Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stitt Set This Program Back for Years

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

  • #31
    Stitt did NOTHING good for the program! Period! He was a complete joke as a recruiter, and a leader of young men. What the f_ck do your buddies in southern California know about the current state of Montana football? I notice you did not respond when I listed all of the great players that Bobby inherited from Glen in 2003, and challenged you to come up with some current players equal to this group. You make stupid statements, then hide when asked to support them. We all get that you have always fellated Bob Stitt........... not that there is anything wrong with that.

    I have been very critical of Bobby Hauck during his first tenure here....... mostly because of his recruiting of thugs, but also for his penchant to get a big lead, then play cozy "not-to-lose" football. I hate that style!

    Bobby is not a miracle worker, as so many fans think. The roster that he has been left with is full of holes, and has little depth at key positions. I am not expecting a great season this year, and probably not next season either. Hauck will need 2-3 recruiting classes and seasons to re-built this pansy-assed soft culture that Stitt instilled.

    Comment


    • #32
      Okay.

      I didn't need to respond. I was using Bobby's words. Your beef is with Bobby then.

      I'll stand by my stance and perspective until proven otherwise. I am of the belief this team, with a few changes that are achievable and likely, paired with a very favorable schedule can win the conference. There is no doubt this is the softest conference schedule we have had in five or so years. Just looking at the conference schedule, 8-0 is not out of the stretch of imagination but a 7-1 record seems entirely attainable.

      If the staff is bullish on the roster, as well as the schedule. I'll take it. If you have been told otherwise, that is fine.


      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Grizfan-24 View Post
        Okay.

        I didn't need to respond. I was using Bobby's words. Your beef is with Bobby then.

        I'll stand by my stance and perspective until proven otherwise. I am of the belief this team, with a few changes that are achievable and likely, paired with a very favorable schedule can win the conference. There is no doubt this is the softest conference schedule we have had in five or so years. Just looking at the conference schedule, 8-0 is not out of the stretch of imagination but a 7-1 record seems entirely attainable.

        If the staff is bullish on the roster, as well as the schedule. I'll take it. If you have been told otherwise, that is fine.

        Why don't you show us where Bobby has stated that he is bullish on the roster? I have already provided a DIRECT QUOTE from him staing that there are too many WRs, little depth, and the need to move players around to fill holes. Does that sound like a coach bullish on his roster? All new coaches strive to minimize inherited problems from the previous staff to be politically -correct.

        As for the schedule...... we could easily lose to Northern Iowa and Western Illinois. And, our last three games will be challenges to win too, with road games at Southern Utah and Idaho, plus a home game with the Cats.
        Last edited by growler; 04-15-2018, 08:18 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          I look forward to watching a well coached team. The Griz will be hard to beat and we won’t lose to state college.

          Comment


          • #35
            While I’m of the opinion that Stitt was in way over his head, I’m not sure things are quite as bad as others seem to. Obviously his over recruiting of some positions while seemingly ignoring others does not speak well for his HC abilities. I think Hauck has made enough thinly veiled jabs at the last staff in the press in order to back that. Regardless of how thinly veiled his remarks have been publicly, the remarks he’s made to certain people have not been veiled, thinly or otherwise. Is a total rebuild in the works? I don’t think “total” but definitely need to reinforce the foundation and the load bearing walls could use some help. The O line is a worry for all of us but I do think the changes in blocking scheme will help give the O line a better chance than what we saw for the last three years. I especially like the outside zone or “stretch” play that they ran a few times Saturday. Reminds me of the last time BH was here and Chase was in the backfield. Do we have a RB with the vision to take advantage of it? Time will tell, but there’s a stable of them for damn sure. Obviously we’ve got WR’s.
            Just to paraphrase what 24 was saying. Route CONCEPTS are NOT usually formation dependent. A pretty good coach once told me, “I don’t need 300 plays to run an offense. I need 30 good plays I can run out of 10 different formations.”
            Grudens favorite play, the Spider 2 Y Banana is a perfect example of a play that is heavily used by West Coast style teams but I’ve seen high school spread teams run it. Good solid football route concepts are generally easy to adapt, regardless of what “style” of offense you run.
            Last edited by Robgriz; 04-16-2018, 10:26 AM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Robgriz View Post
              While I’m of the opinion that Stitt was in way over his head, I’m not sure things are quite as bad as others seem to. Obviously his over recruiting of some positions while seemingly ignoring others does not speak well for his HC abilities. I think Hauck has made enough thinly veiled jabs at the last staff in the press in order to back that. Regardless of how thinly veiled his remarks have been publicly, the remarks he’s made to certain people have not been veiled, thinly or otherwise. Is a total rebuild in the works? I don’t think “total” but definitely need to reinforce the foundation and the load bearing walls could use some help. The O line is a worry for all of us but I do think the changes in blocking scheme will help give the O line a better chance than what we saw for the last three years. I especially like the outside zone or “stretch” play that they ran a few times Saturday. Reminds me of the last time BH was here and Chase was in the backfield. Do we have a RB with the vision to take advantage of it? Time will tell, but there’s a stable of them for damn sure. Obviously we’ve got WR’s.
              Just to paraphrase what 24 was saying. Route CONCEPTS are NOT usually formation dependent. A pretty good coach once told me, “I don’t need 300 plays to run an offense. I need 30 good plays I can run out of 10 different formations.”
              Grudens favorite play, the Spider 2 Y Banana is a perfect example of a play that is heavily used by West Coast style teams but I’ve seen high school spread teams run it. Good solid football route concepts are generally easy to adapt, regardless of what “style” of offense you run.
              And your point is........? 24 said that Stitt's offense is more similar to a West Coast offense rather than a run-n-shoot offense. And I called bullsh*t on that. He then tried to spin it by talking about route concepts. West Coast offenses utilize a fullback and tight end in their base offense. Stitt did not even have personnel at those two positions on his roster. So, are you agreeing with 24?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by growler View Post

