Explain something to me...

[Birds of B'more]

Same quality of play was referring to if they had played just as well as they have this season, but were 4-2 or 5-1, which would likely be the case if they had the schedule I laid out.

I really don't see how you can make that assumption (that they'd be 5-1 or 4-2 with last season's schedule). But as I said in an earlier post, let's see how they do against the middle-of-the-pack ACC teams they'll play later on (UVA, @WF, @NCSU). Win those games and they can salvage the season and sneak into a bowl game. Lost them and it's 2009 all over again.

[mweb]

I really don't see how you can make that assumption (that they'd be 5-1 or 4-2 with last season's schedule). But as I said in an earlier post' date=' let's see how they do against the middle-of-the-pack ACC teams they'll play later on (UVA, @WF, @NCSU). Win those games and they can salvage the season and sneak into a bowl game. Lost them and it's 2009 all over again.[/quote']

I didn't even look at last years schedule, I'm just saying it is pretty likely they'd be 5-1 or 4-2 if you replace Clemson, GT, and Temple with Duke, BC, and a cream puff. And again, I said likely. Do you really think they wouldn't likely win 2 of those 3 games?

[Birds of B'more]

I didn't even look at last years schedule, I'm just saying it is pretty likely they'd be 5-1 or 4-2 if you replace Clemson, GT, and Temple with Duke, BC, and a cream puff. And again, I said likely. Do you really think they wouldn't likely win 2 of those 3 games?

I really don't know. Sure, they should beat BC this season, and on paper would probably beat Duke. But Duke isn't on the schedule, and neither are any other cream puffs. You have to play what is on your schedule. And that means you show up and give your best, even if that team happens to be Temple or Towson. And you don't blow 17-point leads in the 2nd half, whether your playing the #8 team or the #80 team. The argument that their talent is too superior doesn't fly....if they were that much better than you, then how in the hell did you get that 17-point lead in the first place? And why on earth do you let their top playmaker get the ball in his hands at every turn? That is almost the textbook definition of poor coaching

But I will actually defer to those who want to use the schedule as a crutch for some of the inexcusable things we've witnessed, and will look at the results of the late-season games against teams that aren't in Clemson or GT's league as a gauge. Your logic would suggest those are winnable games for MD on paper, and if that's the case the season won't seem so bad in retrospect. And if they don't win them......well, I certainly won't feel any better about the direction of the program than I do right now.

[JohnD]

So, Kenny Tate is now listed as second on the depth chart behind Mario Rowson????????????

Maybe that's just because of injury, but Demetrius Hartsfield isn't on there at all. I know DH didn't even dress on Saturday, and Tate was at least there I guess just in case. But still, something isn't adding up. Oh, and freshman Markus Leak is now ahead of Boykins as the starting WR. Leak looked ok the other day, and I believe is a transfer from Florida.

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/md/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2011-12/depth_chart_non_event/Depth_Chart.pdf

[Birds of B'more]

So, Kenny Tate is now listed as second on the depth chart behind Mario Rowson????????????

Maybe that's just because of injury, but Demetrius Hartsfield isn't on there at all. I know DH didn't even dress on Saturday, and Tate was at least there I guess just in case. But still, something isn't adding up. Oh, and freshman Markus Leak is now ahead of Boykins as the starting WR. Leak looked ok the other day, and I believe is a transfer from Florida.

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/md/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2011-12/depth_chart_non_event/Depth_Chart.pdf

We can only hope....because as bad as it sounds to hope someone remains injured, the alternative is even worse IMO. If Tate isn't cutting it a this "Star" position to the point of dropping him on the depth chart, then why on earth don't you just move him back to safety, where he probably belongs anyway?

[mweb]

I really don't know. Sure' date=' they should beat BC this season, and on paper would probably beat Duke. But Duke isn't on the schedule, and neither are any other cream puffs. You have to play what is on your schedule. And that means you show up and give your best, even if that team happens to be Temple or Towson. And you don't blow 17-point leads in the 2nd half, whether your playing the #8 team or the #80 team. The argument that their talent is too superior doesn't fly....if they were that much better than you, then how in the hell did you get that 17-point lead in the first place? And why on earth do you let their top playmaker get the ball in his hands at every turn? That is almost the textbook definition of poor coaching

But I will actually defer to those who want to use the schedule as a crutch for some of the inexcusable things we've witnessed, and will look at the results of the late-season games against teams that aren't in Clemson or GT's league as a gauge. Your logic would suggest those are winnable games for MD on paper, and if that's the case the season won't seem so bad in retrospect. And if they don't win them......well, I certainly won't feel any better about the direction of the program than I do right now.[/quote']

My main point is who you play matters and I really don't understand someone thinking otherwise. I don't get how someone can say everything is awful right now, but if they had played an easy schedule and played exactly the same way and had the same issues, the person would be happy with the MD football to date because they'd be 5-1 or whatever.

And again, I'm not pro Edsall, but when people go way over the top in criticism of him, I guess I will appear that way. If everyone was giving him a honeymoon period and excusing everything he was doing, I guess I'd appear anti Edsall.

[Flosman]

We can only hope....because as bad as it sounds to hope someone remains injured' date=' the alternative is even worse IMO. If Tate isn't cutting it a this "Star" position to the point of dropping him on the depth chart, then why on earth don't you just move him back to safety, where he probably belongs anyway?[/quote']

I have not studied the new DC's schemes but I suspect and have seen that one of the Safety positions simply does not exist for the most part in the current scheme. It has become vogue to play a lot of cover zero and one sided cover 1 man in football today. Tate is the exact body and skill set you look for in your hybrid DB/LB to run these schemes so that is where they moved him. I think you can be much better against the run while being more susceptible to getting beat over the top in these schemes.

