Coaching +'s and -'s

[Tulsa Tom]

+'s
1. Riley did a great job helping this team look composed. It wasn't a Chinese fire drill out there and generally good decisions were made.

2. Half-time adjustments. Part of this may have been that we BYU was playing with a QB with a broken foot and a nose guard who was out most of the 2nd half, but the reality is that we looked much better in half. Props to the coaches.

3. Langsdorf. I have heard good and bad about him but he has really helped Tommy a lot. He looks far more smooth and seems to know what to do with the ball. Also, Langsdorf (and I assume Riley) put together a solid offensive game plan.

4. Keith Williams. The wideouts looked far better than last year. Clean route running, good hands, came back for the ball, etc. Missing Pierson El this group could have been a weak part of the team. Saturday they were the strongest part of the team.

5. Surprise +. Trent Bray. I thought he was one of the most suspect coaches coming in. I thought the backers, albeit undermanned, performed all right. They weren't great by any stretch but probably Bray got as much as possible out of them.

-'s
1. Riley needs to have this team get a grip on penalties. Some good teams can just go all out all the time and not worry about penalties. Not this team. If we have the same number of penalties as BYU we win this game. Also, clock management was a problem. These were both issues at OSU.

2. Game prep. We obviously started out well offensively the first two series but were really pass happy most of the first half. We needed to keep BYU honest by running the ball and not abandoning the run. This finally got adjusted by halftime...but it was awfully late. Defense simply didn't look prepared.

3. Banker. As good as the plan Langsdorf had was as bad as the plan Banker had. We had our dbacks way too far off their receivers. We didn't adjust until well into the 2nd half. This also hurt our pass rush because if the qb can quickly flip the ball out, the pass rushers start to have little hope they can ever get to the qb.

4. Read. There just wasn't much good to see anywhere on special teams. From the line play, to letting balls get passed us, to field goal shanks, there was nothing good here.

5. Reggie Davis and Cav. The running game was just bad. We weren't getting any push...running backs didn't run with any authority...and a couple attempts at pass blocking were complete whiffs.

6. Last Play. If you are going to call timeouts do some coaching. Make sure your left end doesn't crash...get players in front of these tall receivers...have players ready to knock the ball down at the highest point possible. If a ball gets knocked around and they come up with it...so bit it. But letting a guy catch it in his breadbasket on the goal line is unacceptable.


All in all there were some glimmers of hope. It seems like a much more professional team that can handle difficulties better. The downers are that some of the same problems above were what we heard all spring and summer from OSU fans (penalties, game day decisions, Banker, etc.)

 

[HuskerTimOmaha]

Solid post but "nothing good from Read" is hyperbole. And no, I'm not a fan of his (or Banker) and been clear about that from day one.

 

[jflores]

Solid post.

Comments:

6. Is there any evidence that Riley and Banker didn't tell these guys that? Both have indicated that was the general plan for the last play, and the fact that Gangwish for whatever reason didn't do it, is evidence that nothing was ever said to him?

5. I don't know enough about Coach Davis to comment about his contributions. He worked for Harbaugh at the pro level, so he would seem to be legit. Cav is well regarded. Game 1, transition year, extremely inexperienced line in particular and fairly youthful group at RB. Cav may well be coaching his ass off, but it is well known that lines take time to groom. We just may not see the fruits immediately, but if we build, I think we'll get there.

3. Read/Banker. I was iffy on these hires too. Jury is still out. I was impressed with tackling like Spielman, and the improved in the designed run game stops. QB scrambles/breakdowns pretty much plague everyone in CFB.

2. This is another damned if you do moment. All the calls for Beck to just run the same play over and over again until the defense stopped it. Philosophically the passing game is not the fans or QB's cup of tea, but it was working pretty well and they seemed determined to run screens because they worked, and because it basically is like a long toss play where rush yards were hard to come by. We were 17 carries for like 39 yards in the first half, I think we had pretty much reached the threshold where we would say, ok Beck, move on. Had we committed to going 3 and out or just pounding the rock into a DL that was eating our lunch for the sake of historical identity, we probably wouldn't feel any better about being down by the 10 we were at half.

 

[cubsker]

even in the 2nd qtr, play calling seemed reasonably good to me. guys were wide open. tommy missed em. OL issues obv were a big reason for the misses. seemed pretty familiar.

 

[jflores]

even in the 2nd qtr, play calling seemed reasonably good to me. guys were wide open. tommy missed em. OL issues obv were a big reason for the misses. seemed pretty familiar.

