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.
-
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. -
"Our players are good enough if me and my coaches are good enough to teach them." - Chuck Knox
-
I think that there's a certain truth to this.RoadDawg55 said:
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.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.
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.
Sometimes if you get yourself too involved in the details you forget about what is in the bigger picture. Adding plays and having something for everything is great. But the best plans aren't the ones that are the best designed, they are the ones that are best executed.
That being said, if you have shit running the design, it doesn't matter what the design is as it is doomed from the start. It's why people are the most valuable asset in any line of business or sports. And yes, water is still wet. -
If I was modeling an offense after anyone in CFB today it would be Ohio State, who took Oregons offense and added more power type concepts to its design.jecornel said:His offense started to suck his last two years at Boise, He went to the spread bullshit and it failed.
If you can build a good to great OL that's the way to go...especially considering the pac12 top to bottom is usually pretty weak up in the with NTs/DTs year over year. -
Oh for fuck's sake... FMFYFE.
-
soooo... basically, Sark didn't have the players ready to absorb basic football knowledge from a 'real' winning coach?
-
Even for this board, you're reaching.sarktastic said:soooo... basically, Sark didn't have the players ready to absorb basic football knowledge from a 'real' winning coach?
-
Beaverbone or get the fuck out.BallSacked said:
If I was modeling an offense after anyone in CFB today it would be Ohio State, who took Oregons offense and added more power type concepts to its design.jecornel said:His offense started to suck his last two years at Boise, He went to the spread bullshit and it failed.
If you can build a good to great OL that's the way to go...especially considering the pac12 top to bottom is usually pretty weak up in the with NTs/DTs year over year.
-
Why can't he do both?pawz 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? -
You and pedobear should hang out.Doogles 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. -
Pettibone yesterday
Pettibone today
Pettibone FOREVER
