Interview with MR
- Thread starter LBremser
- Start date
I don't think he has to be a dual threat but needs to be able to run when needed. All of those teams have mentioned above have that. One other thing that those championship teams have is the ability to run the ball. Michigan State supposedly had the best pro-style quarterback in the college game and very, very little coming back at running back. (A frosh was their leading rusher last year.) And they still only threw the ball 44% of the time.
The best QB's are able to distribute the ball well, much like a point guard in bball. If they can distribute it well, they don't need to be able to run up and down the field. If we're recruiting guys that can make good decisions and throw from the pocket, I have no problem if they can't run like TA.
So what part of Tommy's teaching was wasted? If Tommy can become a more savvy passer, that only makes him more dangerous in the running game.
Ummmmm...teaching him what the blocking scheme is on designed runs. If the zone read is part of the run game, teaching him the ins and outs of the read. Teaching him what to look for on bootlegs. Teaching him what keys to look for when audibling into a qb run. Teaching him when to break the pocket...where to break the pocket...what to do once he breaks the pocket. It's not like you ignore the qb run game for a year and think our qb will be just fine when we go back to it..
Me too.. With all the years of experience he has as a Head Coach having to defend Oregon's offense all these years he was in the Pac12.
Will he change and get committed to the run like he says above? I hope so. This is EXACTLY what many of us have been saying in the face of opposition on this board for months. I may have more hope today than at any point since Riley was installed as the head coach.[/QUOTE]
Don't know if Langsdorf would stick around if he's going to go away from a pro scheme. The guy is pretty young and invested in a pro dream.
Don't know if Langsdorf would stick around if he's going to go away from a pro scheme. The guy is pretty young and invested in a pro dream.
I don't really give a rip about Langsdorf. He has already had play calling taking from him once by Riley and that article makes it clear Riley wasn't real thrilled with it this past year. He may fine for developing qbs, but I wouldn't mind having Riley calling plays.
You make it sound as if the coaches never taught these things. How do you know they didn't coach this? Isn't this part of coaching? I find it hard to believe they wouldn't coach him in these things...
I guess it's possible that they assumed he knew these things...
"This quarterback run deal is new to us. We are discovering the subtleties in how to block it...You can do a lot of (studying) here. That’s what our guys are doing right now.”
Mike Riley
I remember you saying this about our run game. I'm thinking there will be crickets in the rest of this thread from those who loved to poo poo this notion of needing to run the ball to be good and who say this doesn't need to be our identity.Excellent stuff from Riley. If they can apply what he is saying then I believe they will be able to turn it around.
I basically said these things about the run game and some on her disagreed with me...funny I see no one disagreeing here.
Key word there is "subtleties".
Like Timnsun, I find it very difficult to believe that plays we ran throughout the season last year (read, QB counter, etc.) were not coached. I take Riley's quote to mean they're getting better at coaching something that was relatively new to them last year. As you would expect with experience.
To those saying that his quote is disappointing due to his proximity to Oregon...being familiar with a style and coaching techniques to try to stop it, is not the same thing as implementing the style and teaching the techniques to actually run it.
Follow the conversation. I said we wasted a year on Tommy not helping him understand the run game...of which both Riley and Langs were struggling with subtleties of it. Nobody said they were never coached anything. Nobody was saying we called plays which our players never practiced. Riley was very clear so don't try and obfuscate. "This quarterback run deal is new to us...You can do a lot of studying here. That is what our guys (coaches) are doing right now."
Riley is willing to say that he didn't intricately understand the quarterback run game but he and his guys are going to learn this off season. That should get kudos not minimizing platitudes by people thinking they have to defend Riley at every turn.
Winner winner, chicken dinner.
Y'all keep on feeding the fish, he's reeling you guys in left and right.
Sorry...Riley is the winner. His words stand alone and speak for themselves. This was a great article and Riley will be a winner if he implements what he has stated. He doesn't need Ri-lievers minimizing his deficiencies.
Feeling fine. It's am amazing how Riley is now sounding like certain old ball coach. Hmmmmm...
so what's the difference between not teaching and not coaching? You claim they didn't teach him blocking schemes on designed runs, didn't teach him the ins and outs of the zone read (which is funny because I thot he already knew that, having run it for 3 years already under Beck), didn't teach him what to look for on bootlegs, etc. etc.
Because to me it sounds like you are saying they aren't coaching him these things... Maybe you need to go back and clarify what you meant. Not teaching these things is actually the same thing as not coaching these things in my book.
Maybe I don't get what you're saying, and if I have misread this, I apologize. Just help me understand what you are saying here.
Too bad Blo and his golf coach, WR coach had no idea what kind of routes that entails. Our WR have been taught more in 1 year by Keith Williams than they were by a golf coach in 4 years.
Why do feel the need to defend Riley from his own words? The qb run game is new to him. His coaches are studying it this off season. You Rilievers are an odd lot. He gives his best interview and you act like it's your job to cover for him.
Not it at all. I've acknowledged he's made mistakes in the past and he will still make mistakes. Don't make it as if I have stated Riley has never done anything wrong. That's disingenuous on your part and beneath you (I hope).
Now to odd lots... You have a laundry list of things the coaches never "taught" TA, and when I suggest you are saying they never "coached" him these things, which doesn't make sense to me, you do the very thing you claim others are doing, obfuscate and don't answer the simple question.
Are you saying the coaches never coached Armstrong these things? What's the difference between coaching and teaching?
This is what I would like an answer to. Not obfuscation, just answer the question.
At the same time, I could easily point out that Riley gives his best interview and you act like its your job to point out all his flaws. So I guess you can point out his flaws and I can't disagree with you at all. If I do that makes me odd. Got it.
