Petersen Article by Ted Miller And Some Thoughts
Comments
-
CokeGreaterThanPepsi said: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.
All that being said, I wouldn't mind if Smith sold his couch.
On craigslist, or consignment? -
How depressing is it having to refer to Stanford and how people want to see uw model themselves after the tree.
It's sad to see how far uw has fallen -
I'm not saying this in support of Smith (the jury is still out on him BIG TIME) ... but you could have had the simplest offense in place last year for Cyler Miles and the results would have sucked.
I'm with Pepsi, I have absolutely no problem with having expectations of players to execute. Add that to the list of things that have changed in this culture change. Shouldn't be much of a talking point going into 2015.
And for anybody that thinks that Petersen's identity is that of a pass happy offensive coach, I'm sure he'd LOVE for you to keep believing that (from his time at Boise):
2006: 551 rushes, 306 passes
2007: 518 rushes, 460 passes
2008: 449 rushes, 438 passes
2009: 508 rushes, 458 passes
2010: 485 rushes, 424 passes
2011: 492 rushes, 477 passes
2012: 478 rushes, 394 passes
2013: 563 rushes, 466 passes
If anything, what the above shows you is that IF he's got a QB that he can trust a lot (see the Kellen Moore years), he'll trend closer to 50/50 because he knows that the QB will execute and make enough good decisions to hit short passes, etc. that can be the equivalent of running plays. But in the years where he doesn't trust his QBs as much, the ratio goes far higher in the direction of running plays. It actually goes a long way into Petersen's mindset because if there's one thing offensively that after one year at Washington can be said with a high degree of certainty it is that Petersen HATES turnovers on offense. -
His offense started to suck his last two years at Boise, He went to the spread bullshit and it failed.
-
It's not about being a dumb simpleton squad. It's about being able to assess your personnel, connecting, and adapting. A coach worth his salt should recognize things aren't clicking and slow it down.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.
Jesus, in junior high PE I didn't tell chubby Jenny to run a sluggo route. I looked into her disinterested swollen eyes and told her to just stand next to the right of the center and look up. -
A lot of the spread is tied to identifying weaknesses in the defense and attacking those weaknesses.jecornel said:His offense started to suck his last two years at Boise, He went to the spread bullshit and it failed.
While it would be hard to find many people that hate the spread more than I do, the fact that it is an ever increasing element of high school football (particularly in some of the stronger recruiting areas) combined with players being developed in a way that is tailored somewhat to running the spread and the NFL increasing more and more 3 WR sets as part of their standard offensive packages should result in elements of the spread more likely to be here to stay instead of just the flavor of the month. -
ArousingDoogles said:
It's not about being a dumb simpleton squad. It's about being able to assess your personnel, connecting, and adapting. A coach worth his salt should recognize things aren't clicking and slow it down.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.
Jesus, in junior high PE I didn't tell chubby Jenny to run a sluggo route. I looked into her disinterested swollen eyes and told her to just stand next to the right of the center and look up. -
On firepawz said:CokeGreaterThanPepsi said: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.
All that being said, I wouldn't mind if Smith sold his couch.
On craigslist, or consignment? -
That was an interesting quote. I don't necessarily see it as a positive, especially after last year. The offense has changed so much since he had Kellen Moore to now.GrundleStiltzkin said:
"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.
IMO, Petersen has added too much to the offense. He took his old offense from four years ago and tried to blend it with the new flavor of the month (no huddle/spread). Now he has a befuddled mess that is the slowest no huddle offense I've ever watched.
I remember reading an article about Tedford and how in his first few years at Cal, he had a relatively thin playbook. The offense had simple concepts and was easy to learn. By the end of the his time at Cal, his playbook was thicker than anyone's because he had added everything he liked that he saw other teams doing into the playbook. Of course, Tedford went from Kyle Boller and Aaron Rodgers to Alan Bridgeford and Zach Maynard so he also had QB issues like Petersen does now. -
http://smartfootball.com/gameplanning/breaking-down-boise-how-the-broncos-use-leverage-numbers-and-grass-to-gash-the-oppositionRoadDawg55 said:
That was an interesting quote. I don't necessarily see it as a positive, especially after last year. The offense has changed so much since he had Kellen Moore to now.GrundleStiltzkin said:
"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.