[JohnD]

I'm not sure why he needed a "honeymoon" period. This was a top-25 team at the end of last season, with most of the team's top play makers returning. The team has regressed since last year. It's moving backwards.

[mweb]

I'm not sure why he needed a "honeymoon" period. This was a top-25 team at the end of last season, with most of the team's top play makers returning. The team has regressed since last year. It's moving backwards.

I don't know how you read my statement and concluded that I think he should have gotten a honeymoon period, but just to be clear, I do not think he should have.

[Flosman]

Brown has thrown 52 passes in six-plus quarters of football. That's 33 pass attempts a game. Fewer than O'Brien, but for a running quarterback who has accuracy issues, too many.

Is Danny a pocket passer or is he mobile? You say both in the same sentence. And in either case, why is he willing to switch play-calling for the backup quarterback but not for the starter?

You can't say this if you understand the spread option. Sure you would love to have a QB that completes more passes but the mix last week was pretty much right on target for what you are trying to do. The objective is to make 11 guys play disciplined defense and to take advantage of times where the defense fails to do so.

[CSB Jack]

So, Kenny Tate is now listed as second on the depth chart behind Mario Rowson????????????

Maybe that's just because of injury, but Demetrius Hartsfield isn't on there at all. I know DH didn't even dress on Saturday, and Tate was at least there I guess just in case. But still, something isn't adding up. Oh, and freshman Markus Leak is now ahead of Boykins as the starting WR. Leak looked ok the other day, and I believe is a transfer from Florida.

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/md/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2011-12/depth_chart_non_event/Depth_Chart.pdf

Leak has had his own share of drops but not as bad as Tyler, who had the most egregious one on Saturday. McCree and Boykins had drops also, if I recall correctly. Heck, the most reliable receiver all season has been Furstenburg by a long shot.

There has been a lot of discussion on the QB situation, and my take is that DOB has not looked good for most of this year. In some cases he has made bad reads, in some cases he has made bad throws, in some cases he should have taken off running instead of forcing a pass into coverage. And he has had the receivers drop passes for him as much or more as Brown had on Saturday.

But still, overall he is clearly a better passer than Brown. CJ had some nice passes, some of which were caught, some that were dropped, and one pretty impressive one that came back for a penalty. But he also had a high number that were just way off the mark and not even when under duress. Even with that, Brown did a good job overall because he ran for 160 yards and had the offense moving well enough to put points on the board. It's not Brown's fault that the team can't tackle.

I am a big DOB guy, but he has to do the job. I agree with those who say the coaching staff would have been better served to take advantage of the skills they had on the team and then recruit for what they want to become, rather than to try to force the system onto the talent they have on the roster. Even with that, I expected more out of Danny, based on what he showed last year plus the usual expected growth from a freshman to sophomore.

[Birds of B'more]

I have not studied the new DC's schemes but I suspect and have seen that one of the Safety positions simply does not exist for the most part in the current scheme. It has become vogue to play a lot of cover zero and one sided cover 1 man in football today. Tate is the exact body and skill set you look for in your hybrid DB/LB to run these schemes so that is where they moved him. I think you can be much better against the run while being more susceptible to getting beat over the top in these schemes.

OK. But something still doesn't seem right. The last time we saw Tate on the field was against Towson, and as best I can recall he did not have to leave the game or appear to be injured in any way. Then out of nowhere, a couple days before the GT game he's listed as doubtful. Now he certainly could have been injured in practice, but it was never stated that was the case, and to simply state he was injured in practice doesn't violate any confidentiality rules. So for the last two games he's been listed as doubtful, and yet in both games he was listed #2 on the depth chart and was dressed on the sidelines. Even if this new scheme dictates that his old safety position doesn't exist (such as it was), is he that bad at the new position that a true freshman passed him?

If nothing else, he and DOB can commiserate with each other about how their talents have become obsolete on a 2-4 team.

[Birds of B'more]

I agree with those who say the coaching staff would have been better served to take advantage of the skills they had on the team and then recruit for what they want to become, rather than to try to force the system onto the talent they have on the roster.

I think that is completely reasonable and the sign of a good coach. No one is suggesting that a new guy can't come in and make some changes, things like discipline, attention to detail and passing classes. But if you expect the players to change their habits for you, the least the coaches can do is meet them part way by utilizing schemes that play to the skills and talents of the team they inherited. Work with the sort of players you have, while you recruit the sort of players you want.

[BaltimoreTerp]

No I didn't. I said that DOB is a pocket passer who was benched for a guy who's mobile. Poorly written sentence, but it says that He [meaning the coach] benched a pocket passer [DOB] for a guy who's mobile [brown].

My apologies for misreading that. I see what you were going for.

Still though, if he's willing to change the offense to better use the skills of the backup, why not do the same for the starter if that player is struggling?

[Flosman]

I think that is completely reasonable and the sign of a good coach. No one is suggesting that a new guy can't come in and make some changes' date=' things like discipline, attention to detail and passing classes. But if you expect the players to change their habits for you, the least the coaches can do is meet them part way by utilizing schemes that play to the skills and talents of the team they inherited. Work with the sort of players you have, while you recruit the sort of players you want.[/quote']

Well I don't agree. I think you MUST coach what you believe in and make adjustments to put your players in the position to have success. If you don't do that you end up not being committed to what you are trying to do. I think that is what we saw early this year on offense. DOB is a good QB and it would be a shame to see him transfer because of the system change, however the Brown lead offense scored 38 points against a very good team. You should win that game every time. With the defense having a pick 6 it is even made worse in my eyes.

I really don't see how there can be much bad to say about the offense, however the defense looked really bad.