                And your point is........? 24 said that Stitt's offense is more similar to a West Coast offense rather than a run-n-shoot offense. And I called bullsh*t on that. He then tried to spin it by talking about route concepts. West Coast offenses utilize a fullback and tight end in their base offense. Stitt did not even have personnel at those two positions on his roster. So, are you agreeing with 24?
                As far as his route concept argument goes? Yes, but only because he’s right. See, it’s times like this when your football IQ, or rather lack of it, show up. You have no idea what a route concept is and you prove it by believing a team without a fullback or TE can’t run the exact same route tree as one that does. You get hung up on semantics and position names so much that you can’t see that an H-back or a slot receiver can run the same route as a tight-end or that you can put the “y” in motion so he can run the fullback route. In other words you think you’re at a collegiate level when it comes to football knowledge but you’re barely out of youth league. Also, you owe me dinner.
                Last edited by Robgriz; 04-16-2018, 08:39 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Look dude, there are a finite number of routes that can be run be ANY offense. What that means is that your hallowed "route tree" could be run even by Cal Poly in their triple option on a given play. Does that mean that Poly's offense is more similar to the West Coast offense than the triple option? No, it doesn't. If you are trying to prove your football IQ by using the fact that Stitt's "route trees" sometimes looked more like a West Coast offense than the run-n-shoot, while conveniently forgetting that a fullback could NEVER have the quickness to run a pattern in the same matter as one of the 5 WRs in Stitt's offense, then you lose the argument. 24 made a generalized statement saying that Stitt's OFFENSE WAS MORE LIKE A WEST COAST OFFENSE THAN MIKE LEACH's WSU OFFENSE. That statement is 100% WRONG, route trees or no route trees! Don't try to denigrate my football knowledge with your weak-assed route tree stuff. What does a D-line grunt know about offense anyway? You spent the entire game smelling the arm pits of O-linemen, and have no clue what routes the offense was running!

                  Oh, and how is it that I owe you a dinner?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by growler View Post
                    Look dude, there are a finite number of routes that can be run be ANY offense. What that means is that your hallowed "route tree" could be run even by Cal Poly in their triple option on a given play. Does that mean that Poly's offense is more similar to the West Coast offense than the triple option? No, it doesn't. If you are trying to prove your football IQ by using the fact that Stitt's "route trees" sometimes looked more like a West Coast offense than the run-n-shoot, while conveniently forgetting that a fullback could NEVER have the quickness to run a pattern in the same matter as one of the 5 WRs in Stitt's offense, then you lose the argument. 24 made a generalized statement saying that Stitt's OFFENSE WAS MORE LIKE A WEST COAST OFFENSE THAN MIKE LEACH's WSU OFFENSE. That statement is 100% WRONG, route trees or no route trees! Don't try to denigrate my football knowledge with your weak-assed route tree stuff. What does a D-line grunt know about offense anyway? You spent the entire game smelling the arm pits of O-linemen, and have no clue what routes the offense was running!

