Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stitt Set This Program Back for Years

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    A bit of research on the internet, watched a few you-tube clips of Leach at Tech and Washington State, and you'd likely know that Leach's system is not at all like that of Stitt. Passing concepts are different. Leach is a Hal Mumme adherent, as is Sonny Dykes, Tony Franklin and roughly 15-20 other D1 FCS, FBS and DII schools. Stitt was pretty blunt what his passing schemes were and they are closer to Bill Walsh, Noel Mazzone than they are Leach's system. Leach's system of passing concepts are full field and not half field. You'll likely see more usage of trailer routes, late deep crosses and climb routes than you would in a traditional west coast system that is designed to get the ball out of the QB's hand as quickly as possible.

    Yes they are fast paced, they don't huddle. Really that is where the similarities end. Rosy is closer to Mumme, Franklin than he is to a west coast spread passing team. You'll see less RPO, more dedicated route combo's and the use of formations and alignment to set up hi-lo conflicts for the defense. Whereas a lot of the west coast RPO schemes are horizontally designed, that put second level players at conflict. Just like the Walsh 49ers teams of the 1980's. They use positional alignment and route combo's to isolate defensive players. A lot of the Leach system routes are designed to beat defenses holistically with route combo's.


    Comment


    • #17
      Please. So, West Coast offenses don't use a tight end? Right! You're trying to say that the West Coast offense still used by many NFL teams is closer to Stitt's offense than it is to Leach's? I ain't buyin'! Stitt's offense was no "half field" offense. We had plenty of long passing plays when he was here. So, you can watch a few plays on YouTube and make a generalization about an offense?
      Last edited by growler; 04-11-2018, 11:00 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Good heavens. You can run West Coast passing schemes out of double tight and double wing. You can run it in 5 WR systems. Whether it is the snag, the spot or the Y-Stick, it doesn't matter who runs it. You absolutely don't need a TE to run and he sure as heck doesn't need to be in a 3 pt stance and an inline blocker. This is from a play book of mine from four or five years ago. This passing system was based upon Tony Franklin and Mike Leach's passing concepts. If you look up West Coast passing concepts, this would be front and center. I have run this out of double tight and wing as well. In fact it is pretty sexy. That whip rout from the Z is an absolute killer.



        You can take the same design and apply it to 450 formations. The same with the Y stick, which was a staple of Stitt's RPO stuff, are all adaptations of West Coast stuff. Stitt was more of an adherent, rather than robbing a single play, most of his possession passing game. Including the Vertical Return routes, cover 2 hitch, and the myriad of play calls and audibles that attack specific personnel are right out the Walsh playbook.

        The desire to throw vertically on the edge, is almost always a Pre-read rather than an in play read. I have coached in programs that have used the above Franklin stuff and as well as West Coast concepts. The reason fundamentally, it is easier for high school kids and many college QB's to diagnose pre-snap deep route availability. For example, the Y corner really only works well against cover 3 or man, because if there is a safety over the top of Y (the corner), it is super hard to leverage the safety. If you throw that skinny post on the back side, it doesn't make sense to throw it again if there is two high. That is a pre-snap read as well. Secondly, you want QB's focused on a smaller space in play and not having his eyes haphazardly bouncing all over the place. So a lot of West Coast and Spread systems work high to low and then in a direction (Left or right) based upon whatever the system asks you do. Might be a player, might be grass, or route progression.

        This one is HI-Low-Checkdown. The rest are all pre-read (skinny post) or hot (quick slant).

        But a lot of programs have taken Walsh's possession passing and isolation concepts in a whole different direction these days. It doesn't require a TE and you absolutely need to have vertical threats to keep teams cheating into the box.

        Comment


        • #19
          I would also note this, the modern college adaptation of the West Coast (including what Noel Mazzone has done at his stops) is mix spread concepts and formations to create a whole system where the passing schemes are entirely West Coast and then mold into a running scheme that is frankly a lot more developed than the vast majority of Franklin-Leach systems. A lot of offensive schemes rob from West Coast concepts because fundamentally the read progressions and the pass route availability against 4-3 and 3-4 schemes is so effective. When you run 2x2 w/out a TE against 4-3, the stick, whip and Y corner stuff is so lethal. Partly because you are extending where the LB's have to play and the type of space they have to cover. The biggest reason to me, is clears the window for the QB. The west coast concept was to divide and conquer and that is precisely what the spread scheme was meant to do as well. So it is NOT coincidental at all that the two were married, either by individual route concepts and trees (like what Leach/Franklin do with their Y Corner series), RPO (what Stitt, Chip Kelley have done) or the whole scheme (Mazzone).

