rounds of shots of patron and a high five.
-
I will tell you why. It is sheep mentality. Everyone saw Oregon's offense and Rich Rod at West Virginia. Coaches, say "oh fuck we need to do that, we need the explosiveness."Doogles said:I'm with Road. Why do the guys getting paid six figs need to review the years film to realize they are overwhelming the players with content when i could tell staring cross-eyed drunk at the screen after Stanford.
My biggest fear is we put too much of the onus on the generally fucktarded looking nature of Cyler and the little babushka is going to lather, rinse, repeat with whomever steps in.
It's on Pete no matter which way it goes.
95% of people just follow the trends to fit in. It's part of the human condition.
Look at Pete Carroll and Schiedner. They go counter culture, they want to road grade you with a power back, and punish you with defense. The foundation of good football. They rely on their evaluations and emphasizing the right culture. Look at the success, the rest of NFL still feel like they need to throw for 4500 yards and get by with a shitty defense. They never waver from "always compete." They will ship your ass out if you don't compete.
J smith ran a shitty offense that look confusing for everyone. It's operating out of fear. So much money and pressure to win guys look to cut corners.
It was brutally frustrating to watch such an awful offense. No identity, utter confusion for most of the time.
That by J Smith's quote made it clear he was not ready for the job. That was a mistake by Peterson, let's hope he has corrected it because it was a total dumpster fire with 30ft flames.
-
I don't think it is wrong to be a really detailed team. It sounds like they may have just put too much on players that couldn't learn the details. I would love for our team to be highly detailed, when was the last time we had a quarterback that could get out of the huddle and figure out what the defense was planning to do just by their alignments. I don't want our coaches to dumb down everything too much, to me last year was probably more of a case of having players that just couldn't figure anything out.
I agree with lil jimmy, I want this team to be like Stanford and run the ball a ton and beat the team into submission, I think we can get there at some point and details will matter a ton if we do want to get to that level of play. Good teams pay attention and refine the smallest details, it's what separates them from teams that don't.
I probably didn't make much sense here, long day in the salt mines and I haven't had a coke yet. -
Me too, that crosses the lineDawgenhire#3 said:
If this fanbase is about bashing patron I'm out.section8 said:I'm concerned that it took them all year to realize that Cyler isn't that cerebral (Hi Hugh!) but I think this head coach and probably the staff as a result are most likely smart enough to have a no bullshit self assessment/performance review process after the season and take steps to improve rather than just having a couple rounds of shots of patron and a high five.
-
Is Peterson the type of coach to run that Stanford 'here it is, punch you in the face' offense?CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:I don't think it is wrong to be a really detailed team. It sounds like they may have just put too much on players that couldn't learn the details. I would love for our team to be highly detailed, when was the last time we had a quarterback that could get out of the huddle and figure out what the defense was planning to do just by their alignments. I don't want our coaches to dumb down everything too much, to me last year was probably more of a case of having players that just couldn't figure anything out.
I agree with lil jimmy, I want this team to be like Stanford and run the ball a ton and beat the team into submission, I think we can get there at some point and details will matter a ton if we do want to get to that level of play. Good teams pay attention and refine the smallest details, it's what separates them from teams that don't.
I probably didn't make much sense here, long day in the salt mines and I haven't had a coke yet.
He has never been in the past. His best offenses at Boise, from what I recall, were complex multiple formations (spread, pro, power) with intricate motions and shifts pre-snap that outschemed and out executed better athletes and annihilated lesser ones. Thats what I figured 'detailed' meant and that's what I figured he was going to build towards at UW.
His offenses at BSU were actually closer to Oregon State under Riley (in terms of scheme and multiple formation looks) than anything Stanford has done reccently. -
"We don't have an offense, we run plays."BallSacked said:
Is Peterson the type of coach to run that Stanford 'here it is, punch you in the face' offense?CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:I don't think it is wrong to be a really detailed team. It sounds like they may have just put too much on players that couldn't learn the details. I would love for our team to be highly detailed, when was the last time we had a quarterback that could get out of the huddle and figure out what the defense was planning to do just by their alignments. I don't want our coaches to dumb down everything too much, to me last year was probably more of a case of having players that just couldn't figure anything out.
I agree with lil jimmy, I want this team to be like Stanford and run the ball a ton and beat the team into submission, I think we can get there at some point and details will matter a ton if we do want to get to that level of play. Good teams pay attention and refine the smallest details, it's what separates them from teams that don't.
I probably didn't make much sense here, long day in the salt mines and I haven't had a coke yet.
He has never been in the past. His best offenses at Boise, from what I recall, were complex multiple formations (spread, pro, power) with intricate motions and shifts pre-snap that outschemed and out executed better athletes and annihilated lesser ones. Thats what I figured 'detailed' meant and that's what I figured he was going to build towards at UW.
His offenses at BSU were actually closer to Oregon State under Riley (in terms of scheme and multiple formation looks) than anything Stanford has done reccently. -
UW ran the ball 60% of the time last year, in the past Petersen (going back to 2008) has never thrown the ball more than he has run the ball. You are right that he would run multiple formations and motions, but the plays he was running were all pretty standard plays. The whole point of his movement was just to get the defense to show their hand to his QB and team. Plus it put them in number advantages (actually much like Oregon does) so they can attack the weakest part of the defense. UW ran a lot of motions last year out of the spread, I personally think the biggest problem was just a general stupidity and they probably put way too much on the players plates. I hope they keep expecting more from their players (especially as they get their own guys in there).BallSacked said:
Is Peterson the type of coach to run that Stanford 'here it is, punch you in the face' offense?CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:I don't think it is wrong to be a really detailed team. It sounds like they may have just put too much on players that couldn't learn the details. I would love for our team to be highly detailed, when was the last time we had a quarterback that could get out of the huddle and figure out what the defense was planning to do just by their alignments. I don't want our coaches to dumb down everything too much, to me last year was probably more of a case of having players that just couldn't figure anything out.
I agree with lil jimmy, I want this team to be like Stanford and run the ball a ton and beat the team into submission, I think we can get there at some point and details will matter a ton if we do want to get to that level of play. Good teams pay attention and refine the smallest details, it's what separates them from teams that don't.
I probably didn't make much sense here, long day in the salt mines and I haven't had a coke yet.
He has never been in the past. His best offenses at Boise, from what I recall, were complex multiple formations (spread, pro, power) with intricate motions and shifts pre-snap that outschemed and out executed better athletes and annihilated lesser ones. Thats what I figured 'detailed' meant and that's what I figured he was going to build towards at UW.
His offenses at BSU were actually closer to Oregon State under Riley (in terms of scheme and multiple formation looks) than anything Stanford has done reccently.
Stanford just runs straight at you all the time and will run the same play over and over at times (which often costs Shaw in big games).
All that being said, I wouldn't mind if Smith sold his couch.