                    Oh, and how is it that I owe you a dinner?
                    Look dude, I didn’t say shit about Stitt, if you want to have that argument with 24 be my guest. I only agreed that he was correct about route concepts and the fact that a spread team can utilize west coast concepts. Sure there might be a finite number of routes however the way those routes can be utilized is not finite. If it were it would be a lot easier for defenses. Your problem is that you are hung up on player positions and the routes themselves and not how they are run, why they are run nor when they are run.
                    The picture is of a VERY common west coast staple, 82 snag, that ANYONE that was paying attention to our offense over the last 3 years should recognize as we ran it a ton, with obvious variations. Or at least they should be obvious. Despite the variations the CONCEPT remained the same. As far as me being a D-line grunt, I was one and proudly so. However, I also love this game and I’ve been around some really good coaches. By keeping my mouth shut and my ears open I learned a lot. It’s a formula I’d suggest to anyone that wants to learn this game, it isn’t that hard.
                    Apparently you forgot our bet about the QB from Texas.
                    Last edited by Robgriz; 04-17-2018, 09:45 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      This is a frivolous argument. Fifty percent of the time we had a route twig. Bubble screen to JLM. Call it the any direction, spread out, bunched up Super Duper Bob Stitt offense. Same old shit every game.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by glendivegriz View Post
                        This is a frivolous argument. Fifty percent of the time we had a route twig. Bubble screen to JLM. Call it the any direction, spread out, bunched up Super Duper Bob Stitt offense. Same old shit every game.
                        LOL, true story.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Robgriz View Post

                          Look dude, I didn’t say shit about Stitt, if you want to have that argument with 24 be my guest. I only agreed that he was correct about route concepts and the fact that a spread team can utilize west coast concepts. Sure there might be a finite number of routes however the way those routes can be utilized is not finite. If it were it would be a lot easier for defenses. Your problem is that you are hung up on player positions and the routes themselves and not how they are run, why they are run nor when they are run.
                          The picture is of a VERY common west coast staple, 82 snag, that ANYONE that was paying attention to our offense over the last 3 years should recognize as we ran it a ton, with obvious variations. Or at least they should be obvious. Despite the variations the CONCEPT remained the same. As far as me being a D-line grunt, I was one and proudly so. However, I also love this game and I’ve been around some really good coaches. By keeping my mouth shut and my ears open I learned a lot. It’s a formula I’d suggest to anyone that wants to learn this game, it isn’t that hard.
                          Apparently you forgot our bet about the QB from Texas.
                          I am not going to get into a pissing contest with you over a single play that Stitt MAY have run! I understand more about the game than you might think. But, Stitt did NOT run the snag route a ton, as you suggested, because the snag has a first option to the RB, and Stitt did not utilize passes to the RB that much. In fact, I was very critical of his offense for not involving the RB in the passing game much more than he did. He much preferred the bubble screen, which is why I appropriately named him "Bubble Screen Bob". Stitt did use the "82" line-blocking concept, which was consistent with his zone blocking preference. However, one of the primary elements of the West Coast route tree which you are so freaking hung-up on is the "seam read route" by the slot receiver. I don't recall JLM ever splitting the two-deep safeties and going long down the middle of the field. He did go long sometimes, but I only remember him going long on slugo type routes.

                          Yes, I have forgotten any bet with you about a QB from Texas. Please refresh my memory.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I have been a defensive coach for probably 3/4ers of my career, and have learned more about offense than I probably would have had I been an offensive coach. I definitely understand a lot more about scheme design of offenses. But I learned about the game in a similar way to Robgriz, by watching, listening and watching some more.

                            Stitt believed in his offensive philosophy because he had done his homework. I think while there were some schematic issues that I would quibble with, and fast screens weren’t one of them, his scheme was largely successful here. The reason he was’t successful wasn’t offensively. I just don’t understand why we keep going down that path. His offensive was successful. The other facets weren’t. I love multiple defenses, but Semore’s version wasn’t good. Stitt bet on Semore being a better version than Gregorak, and he wasn’t.

                            The development of the program going forward, I think hinges on how well Hauck’s staff can mold and manipulate the roster to get what they want out of it. You can criticize Stitt for blowing up the roster, and I still don’t think that was a bad choice, but you are betting heavily on development of the skill that you bring in. I think Stitt and staff could and did recruit well, and I think it’ll play out that way, but what was evident that his position coaches were not as good developmentally. Nor could the scheme defensively get the personnel they recruited perform at a higher level. Had Semore’s defense been only modestly better than it was, I think we are at a different point obviously. But that is all water under the bridge at this point.

