Ketch's 10 Thoughts From the Weekend (Let's Assume... dare I say... It's Cumbie)
- Thread starter Ketchum
- Start date
You have every right to feel that way. Charlie simply hasn't performed anywhere close to a level that warrants belief. It's all in the details and he has to start being better at them.
Jerod Evans? I like his JUCO film, i think he would fit perfectly in Cumbie's Offense.
So given all that, what is exactly Bedford's contribution to the program? He coaches 1/2 of the defensive backs and I don't think has been a plus on the recruiting trail.
If it's all Charlie's defense, then I would think the DC in title only would be a BAMF recruier. So if that's not happening, that's one more assistant coaching position we're wasting.
Not real sure how Mad Max Fury Road is on anyone's top 5 Oscar list for Best Picture.
With Brandon Allen at the helm for UT, this would have been an 8-4 or 9-3 Texas team. That illustrates the importance of having someone who can throw the ball downfield. He went from a laughingstock at Arky to a legit NFL project, albeit likely in a late round.
That's right. The details performed consistently is the hardest thing to get done in a rebuild and for young players to get. I think Charlie is a really good football man, but it's possible that this situation is a bad fit for him. In the Big12, whether I like it or not, your team has to be able to score 50 whenever it's necessary. My question about Charlie is whether he can adapt to that environment. To me, that's very much an open question. I think he deserves the shot and we will see what he does. Hence, I will believe it when I see it.
It won't be top five at the end, but as far as action movies are concerned, the general consensus is that it was a special one.
That question wasn't supposed to be included in the section because I address the issue in the first two sections of the column. I thought it had been deleted.
Just to be clear, I saw it and while I didn't think it was bad I certainly didn't find it special. Not sure I'll even bother to watch it once it comes on cable. JMO.
My biggest disappointment with the defensive staff is their willingness to stick with older lesser players too long. Honestly, when you hear Bedford talk about the problems playing true frosh you hear a guy firmly stuck in an 80's mindset. Hill and Davis very well should have been starters/majority PT since game 2. Elliott's relative non-use after he was healthy is mind-bottling. Locke also should have played more.
This site currently ranks it as 11th this year and it usually nails all of the nominations for the most part.
Honestly, and I hate it that he got hurt, but it's probably a bit of a blessing that Santos got hurt in the spring. Lord knows we don't see Locke if Haines weren't hurt. Not to mention Warren when it comes to Gray. Just disappointing. At some point you HAVE to be able to see the very low ceiling your older starters and realize that a younger more talented player could bring a higher one.
Hell Mack had just enough balls left to fire Manny Diaz, but Charlie Strong can't blow out Bedford after 2 years of this ? Is this where Strong blames the offense again for Bedfords defense ?
One of the main reasons the Longhorn defense has sucked is that the Longhorn offense can't make first downs and sustain drives. The best defense is the one that stays on the sidelines while the offense wears out the other team. If Texas improves on offense next season, you can bet the defensive stats will improve dramatically.
Mike Perrin was on 104.9 this morning and echoed that he needed to see real progress, not lucky bounce progress and that numbers, i.e. wins and losses are important because winning cures all ills. It was a good answer from Mike, IMO.
There are some pro-Gilbert guys wishing it to be true."Ketch's 10 Thoughts From the Weekend (Let's Assume... dare I say... It's Cumbie)"
@Ketchum Did you jinx this thing???
So, in the future, please refrain from saying "It's____________________." ever again.
Ok, but let's not blame the offense for all of its ills, or youth for that matter.
I missed that this morning. Did he elaborate on the criteria or leave it open ended?
He was asked if numbers were important to him as it relates to wins and losses for Charlie. Essentially asked him how Charlie would be evaluated in terms of the 2016 season. He said yes, numbers are important but wouldn't cement a number, but he said he wanted to see substantial progress or real progress and not lucky bounce (or dumb luck) progress (see Baylor win IMO). So, it sounds like we need to pass the win loss test and the eye test of real progress, not lucking into some wins. He did say he feels like we will see that, but it wasn't a great vote of confidence for Strong in his answer.
Thanks!
I agree there are a lot of truths that can be hidden in a black and white win loss record. Good to hear that the intangibles will be considered as well.
It's just so weird, and maybe Ketch is really on to something with who's available, that if there is this much doubt we wouldn't have just moved on this year.
To me, Gilbert's offense makes more sense. I am hoping that Cumbie will adjust to our players (Tight Ends/ Hbacks) for his system.
However, it is not my decision or my money.
Just get it right Charlie and go win.
Yeah, the OU win was legit, the Baylor win was a pin the tail on the donkey contest except Baylor didn't have a tail.
I think there were just too many in power that were already committed to giving him three years. The tide simply couldn't quite be turned. Besides, there will be a slew of names available next year, including people like Herman you could pluck that will have another year under his belt.
on #2 - Ketch or any of our football minds here, help me out.
If this is CS's D, then what exactly is Bedford getting paid to do? Honest question, not dogging Bedford here. Is he a glorified position coach? Additionally, I believe the HC is there to HC, not coordinate any one side of the ball. Sure, there will be tendencies based on what side of the ball they came up on, but once they move on from Coord to HC, those responsibilities of the Coord also need to be passed along. I look across the landscape of FBS and see it everywhere - HC's who were great coord's at one point surround themselves with coord's once they move to HC. Saban did it with KS, Meyer with Herman - examples are everywhere. Why can't CS do that on the defensive side of the ball. Texas would spend 1M for an OC, because we flat out stink on that side of the ball - but, we're also no where near being a perennial power house on the D side as well. Why wouldn't you go out and find the best D-coord our money can buy and let them build that side of the ball up to where we want it to be?
Again, not trying to flame Bedford or CS or anyone of the staff, I'm just curious why we would continue to have a DC - when the D is purportedly exclusively run by the HC. And when said D is historically bad, why the HC is still empowered w/running the D.
If this is CS's D, then what exactly is Bedford getting paid to do? Honest question, not dogging Bedford here. Is he a glorified position coach? Additionally, I believe the HC is there to HC, not coordinate any one side of the ball. Sure, there will be tendencies based on what side of the ball they came up on, but once they move on from Coord to HC, those responsibilities of the Coord also need to be passed along. I look across the landscape of FBS and see it everywhere - HC's who were great coord's at one point surround themselves with coord's once they move to HC. Saban did it with KS, Meyer with Herman - examples are everywhere. Why can't CS do that on the defensive side of the ball. Texas would spend 1M for an OC, because we flat out stink on that side of the ball - but, we're also no where near being a perennial power house on the D side as well. Why wouldn't you go out and find the best D-coord our money can buy and let them build that side of the ball up to where we want it to be?
Again, not trying to flame Bedford or CS or anyone of the staff, I'm just curious why we would continue to have a DC - when the D is purportedly exclusively run by the HC. And when said D is historically bad, why the HC is still empowered w/running the D.
I don't care if he was best available. That is just too much money for what they are getting.
a. There were two on the field, it's just that at least one was always running in the wrong direction.
b. That's why he would be here.
3. Jean-Mary, Vaughn and Traylor.
Is he a first round draft choice? Of course not. Does he have the best athletic skills of any qb in the SEC? Again, no. However, in the whole scheme of what he has done for his team in managing the games and getting players in the right position and the ball to the right playmakers, he is definitely #1 in the SEC. That is why Bama is in the final four and no one else is even close (and, yes, I know they have one hell of a defense).