          I prefer the Leach-Franklin system because I think it is a more diverse passing concept and I am not a fan really of isolating one side of the field. There are some great advantages to designating sides of the field or pre-reading the defense pre-snap, more efficient and less risk averse for one, but I like the development and route progression philosophy especially against multiple defenses and coverages the use of the whole field that Franklin-Leach have espoused over the years.

          I honestly don't know where Rosenbach stands in this debate, but my guess he is a dedicated route progression guy versus an isolation and field designation guy.
          Last edited by Grizfan-24; 04-12-2018, 08:36 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            When you two say half field do you mean horizontally or vertically?

            Comment


            • #21
              Typically Vertically. If players are coached correctly, they'll know how a safety is going to respond if they are in one high, two high and in zone or man situations. Most QB's are going to struggle to read full field coverages. So most schemes, West Coast included, have you read one of the two safeties pre-snap and then you can pick the vertical release if the matchup looks good. I would say the vast majority of vertical routes are chosen before the snap than during it. You have to make your mind up super quick, maybe within a 1 or 2 count to throw that ball.

              Comment


              • #22
                24, I am sure you have impressed most of the posters on here with your coaching lingo and double-talk. It's just what you do when trying to defend a generalized comment you have made which holds no water. So be it. We're all duly-impressed at your command of coaching lingo, and feel that you are an NFL caliber coach just waiting to be discovered!

                Uh, just one little observation......... Mike Leach's roster has no tight ends. Bob Stitt's roster had no tight ends. Mike Leach's roster has no fullbacks. Bob Stitt's roster also had no fullbacks. ALL WEST COAST ROSTERS have both TEs and FBs on them, and use them most of the time. I hope these simple facts don't deter you from trying to defend the indefensible.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Bill Walsh never called the bubble screen to the extent that Stitt did. Walsh also employed both a TE and a FB extensively. Isn’t he the originator of the West Coast offensive? I don’t mean to throw gas on the fire here but.....
                  Last edited by CV Griz Fan; 04-12-2018, 09:40 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    West Coast is a scheme. A passing concept. You can use different personnel grouping to achieve the same end. In Walsh's era he used 2 back sets, TE and a single slot receiver. During the Green Bay years it was largely an ace scheme, with a TE and 3 WR's. During Andy Reid's time in Philadelphia there were more mixed groupings. The west coast scheme uses pass routes to isolate hole defenders. You can call it a triangle concept, but the design is to make the hole defender wrong.

                    The purpose of showing the play above is to show that same pass route out of a spread 2x2 scheme. If you were to diagram the vast majority of Stitt's play scheme over the past three to five years, and you remove the bubble and fast screens (cause that is a spread concept) and just look at the pass route trees, you are going to see a ton of similarities despite the differences in formations from the traditional West Coast mindset a lot of near mirrors to the route combo's that Walsh-Holmgren and others mastered.

                    Again, I will say it again. These are not my words, they are Bob Stitts.

                    https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...titt/72017958/
                    https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...fense/1659819/

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Well, if Bob Stitt said it, then it MUST be true! We all know what an offensive genius he is!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by CV Griz Fan View Post
                        Bill Walsh never called the bubble screen to the extent that Stitt did. Walsh also employed both a TE and a FB extensively. Isn’t he the originator of the West Coast offensive? I don’t mean to throw gas on the fire here but.....
                        I wonder if Jerry Rice would be in the hall of fame if Walsh would have called more bubble screens. Let's face it, Stitt was little more than a glorified high school coach. For as much as people trash Delaney, I give him more credit for the NDSU win than Stitt. The proof, look at the sharp decline after that game the team took during that season and moving forward. The year before, the Griz entered into Fargo terribly beaten up with injuries. They got pushed around but were in the game right up to the end. There was still remnants of the Griz when they entered into Wa-Griz against NDSU. After the game, Jim Rome came a calling and Stitt decided he knew how to change the landscape of football. A series of blunders ensued and thus the spiral downward.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          We ended up down this rabbit hole because there is a population of fans who have a decidedly negative opinion of everything Bob Stitt did. He didn’t win enough and he didn’t do enough things right. He still won roughly 60 percent of his games, graduated football players, and a ran a pretty tight ship while he was here. He recruited well for the most part, and despite opinions otherwise didn’t leave the program bare.

                          You talk to coaches and listen to people around the program, including Bobby (he has said it publicly) that he believes the program is in far better shape than it was when he took over in 2003. There are obviously real concerns, depth at corner and on the offensive line, and a few other schematic issues, but this program is hardly one that is in dire straits. I think it is incredibly easy to be pessimistic but from everything I gather is that the coaching staff is super pleased with the progress and the condition of the roster aside from a few notable issues.