Look at the thread. It's answered. Barry Switzer couldn't run the Air Raid because it would be new to him. He could run some plays from it but he couldn't teach something that was new to him. Riley and Langs couldn't teach the qb run game. It was new to them. They didn't understand the ins and outs of it. RILEY is the one who said it!
So in pro style offenses qbs don't run bootlegs? In pro style offenses qbs never break the pocket, meaning the coaches don't coach them what to look for? In pro style offense qbs don't audible from pass plays to run plays? The only thing I will give you is that I agree TA probably wasn't coached well for audibling into a QB run. But the rest of your statement about things they never coached is plain wrong.
There's a difference between not coaching and not emphasizing certain aspects of the offense. There's a difference between relying on the pass more ham the run. That's what Riley freely admits he would have done differently. You want to point that out, great! No argument from me there.
But to say they never coached these things is ridiculous. I guarantee you they coached him on when and where to break the pocket if it was breaking down. I guarantee you they coached him on how to run the bootleg if that was the play call. If you want to say they never taught him these things don't be surprised if someone takes issue with such a silly statement.
Edit: I saw what Riley said. You are the one who embellished and assumed what was and wasn't taught. That's a load of crap and I'm calling you on it.
You win...for obfuscation and missing the point. Just remember...
"This quarterback run deal is new to us. We are discovering the subtleties in how to block it...You can do a lot of (studying) here. That’s what our guys are doing right now.”
How you can take a positive for Riley (admitting he needs to put more emphasis on something because he didn't understand it all that well) and act like you know him better than he knows himself, is ridiculous.
"This quarterback run deal is new to us. We are discovering the subtleties in how to block it...You can do a lot of (studying) here. That’s what our guys are doing right now.”
How you can take a positive for Riley (admitting he needs to put more emphasis on something because he didn't understand it all that well) and act like you know him better than he knows himself, is ridiculous.
I'm not the one who told us all what he didn't coach. I didn't read that in the article, you gave us all the details, so you must have been there.
Will you just stop and answer the question? Please? Difference between not teaching and not coaching?
You're a real piece of work...
Tulsa, you are the one who continues to redirect. I have asked you repeatedly about what you said. Not what Riley said, what you said. Riley talked about running the quarterback. You said all kinds of crap about when to break the pocket and how to run a bootleg (which pro style teams do, so why wouldn't they teach?)... Pro style coaches teach these things. I guarantee you.
The only thing Riley talked about was designed QB runs and zone reads. You brought so much more into it and I want to know why but you won't answer. I can only assume you don't answer because you know you reached too far initially.
This is a pissing match I can't win so I'm done...
The only thing Riley talked about was designed QB runs and zone reads. You brought so much more into it and I want to know why but you won't answer. I can only assume you don't answer because you know you reached too far initially.
This is a pissing match I can't win so I'm done...
I thought it seemed like a refreshing, honest interview. Will admit that I didn't try to pick it apart...just listened to what I heard.
How many times must I answer this?
1. Look at Riley's own words. Hard to teach what is new to you.
2. I gave the example of Switzer and the Air Raid. Do you think J.C. Watts was well coached in the qb passing game? I'm sure they talked about passing plays and throwing the ball but it doesn't mean there was much depth to it.
3. I made it clear that they went over the qb run plays in practice but did not teach all the subtleties of the qb run game. (Oooopppsss...I'm using Riley's words again.)
How many ways do you want this answered? 5 ways? 10 ways? As many ways as possible to obfuscate Riley's words about the fact we have to run the ball first, make it out identity, get the coaches learning about something new to them? Do you want to hopefully ignore the problem Riley saw with the play progressions and play calling last year? Do you want us to forget that Riley knows championship teams have certain characteristics...ones we didn't have...like running the ball...minimizing penalties...cutting down on turnovers?
I will give it one more shot, against my better judgment... I just want it answered one way. Don't tell me what Mike said. I read it and found it to be refreshing and it gave hope to what the future offense will look like. But you saw a little more than I did... You saw that Mike didn't teach when to break the pocket and where to break the pocket and what to do when he breaks the pocket... I missed that and was curious where that was. You saw that Mike didn't teach the QB how to run a bootleg. Another thing I missed in the article, but you saw it, so please help me understand how you know these coaches didn't teach this. Don't regurgitate what Mike said, cuz I've read it and he didn't say what you are claiming. I have asked about your words, not Mike's words.
So the coaches never thought that in a passing, pro style offense, they didn't need to teach TA what to do when the pocket collapses, or where to go? Really? You believe that? And they didn't teach TA about the bootleg either, huh? Get real.
Again, I acknowledged Mike's newness to designed QB runs. That's something that he is learning more about. I get that. But you went so far beyond that, and I want to know why. That is all.
This may be the most petty argument I've ever seen on this board.
Over under on posts until it's never resolved is at 64.5. Any takers?
That' was a petty thing to say... Cool
Seriously, Tulsa and I have a bit of a history, and if I have made a huge deal out of this when I shouldn't have, let me know, and I will stop.
Myself, I thought it was a good, honest interview. I appreciate hearing a coach get honest and specific about the prior years' shortcomings.
You aren't the only one, however, you are unique in your willingness to continue to respond to him. Just about everyone will repeat the question at least twice, sometimes more, but then will quickly realize that he either is incapable of giving the answer, or simply does not want to provide an answer, and will let it go. The problem is that when the one side just gives up because they know they aren't going to get a real response, TT sees it as him winning an argument, and chalks it up as a victory. That is the only way I can reconcile what I read from him and how he presents himself in his posts.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Matt Campbell to Interview for the Bears head-coaching position…- Latest: knightwxc5000
-
-
