The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(05-31-2014 10:34 AM)Chipdip2 Wrote:  Questions about player development?

They were developing true freshmen and RS freshmen. I saw more improment from Austin Lewis, Alec Moten, Willie Beavers, Zach Terrell, and Corey Davis, than I saw from Scriven, Fields, and Chance in the last 4 years.

I thought Justin Currie and Ronald Zamort improved quite a bit too.

(05-31-2014 03:26 PM)Stampede your face!! Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 10:34 AM)Chipdip2 Wrote:  Questions about player development?

They were developing true freshmen and RS freshmen. I saw more improment from Austin Lewis, Alec Moten, Willie Beavers, Zach Terrell, and Corey Davis, than I saw from Scriven, Fields, and Chance in the last 4 years.

I thought Justin Currie and Ronald Zamort improved quite a bit too.

Kendrick Roberts and Andrew Haldeman as well.

Seeing some players improve should be the norm and the expectation. For position coaches in particular, teaching players college level technique and working to install program schemes has to be a major portion of the job description. Motivating, working for team unity and cohesiveness, checking on physical development and academic progress, all of that.

If I am evaluating a coach, I would not be giving extra credit just because there was some player improvement. Player improvement is the baseline expectation.

This regimes mantra about finding a better best is OK to an extent, but I think player development is more basic than that. Each position should have a known set of skills to be accomplished and then fine tuned. Similar, physical attributes in terms of strength and physical endurance are measureables that can be tracked and monitored for progress. A lot of this is not voodoo, more a matter of waking up each morning and going to work.

Don't give me a list of a few players who improved and expect to get some applause. That is just a basic requirement of the coaching job.

I've seen lots of players who didn't improve. You can't take player development as a given.

Wiggins, Fields, Scriven, Mussman, Parker (actually got worse........see SCC), Tevin Drake, Damond Smith, Hammond, Dallas Walker, Ansel Ponder, Mike Finnen (went JC and ended up with multiple BCS offers) and plenty of others if you'd like me to name them.

Bozeman is classic example as well. Saw real PT as a freshmen but never really developed. Fleck got more out of Lewis, Bothwell, and Keon Adams than we ever got out of Bozeman. He quit on the program long before his senior year, while they played hard to the last down of the season.

Not debating that some improve and some don't.

It is a basic in coaching and in management that every player and person is unique. Different strokes for different folks. So it is probably true that some players that responded to Cubits methods would not respond to PJ's and vica versa.

Regardless of that, position coaches should be able to show measureables improvement in skills, techniques, strength, endurance, knowledge of football schemes, etc.

When someone writes certain players never "improved" I find that hard to accept.

How a certain player looks on the field is very subjective and also influenced by the scheme and points of emphasis. If coach decides he's going with lots of tight end emphasis, tight end stats will improve. etc.

This should be stating the obvious, but when you replace a spread offense with a pro-style offense like Fleck did, that's going to expose individual match-ups (good and bad).

Going with a pro-style offense was a long-term decision. It wasn't designed or intended to show immediate results in year one. Agree or disagree with that strategy, that's what happened.

I also believe the offensive playbook was very vanilla in year one on purpose, in an effort to not "show their hand" to the rest of the MAC, plus make it easier on the players to learn a completely new playbook, at least in the beginning. I will look for the playbook to expand and wrinkles to be added in years two and three.

The results of that strategy remain to be seen, but we will surely find out in 2-3 years when the 2014, 2015, 2016, etc. recruiting classes take the field and are asked to execute. The way Fleck has been recruiting and quality of players he's been able to get to come here... I like our chances.

IMO, there is very little on-the-field results you can take away from year one, besides player development like CD pointed out. I saw a lot of below average players develop into decent players by the end of the season. I also saw a lot of guys who had "given up" or had a poor attitude towards the program leave at the end of the year, essentially a full cleansing for Fleck heading into 2014.

I like where we are heading in the long-term.

If the offense was vanilla for the reason of "not showing their hand" then Fleck deserves to be fired immediately. Football is about execution not surprises.

(06-01-2014 02:42 PM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  I also believe the offensive playbook was very vanilla in year one on purpose, in an effort to not "show their hand" to the rest of the MAC, plus make it easier on the players to learn a completely new playbook, at least in the beginning. I will look for the playbook to expand and wrinkles to be added in years two and three.

I stand by what I said. My issue with the offense is that it didn't look vanilla, it looked sporadic. No identity to it at all...

(06-01-2014 03:27 PM)jubbasubba Wrote:  I stand by what I said. My issue with the offense is that it didn't look vanilla, it looked sporadic. No identity to it at all...

It was more Neapolitan, which I usually like.

(06-01-2014 03:07 PM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 02:42 PM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  I also believe the offensive playbook was very vanilla in year one on purpose, in an effort to not "show their hand" to the rest of the MAC, plus make it easier on the players to learn a completely new playbook, at least in the beginning. I will look for the playbook to expand and wrinkles to be added in years two and three.

Yeah I don't buy that for a minute. You're either making that up or we are in worse shape than we know.

(05-30-2014 10:30 AM)Kimbosucks Wrote:  Much bigger problem than rtb. I couldn't tell what they were trying to do or why last year. If we see a change in this it will be a huge step forward.

Sorry, Hokey. we'll take word of standout former Bronco player and successful coach over your wishful thinking when it comes to evaluating what was seen on field last Fall.

(06-01-2014 04:46 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 10:30 AM)Kimbosucks Wrote:  Much bigger problem than rtb. I couldn't tell what they were trying to do or why last year. If we see a change in this it will be a huge step forward.

Sorry, Hokey. we'll take word of standout former Bronco player and successful coach over your wishful thinking when it comes to evaluating what was seen on field last Fall.

Goes without saying, you Kimbo and Jubba are all bookends regarding what you saw last year and why. Dip and HJ are using word games.

Which should I believe?!? Hmmm. Think think think...

That's fine. You are all entitled to your opinions. Everyone has a different perspective.

Oh, great here comes the all-knowing DesertBronco thousands of miles away piggybacking off the locals...

(06-01-2014 05:07 PM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  Oh, great here comes the all-knowing DesertBronco thousands of miles away piggybacking off the locals...

Easier to see clearly from Rockies than having one's nose ensconced in Peej's netheryaya.

Because I like what he's doing, and see the long-term potential in the program?

Surprised I haven't been called out for being in every other WMU coaches "netheryaya" yet. Strange that it's just P.J. you've noticed...

(06-01-2014 05:12 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 05:07 PM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  Oh, great here comes the all-knowing DesertBronco thousands of miles away piggybacking off the locals...

Easier to see clearly from Rockies than having one's nose ensconced in Peej's netheryaya.

so, the level of dialogue has come down to this.

(05-31-2014 11:16 AM)Chipdip2 Wrote:  You want Fleck to fail, so you pooh pooh every success the guy has recruiting, and literally hope that he fails as a coach because you're so damn invested in his failure now that you can't turn back.

The funny truth is that we are already seeing a few select individuals slightly alter their stance from, "He's annoying and he has no head coaching experience" to "I hope he wins and moves on so we don't have to deal with him anymore."

I said that from the beginning HJ.