                          What I have heard, and I do choose to believe it, that we aren’t three or four years from success but rather a much shorter time period. That doesn’t happen if the program was a shithole and Stitt set it back 30 years. Again I don’t think it is out of the realm for this team to compete not only for a Big Sky Conference Title, and with that a top 8 seed and I don’t think that happens if the program lacked talent or skill at key positions.

                          The real question isn’t offensively. I get the sense the connections and similarities between the base Stitt scheme and Rosy’s scheme allow for players offensively to accelerate their adjustment. The question is defensively. Can they make the transition between Semore’s multiple scheme to one that is philosophically so different. Heard the staff believes the talent is there, but whether they are going to navigate what is likely going to a significant scheme adjustment in the fronts and linebacking corps. The move to a 4-2 or 3-2/3-3 concept is pretty significant. The rules are different and that transition is going to cause a few bumps along the way. But I think over time, and some much needed game experience, the move to a much more schematically diverse scheme will avoid that pitfalls of the past two DC’s. These spread-centric defenses seem to have better answers for the diverse offensive schemes they’ll face than some of the traditional 4-3 and 3-4 schemes out there. I think some of the problems will be addressed that have killed the Griz in recent years. Adjustments to unique scheme and adaptations that will produce results. Those adjustments I think will bring noticeable improvement, in spite of the depth issues in the secondary. Will it mean a top flight defense? Probably not, but I feel the schemes that have been floated out there will bring some noticible changes to not only how they do things but will increase success during games.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            You continue to try to pump-up the inept 3 years under Bob Stitt, with no valid reasons or observations. I like how you always tell us "what you have heard" from coaches and "insiders". But, you live in California, so how is it that you always seem to have inside opinions which you love throw out on here? Many of us who post here also know coaches and ex-players close to the program, so we also hear lots of things. I can assure you that MY sources do not support your contentions that Bobby Hauck thinks Stitt left the program in great shape. In fact, I posted a direct quote from Bobby in which he lamented the plethora of WRs, the paucity of good O-linemen, and his need to move players into different positions to provide a "serviceable" (his words) solution. Does that sound like a coach happy with the roster left to him???

                            I can honestly tell you that you are the only individual with coaching experience who thinks that Bob Stitt was not totally over-his-head coaching at this level. Perhaps more revealing is the fact that Stitt was not able to secure another head coaching position after he was fired here.

                            Finally, you must be hitting the crack pipe if you think that the roster Stitt left Bobby is even REMOTELY better than the one Bobby inherited in 2003! Let me throw out a few of the stars from that 2003 team which Bobby inherited.........Craig Ochs, Justin Green, Jon Talmage, Levander Segars, Jefferson Heidlberger, Dave DeCoite, Tuff Harris, Vernon Smith, Tate Hancock, Dustin Dhlouy, Tim Bush, Ciche Pitcher, Cory Proctor, Dylan McFarland. Let's see, I Green, Harris, Proctor & McFarland all played in the NFL. Several others signed FA contracts or Canadian football contracts. Please name a single player on the current roster who might play in the NFL?


                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Excellent post. I might add that the Head Coach is also responsible for the Defense and Special Teams. How did that turn out with the previous coaching genius?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                You know what Growler, you can continue to pivot this conversation. Those were his words not mine. If Bobby says that he likes the health of program, the makeup of the roster and the depth of athleticism across the roster, I am going to take it. Doesn't mean it is perfect, or that it doesn't have holes, I just get the sense from some that there are some people that would love to see the program go 6-5 or worse just to prove the point that Stitt ran the program into the shitter.

                                Maybe he was overmatched, maybe he didn't do things to your liking and that is fine, but it is hardly like there isn't enough talent or athleticism on that roster for this upcoming team to finish at or near at the top of the conference. Because Bobby is more refined, and he does the small things well. Defense and Special Teams are likely to be better and the offense even with a green OL, should put up numbers similar to last year.

                                Here is the point, Bobby goes 8-3 and he wins in spite of the prior staff. He goes 6-5 it is in because of the prior staff. You can have it both ways if you want it, and that is fine with me. I am not creating some sort of false narrative. All the stuff I have been told, from here in Southern California, come from people that are a lot more right than wrong. I don't give a shit if is staff members or ex players. The coaching staff is bullish on the group of kids they have. They know they need help on the OL and at corner, and I don't think that is a secret at all, but at least from what I have been told they are confident that some help can be found, and what they have isn't hardly chuck roast. Good enough to go to battle with. Again, I'll take it. I think it is possible to be critical of stitt, while at the same time give him credit for doing some good things for the program. If our current head coach and staff can, I don't know why we can't.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X