Petersen Article by Ted Miller And Some Thoughts
Comments
-
"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