We're going to live and die by the OL. If they solidify, its going to make our game look better, no matter we run or throw. Fighting about philosophical differences in the run/pass game and ratios, is almost a non-issue, until you can be pretty certain that the OL will give you a certain standard play in play out.

 

[Tulsa Tom]

Solid post.

Comments:

6. Is there any evidence that Riley and Banker didn't tell these guys that? Both have indicated that was the general plan for the last play, and the fact that Gangwish for whatever reason didn't do it, is evidence that nothing was ever said to him?

They may have told them what to do. But coaching isn't just saying the right thing. It is getting your players to heed your words and do the right thing. For example, I don't think everything Bo told his run defense to do was wrong. However, he could not get his scheme translated into action. In this game...the above list is only about game one...we did not get that instruction translated into action. That's what good coaching is.

 

[HuskerTimOmaha]

They may have told them what to do. But coaching isn't just saying the right thing. It is getting your players to heed your words and do the right thing. For example, I don't think everything Bo told his run defense to do was wrong. However, he could not get his scheme translated into action. In this game...the above list is only about game one...we did not get that instruction translated into action. That's what good coaching is.

Holy shit dude, are you seriously going to try and claim this?!?

 

[Tulsa Tom]

Holy shit dude, are you seriously going to try and claim this?!?

Yeah...I don't buy the, "He's a good coach cause coach told him to do x." You might be in that camp but coaching needs to translate to action on the field.

 

[jflores]

Yeah...I don't buy the, "He's a good coach cause coach told him to do x." You might be in that camp but coaching needs to translate to action on the field.

Yes, but as with everything there are responsibilities for every action. And I'm with HTO, the context of your argument here is bogus.

The coach is primarily responsible for assessing a players skillset and giving them a set of techniques and schemes that put them in position to "take it from there". Its been pretty well discussed that given the time most college players can give, Bo's defense didn't do this, and so Bo was largely at fault for not crafting a proper successful environment.

The situation with Gangwish and Williams, is drastically different. If Banker goes out and tells Gangwish to "hold contain on his side of the field so the kid doesn't get outside of you", when Gangwish lines up and immediately runs to the interior of the line and *spins* the opposite direction freshly instructed (probably in an attempt to "make a play"). Banker didn't ask Gangwish to do anything that he was incapable of doing. He didn't tell him 3 days ago, and so Gangwish forgot. The play wasn't so complex that Gangwish couldn't understand what was asked of him. At some point, Gangwish has to be responsible for what was done because the coach has done all that a coach can do.

In the long run, Banker is either going to get it done or he's not. But players need to take heat if its their fault too. The fanbase is still evaluating Banker's scheme and philosophy, if we determine that Banker is teaching these kids poorly or whatever, he will be held to account, but a 5th year Senior Blackshirt should certainly shoulder responsibility for "hey kid run over there" and not being able to execute that.

 

[jflores]

They may have told them what to do. But coaching isn't just saying the right thing. It is getting your players to heed your words and do the right thing. For example, I don't think everything Bo told his run defense to do was wrong. However, he could not get his scheme translated into action. In this game...the above list is only about game one...we did not get that instruction translated into action. That's what good coaching is.

To build on your Bo example, I don't believe Bo was full of shit either. There probably things he told his guys to do, that they should have been able to execute, and I pulled defense of Bo in those situations too. In the long run however, it became apparent that the whole system wasn't setup to be long term successful at this level given the players Bo was attracting. So then it moved from a players responsibility of "this play right now I can do but for some reason I didn't" to "the coach has a system where the reasonable expectation for these guys is they are going to get burnt because their head is spinning".

Similarly, Gangwish didn't do what was asked. My own pet theory is he wanted to make a play on the freshman QB. Noble enough effort, but outside the system at that time. If long run, Banker can't get the guys to buy in enough to make it work, he won't be here either. But I don't see evidence right now, that the guys aren't trying to make the system work, and would rather just cowboy it up all the time. But mistakes are going to happen.

 

[Tulsa Tom]

I completely agree with your distinction of a coach asking kids to do something that they can't execute. Something can work in the pros but if college kids don't have the time to learn or the physical abilities then that is bad coaching. A lot of that does apply to Bo.

However, you don't get a pass as a coach if your players feel like they can just do their own thing. It's your job to get them to understand that what you said to do needs to be followed. IF Banker told these kids what they needed to do and IF they decided to do their own thing because of a desire to be a hero, then that still isn't good coaching. They have to be "coached" to put team above player.

