Grade our coaches up to this point.

#26
#26
therickbol said:
Burned all the time? Do you want to count the amount of times this season he has actually been burned for a big play? Of course he gets burned sometimes, every CB does. But he is leading the SEC in pass defended and has 4 INT. He has not been burned for big plays very often.
Click to expand...

I would have to agree. Monk did eat him up, but overall I like the way he has played. CB's do get burned, part of the position.
 
#27
#27
volfanbill said:
by the end of the year you're not supposed to be young and inexperienced. the line got no better throughout the season, the dbacks got worse. chavis's ranking is deserved.
Click to expand...

Notice that the two units you mentioned both suffered key injuries and suspensions. That must be Chavis' fault.
 
#28
#28
allvol123 said:
I would have to agree. Monk did eat him up, but overall I like the way he has played. CB's do get burned, part of the position.
Click to expand...

Wade has played plenty well enough. Not having a great pass rush has hurt him. Also, he's often matched up against the opposition's #1 wideout.
 
#30
#30
The only knock I have against Wade is that he tends to lose the football and get turned around on Fades, Corners etc . . . Of course, that's what Fade, Corner routes are designed to do.
 
#31
#31
These grades seem to reflect the current on field performance with no context.

Just because the DL, for instance, has a down year, it doesn't necessarily reflect on the position coach.

And just because Arian Foster is going to set the single season lateral rushing record doesn't necessarily mean Roper stinks.

It just seems really hard to grade a position coach based on the performance of their unit in any particular year. Over time, yes.

I think the performance is more reflective of the HC, the coordinators, and the talent.
 
#32
#32
Liper said:
These grades seem to reflect the current on field performance with no context.

Just because the DL, for instance, has a down year, it doesn't necessarily reflect on the position coach.

And just because Arian Foster is going to set the single season lateral rushing record doesn't necessarily mean Roper stinks.

It just seems really hard to grade a position coach based on the performance of their unit in any particular year. Over time, yes.

I think the performance is more reflective of the HC, the coordinators, and the talent.
Click to expand...

You have to grade the coaches based on how their unit performed on the field. There's nothing else available to evaluate them with. Coaches live and die with how their players perform. Its always been that way.
 
#33
#33
GAVol said:
The only knock I have against Wade is that he tends to lose the football and get turned around on Fades, Corners etc . . . Of course, that's what Fade, Corner routes are designed to do.
Click to expand...

I agree on that, and I think it probably has something to do with the fact that this is only the first year where he's been totally focused on football. In the past, he's been focused on track as well as football and it's hurt him. Also, he was a receiver for a year or two.

Add all that up, and I'd say he's doing a pretty good job to be 10th in the nation in passes defended per game, and have 4 INTs.
 
#34
#34
IF we can beat Kentucky and win against a respectable team in a bowl game, you've got to give a little credit, where credit is due. 10-3 with losses against Florida, and then against LSU and Arkansas without our starting QB has got to win Fulmer a few points. He did make some strong moves, assistant-wise, and has shown more intensity in team speeches and interviews than I've seen in the past. Even the patsy PF show has included some gentle jabs at officiating. On the sidelines, he's a bit more animated and a little more "in-your-face" when players make mistakes. Turning the flop of the SEC into a 10-3 squad with serious potential for next year earns him a "B."

Cutcliff garners a "B+," if for nothing other than turning around a discombobulated, yet talented, QB, and giving us a lot of excitement, for a change. The running game leaves much to be desired and some questionable play-calling at times knocks him down from "A" status. . . .although a lot of that is simply not his fault. We simply HAVE to improve up front before we can get back to our traditional success on the ground. And, imagine what Ainge might accomplish if we could actually block up front and have a little running threat?

Chavis is having a rough year. Lack of experience up front and a couple of really tough injuries put our defense in unfamiliar territory. Still, you play the cards your dealt, and you can't fold in football, even if you're dealt a 10-6 off-suit. "C."
 
#35
#35
oklavol said:
You have to grade the coaches based on how their unit performed on the field. There's nothing else available to evaluate them with. Coaches live and die with how their players perform. Its always been that way.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you have to evaluate them in context of the players they have, for one. It's all relative.

Cutcliffe, for instance, gets an A++++ for QB coaching. He took a kid that didn't understand the game and tranformed him into one of the best QBs in the nation over the course of one spring.

Brooks, on the other hand, had his two starting DTs either gone from early defection or turning pro. His next two were a kid back from a two year mormon mission and a walk-on with no talent. The best player he has is a converted DE. So, if we evaluate him using the bar of recent/standard DT performance, then it appears he's done a bad job. But that ignores what he had to work with. He also has a tremendous record of, not only putting players in the pros, but preparing them to excel once there.

...stuff like that.
 
#36
#36
Liper said:
Brooks, on the other hand, had his two starting DTs either gone from early defection or turning pro. His next two were a kid back from a two year mormon mission and a walk-on with no talent. The best player he has is a converted DE. So, if we evaluate him using the bar of recent/standard DT performance, then it appears he's done a bad job. But that ignores what he had to work with. He also has a tremendous record of, not only putting players in the pros, but preparing them to excel once there.

...stuff like that.
Click to expand...
very good point Liper....hit the nail on the head...for once, i'm like you, our weaknesses this year from what i've seen are not a result of poor coaching, but just pure lack of personnel. Good Post.
 
#37
#37
Liper said:
Yeah, but you have to evaluate them in context of the players they have, for one. It's all relative.

Cutcliffe, for instance, gets an A++++ for QB coaching. He took a kid that didn't understand the game and tranformed him into one of the best QBs in the nation over the course of one spring.

Brooks, on the other hand, had his two starting DTs either gone from early defection or turning pro. His next two were a kid back from a two year mormon mission and a walk-on with no talent. The best player he has is a converted DE. So, if we evaluate him using the bar of recent/standard DT performance, then it appears he's done a bad job. But that ignores what he had to work with. He also has a tremendous record of, not only putting players in the pros, but preparing them to excel once there.

...stuff like that.
Click to expand...

It's scary when a post on a message board makes this much sense. The idea that we now not only grade head coaches and coordinators, we take it upon ourselves to second guess the nuances of position coaching is a little tough for me to look at with a straight face.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top