After Ohio State loss: “What I would say is most disappointing was not necessarily anything about the plan, it was just the execution of the plan ... When you absolutely aren’t in your right spot or your area or on your right man, that’s disappointing to me…We didn’t give ourselves a chance to play because we weren’t in the right place a lot of times.”
***
When I read stuff like this, I am alarmed. I have questioned our practices before, and I'll do so again. What do our practices look like? Does Riley realize he's indicting himself and his staff?
Many of us on this board have coached something in our lives. When your athletes don't do what they've been repped to do over and over again (hopefully) in practice, there's a problem, either with communication (explaining exactly what they should do) or lack of organization and inefficient reps. Or, the opponent isn't simulated accurately (something different is happening than what the players expected).
I know we've had this debate over the past decade or more: Who's more responsible for a loss like Ohio State, the players or the coaches? I think it's the coaches. They're the experts. It's their job to put their players in the best possible position to succeed. Players, especially young ones, do their best to play the way they're coached. Well-coached teams look prepared, even when they're physically inferior.
None of us should have really expected us to beat Ohio State, but could we have expected our team to be better prepared?
I just don't buy the idea that we're THAT athletically poor (speed, strength, change-of-direction) to have put that showing on the field. Confusion reins. The players look lost.
Still like Riley and want to believe, but ...
***
When I read stuff like this, I am alarmed. I have questioned our practices before, and I'll do so again. What do our practices look like? Does Riley realize he's indicting himself and his staff?
Many of us on this board have coached something in our lives. When your athletes don't do what they've been repped to do over and over again (hopefully) in practice, there's a problem, either with communication (explaining exactly what they should do) or lack of organization and inefficient reps. Or, the opponent isn't simulated accurately (something different is happening than what the players expected).
I know we've had this debate over the past decade or more: Who's more responsible for a loss like Ohio State, the players or the coaches? I think it's the coaches. They're the experts. It's their job to put their players in the best possible position to succeed. Players, especially young ones, do their best to play the way they're coached. Well-coached teams look prepared, even when they're physically inferior.
None of us should have really expected us to beat Ohio State, but could we have expected our team to be better prepared?
I just don't buy the idea that we're THAT athletically poor (speed, strength, change-of-direction) to have put that showing on the field. Confusion reins. The players look lost.
Still like Riley and want to believe, but ...