Again, this whole thread is about one game. It doesn't mean Banker sucks from here on out or Read sucks or... It simply means their desires didn't get translated to on the field action...and that didn't happen on that last play.

 

[jflores]

I completely agree with your distinction of a coach asking kids to do something that they can't execute. Something can work in the pros but if college kids don't have the time to learn or the physical abilities then that is bad coaching. A lot of that does apply to Bo.

However, you don't get a pass as a coach if your players feel like they can just do their own thing. It's your job to get them to understand that what you said to do needs to be followed. IF Banker told these kids what they needed to do and IF they decided to do their own thing because of a desire to be a hero, then that still isn't good coaching. They have to be "coached" to put team above player.

Again, this whole thread is about one game. It doesn't mean Banker sucks from here on out or Read sucks or... It simply means their desires didn't get translated to on the field action...and that didn't happen on that last play.

Sure. But those are the types of things that are determined over a period of time. We're talking about one play in one game, albeit a high profile one. Gangwish didn't look like he was trying not to follow Banker during spring, camp or 99% of the game. I'm sure the kid bought in and is trying his best. Why he didn't do something so simple on one play, is quite frankly, mysterious. But what we have in essence across the state is a portion of boo birds coming out and wanting to indict someone on the staff for it, when Gangwish just screwed up and the staff will be evaluated over time to see if they drive 60% of optimal performance up to a much higher level or whatever it is.

If it becomes clear that the Gangwish play wasn't an anomaly, and kids are just out to get theirs no matter what old Man Riley says, then I'm certain it will be quite noticeable in the fish bowl that is NU. Either we'll see mass releases from the team, or Riley will be tossed out on his butt, whatever the divorce looks like.

 

[HuskerTimOmaha]

Yeah...I don't buy the, "He's a good coach cause coach told him to do x." You might be in that camp but coaching needs to translate to action on the field.

On the specific play referenced, you're smoking crack or trolling. Next time, don't make it so obvious.

 

[Tulsa Tom]

Sure. But those are the types of things that are determined over a period of time. We're talking about one play in one game, albeit a high profile one. Gangwish didn't look like he was trying not to follow Banker during spring, camp or 99% of the game. I'm sure the kid bought in and is trying his best. Why he didn't do something so simple on one play, is quite frankly, mysterious. But what we have in essence across the state is a portion of boo birds coming out and wanting to indict someone on the staff for it, when Gangwish just screwed up and the staff will be evaluated over time to see if they drive 60% of optimal performance up to a much higher level or whatever it is.

If it becomes clear that the Gangwish play wasn't an anomaly, and kids are just out to get theirs no matter what old Man Riley says, then I'm certain it will be quite noticeable in the fish bowl that is NU. Either we'll see mass releases from the team, or Riley will be tossed out on his butt, whatever the divorce looks like.

Much of that is true. I simply was looking at the evidence from one game. Next game we may have the people in the right positions and we say Banker did his job and deserves props. To think this thread is an indictment on the staff and a desire to move in a new direction is wrong. It simply is an attempt to discuss the coaching in this one game.

 

[Tulsa Tom]

On the specific play referenced, you're smoking crack or trolling. Next time, don't make it so obvious.

This is trolling. I made a fair post about the +'s and -'s and once again a couple of people act like it's an indictment on the staff. Don't be paranoid...not everyone's out to get Riley.

 

[jflores]

To think this thread is an indictment on the staff and a desire to move in a new direction is wrong. It simply is an attempt to discuss the coaching in this one game.

Well, to be fair, your definition of coaching includes crossing player and coach responsibilities. You've already stated that, if I tell you to run to the hash, and you run to the boundary, I'm a poor coach because I couldn't translate it to action. In the singular case I personally wouldn't agree, over time, its a much stronger arugment. Also separately in the statement I quoted, you are asking to criticize the coaching without it being an "indictment on the staff". Given the nature of your posting history, the general feeling around the state, and the boo birds coming out in force, it might be a little bit of an unrealistic expectation to talk about the "coaching" in a negative light and not expect to be called out as making Riley out to be a poor one. Its certainly not making the case that you think he's a good coach.

I will note however, that if one separates the coaching and execution, it becomes a lot easier to talk about the mistake Gangwish made, without trying to make the staff look like a numbnuts. Instead, we have the conundrum presented in my second post, Gangwish doesn't appear to have wandered off the reservation, but in an effort to not separate poor execution one one play by one player from coaching in general, we're left wondering why then something so simple was not done by a 5th year Blackshirt whose tears aren't even dry yet.