                            Like I said before, despite some noticeable holes positionally, as much as has been communicated to me there is a belief that they can compete and do so well this year. The issue won’t be offensively, but rather defensively. Just don’t think the roster construction on defense despite its lack of secondary help, was ever going to transition well from a 40 scheme to a base 30 concept. They are going to have to recruit some very specific personnel up front and in the secondary to make the scheme work, and that unto itself was always going to be a 2-3 year process. What makes this transition a bit easier I think, is the level athleticism at DE and at LB. We would have been in a world of hurt if they would have transitioned from Gregoraks 4-3 to this system.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by growler View Post

                              I am not going to get into a pissing contest with you over a single play that Stitt MAY have run! I understand more about the game than you might think. But, Stitt did NOT run the snag route a ton, as you suggested, because the snag has a first option to the RB, and Stitt did not utilize passes to the RB that much. In fact, I was very critical of his offense for not involving the RB in the passing game much more than he did. He much preferred the bubble screen, which is why I appropriately named him "Bubble Screen Bob". Stitt did use the "82" line-blocking concept, which was consistent with his zone blocking preference. However, one of the primary elements of the West Coast route tree which you are so freaking hung-up on is the "seam read route" by the slot receiver. I don't recall JLM ever splitting the two-deep safeties and going long down the middle of the field. He did go long sometimes, but I only remember him going long on slugo type routes.

                              Yes, I have forgotten any bet with you about a QB from Texas. Please refresh my memory.
                              The reason you aren’t going to get into a pissing contest with me is because of all of the arguments you and I have had you’ve yet to win one. And yes we did run the Snag quite a bit, you probably didn’t recognize it because as I said there were some variations, I thought they were quite obvious but apparently not. I bet every time you saw a swing route you thought old Bob called another bubble screen, huh? AND AGAIN, my argument was NEVER about Stitt, dumbass, it was about whether or not a spread offense can be run with west coast passing concepts, which you believe they can’t because #fullback. The difference between you and I is, one of us knows the difference between a “route” which is singular and “route concepts” which is why you run the route and how it fits into the play with the rest of the routes being run. I know one thing for sure, if you’re going to run a “seam” straight up the middle, you better have something else going on to pull the safeties. Overlapping coverage in the middle of the field is a strength of cover 2, not a weakness which is why you need, you know, route concepts.
                              And you know damn good and well what bet I’m talking about but I was told you’d crawfish on it and you did...shocking. Don’t worry I’ll get Alpha scouring the old site, he’ll find it. Barclay II, here we come!
                              Last edited by Robgriz; 04-17-2018, 01:34 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Robgriz View Post

                                The reason you aren’t going to get into a pissing contest with me is because of all of the arguments you and I have had you’ve yet to win one. And yes we did run the Snag quite a bit, you probably didn’t recognize it because as I said there were some variations, I thought they were quite obvious but apparently not. I bet every time you saw a swing route you thought old Bob called another bubble screen, huh? AND AGAIN, my argument was NEVER about Stitt, dumbass, it was about whether or not a spread offense can be run with west coast passing concepts, which you believe they can’t because #fullback. The difference between you and I is, one of us knows the difference between a “route” which is singular and “route concepts” which is why you run the route and how it fits into the play with the rest of the routes being run. I know one thing for sure, if you’re going to run a “seam” straight up the middle, you better have something else going on to pull the safeties. Overlapping coverage in the middle of the field is a strength of cover 2, not a weakness which is why you need, you know, route concepts.
                                And you know damn good and well what bet I’m talking about but I was told you’d crawfish on it and you did...shocking. Don’t worry I’ll get Alpha scouring the old site, he’ll find it. Barclay II, here we come!
                                First, I NEVER welch on a bet, period. I asked you to tell me what the bet was and all you do is blather on. If I made a bet with you, simply remind me what is was and I will gladly pay the bet (if I lost it) when I arrive in Missoula in June. Why don't you stifle the 8th grade name calling, because it only makes your argument look weak and shows desperation on your part. I might add that your idea of "winning" arguments occurs only in your head, but if it makes you feel better, go for it. Uh, EVERY college offense runs the snag route at times. So what? Does that mean that Stitt's offense more resembled the West Coast offense more than the Mike Leach offense?? No, it doesn't. But don't let facts deter you from going down that shit hole!

                                You see, your argument is apples and oranges. I challenged 24 in making a generalized statement that Stitt's offense better resembled the West Coast offense than the WASSU offense, and I challenged that. Does that mean that some of his formations might have used some West Coast routes? No! But then, as I pointed out, Cal Poly could also use some West Coast routes on passing plays, and we all know that their offense could not be more different than the West Coast offense. Stitt's offense, with no FB and no TE on the roster, is the most extreme version of the spread, and no one who understands the game of football would EVER compare it to the West Coast offense!

                                I am now done with this discussion. If you want to chalk-up another "win" in your mind, then by all means do so. Personally, I don't feel the need to "win" an argument when discussing apples and oranges, which is the case here.
                                Last edited by growler; 04-17-2018, 05:08 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X