 

[Tulsa Tom]

I agree with the conundrum...we could say that no one is responsible for the bad execution...it just happened. But we know that's not the truth. So we are left with a player who wants to do his own thing or a coach who didn't get translated to the player the importance of keeping contain. I'm not sure the latter is such a bad choice.

The first part of your post misses the idea that one can have criticism and not have it be an indictment on them as coaches at the university of Nebraska. My fear on this board is that anyone who has a critique of the staff...no matter how rational...is going to be run off because the politically correct critiques are always positive critiques.

 

[jflores]

I agree with the conundrum...we could say that no one is responsible for the bad execution...it just happened. But we know that's not the truth. So we are left with a player who wants to do his own thing or a coach who didn't get translated to the player the importance of keeping contain. I'm not sure the latter is such a bad choice.

The first part of your post misses the idea that one can have criticism and not have it be an indictment on them as coaches at the university of Nebraska. My fear on this board is that anyone who has a critique of the staff...no matter how rational...is going to be run off because the politically correct critiques are always positive critiques.

I'm not saying that it just happened, I'm saying the responsibility lies with Gangwish. For something so simple as, keep him inside of you, a grown ass man basically, can handle that assignment. We may not have been anymore successful if he had, but it was quite clear that he messed that up running immediately inside and spinning further so.

It takes two to tango in communication. If Banker said the words, then his job was done. Gangwish really has to take that and go with it. He's not dumb or physically incapable. And again, even if he had done it, may not have altered the outcome of the play, but he would've demonstrated basic listening that's been apart of his life, since forever.

"Stress the importance" sounds real good, but it doesn't really mean a lot. BYU stressed the importance of breaking contain, NU the opposite. BYU won because the player received the message and executed it. Commanders stress the importance of not doing something stupid and getting killed, but soldiers still die for stupid screw ups in a particularly over the top example. Two forces meet, only one will prevail, even though the cause is important to both.

I would agree that its important to be able to criticize the staff. I think the Hail Mary case though, is picking at nits. For example, I thought the corners played too much cushion to start the game, and certainly that every bit calls into question choice made by the staff. But no one is constantly ramming it down people's throats as to why the staff is schiit. The staff adjusted, the kids respond, and we did much better second half. But this Hail Mary thing, keeps brought up as to "bad coaching". The Hail Mary is about the only play of the game where we know for sure what the true intent was because its been discussed at length by the staff. They are in the right. Gangwish and what he was thinking is the big mystery.

I'm willing to let it be at that. I suppose if he was a Dallas Cowboy, some reporter can get in his face and talk to him about his responsibility but this is CFB and people don't need to be all over him about it. Jay Foreman was rather "blah" about it this morning, so I would assume the rest of the fan base can take that as an ok signal that we needn't bury Riley and Banker with Gangwish's mind boggling mistake.

 

[HuskerTimOmaha]

This is trolling. I made a fair post about the +'s and -'s and once again a couple of people act like it's an indictment

Except, I already said, "Solid post".

 

[Husker Psycho]

Good comment TT. Balanced.

And thanks for bringing up very interesting subject... COACHABILITY.

That is a very important and at times difficult thing for coaches to deal with. Barry Switzer used to talk about it all the time. Some players would soak up coaching like a sponge. Other players would stand there and pretend to be listening to the coaches, and then turn right around a second later and do exactly the opposite of what they had just been told to do and what they appeared to understand. The CRAZY thing about it all is that the coachable players could be great players and the un-coachable players could sometimes be even better. It's a very hard thing to predict. I remember Switzer commenting about players who were un-coachable and how hard they were to deal with... and then in the same comment... compliment them on their great play... all the while with that silly grin he often had on his face.

It's part of coaching and something they all have to deal with. There's a fine line on how to deal with it. The un-coachable players often have big ego's etc... and yet that same ego can make them self reliant and confident. Most good coaches realize that all people are different and what works for one may not work for all. But good coaches realize that its a very important aspect of coaching.

Interesting subject.

 

[oldjar07]

They may have told them what to do. But coaching isn't just saying the right thing. It is getting your players to heed your words and do the right thing. For example, I don't think everything Bo told his run defense to do was wrong. However, he could not get his scheme translated into action. In this game...the above list is only about game one...we did not get that instruction translated into action. That's what good coaching is.

Great post. This is what separates an average or decent coach from a great coach. You can't just tell your players what to do and expect they do it. There's a lot more to communicating and coaching effectively than just dictating what you want the player to do. A great coach knows the mentality of the players. Maybe the player isn't entirely focused after playing nearly a whole game and we're one play away from winning. Or there could be a variety of other factors, but any one of those factors could have caused him to lose focus on his assignment. Some would fault just the player for this, but it's really the result of the actions of both parties, and even other transactions could have come into play. Effective coaching would understand this and hopefully try to instruct players in the clearest manner possible.

I believe nearly every coach at the division 1 level is competent in the ability to come up with a scheme and dictate it to the players. The problems arise from not having the proper scheme suited to the player's abilities and not effectively teaching the schemes to the players so that they understand it enough to make the right decisions.

The coaches always have some part in every bit of execution of the players. It's almost pointless to say that it's the player's fault. Yes, immediately it is the player's fault, but in the bigger picture it's not. The coaches recruit the players. The coaches coach the players and teach the schemes. The coaches determine the depth chart. So, it is pointless to pin blame on any one player. If that's the best player we have, then we have to accept it as it is. If a player has a tendency to not do what a coach says, it is the fault of the coach as the coach recruited him and chose to play him over someone else. The coaches are ultimately responsible for the product on the field.

As for coachability, yes players have different tendencies. Some players are so talented that they should be on the field no matter what. Some players are very teachable, and have a high attention span for learning new things and listening. Some players rely more on instincts. Some players are better at strategic thinking than others. None of these are mutually exclusive. Personally, i had better strategic thought than most, but had a harder time focusing and relied more on my instincts. That's part of the reason why i was a poor shooter in basketball, but good on defense. Some people can respond better to a coach who doesn't know as much, but can communicate better. Some concepts, I knew I had to fix but wasn't sure how to fix them because I couldn't comprehend what the coach was saying. But a new coach could explain it in a different way, and i could immediately grasp the concept. Both coaches were probably saying the same thing. That it's important to keep contain or whatever. But it wasn't until the second coach explained it that I understood my role in keeping contain.

 

[dinglefritz]

We started TWO freshmen linebackers one of which had NEVER played linebacker in his life. We played a converted TE at DE and we started a walk on at one DE that I LOVE but that lacks the athletic ability to be a difference maker. We HAVE to get more experience and BETTER players at certain positions. I'm just not sure what people realistically expected Banker to be able to do with the depth chart he was left with at linebacker and DE. On top of that maybe our best linebacker decided to be an idiot and put himself ahead of his team so he couldn't play. IF we have an injury at linebacker, we're screwed and we maybe be already with Gangwish's injury. We're just throwing warm bodies out there that aren't physically ready to be on the field yet. Some our depth at key positions on defense is similar to what you might see Iowa State or Ohio run out on the field. Imagine that. Ohio level talent. At least some of our guys have the athletic potential to get much better I guess with experience and physical development.

 

[jflores]

We started TWO freshmen linebackers one of which had NEVER played linebacker in his life. We played a converted TE at DE and we started a walk on at one DE that I LOVE but that lacks the athletic ability to be a difference maker. We HAVE to get more experience and BETTER players at certain positions. I'm just not sure what people realistically expected Banker to be able to do with the depth chart he was left with at linebacker and DE. On top of that maybe our best linebacker decided to be an idiot and put himself ahead of his team so he couldn't play. IF we have an injury at linebacker, we're screwed and we maybe already with Gangwish's injury. We're just throwing warm bodies out there that aren't physically ready to be on the field yet. Some our depth at key positions on defense is similar to what you might see Iowa State or Ohio run out on the field. Imagine that. Ohio level talent. At least some of our guys have the athletic potential to get much better I guess with experience and physical development.

Pretty much why I personally have my patience hat on. If we start dominating folks with the kinds of depth and injury situation we have now, then Riley may well be the next Saban when he gets a real roster.

 

[ssmill777]

even in the 2nd qtr, play calling seemed reasonably good to me. guys were wide open. tommy missed em. OL issues obv were a big reason for the misses. seemed pretty familiar.

In regards to Tommy missing his wide open receivers, I believe that going into a stiff wind had something to do with his errant passes. He seems to try to put more zip on the ball, and in doing so, he loses accuracy.

 

[dinglefritz]

In regards to Tommy missing his wide open receivers, I believe that going into a stiff wind had something to do with his errant passes. He seems to try to put more zip on the ball, and in doing so, he loses accuracy.

IF people can't recognize the vast improvement in TA's passing I just don't know what to say to them.