An invitation to those with Krameritis

[Platinumcat]

I believe it was helcat72 that made an interesting post the other day regarding football knowledge before and after havng Kramer break down a few things in a QBC meeting in Helena.

I would like to invite those of you who don't take much faith in Kramer and his staff to go and listen to him talk.

There's so much more to what's going on then what we as casual fans see during a game. I really don't think that Kramer and his staff get enough props for what they do. Conversely, I believe that they are also blamed for too much of what happens during a game. The offense is so much more complicated then what any of us ran in high school. The players have a lot of responsibility to make decisions before the snap of the ball and when poor decisions on their part cause the play to go wrong, we say it's the coach's fault...they were taught the proper reads and progression but didn't execute it during that play.
We make comments about them not adjusting on defense when in actuality they did....the players just didn't make the plays. It is here where Kramer takes responsibility in that ineffective players were left in and not replaced.

So, go listen, ask questions regarding your concerns. I've found him very willing to answer any questions thrown at him. But, be ready for a straight forward, no fluff, answer.

[Cledus]

I'm reminded of something Bill Callahan said and what Steve Spurrier said in response.

Bill Callahan was ripping on some of his players last year after a game in which Nebraska lost. To the media, no less. Some sportscaster (I forget who) mentioned that Callahan was lambasted in Oakland for doing the same thing.

Spurrier commented indirectly by saying if players aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing or are lined up incorrectly, that falls on the coach because the coach has done a poor job of teaching.

So yeah, I think there's no question there's a lot of behind the scenes stuff the casual fan will never see. Shoot, it'd probably make my head spin.

However, the fact remains if players aren't executing it falls back to the coaches. That can only mean the coaches have failed. Failed to communicate their message and failed to make sure the players understand.

When I was in the military, negative reinforcement worked wonders. When you mess up, you get the piss thrased out of you ("thrashing" in military speak is hours of calisthenics) all the while someone's yelling in your ear about how you messed up and what you're going to do to not f**k up any more. Over time, the pain didn't stop until the behavior changed. I can't recall anybody for whom that did not work.

To say the players aren't executing is a total cop out.

My two cents

[crazycat]

I'm reminded of something Bill Callahan said and what Steve Spurrier said in response.

Bill Callahan was ripping on some of his players last year after a game in which Nebraska lost. To the media, no less. Some sportscaster (I forget who) mentioned that Callahan was lambasted in Oakland for doing the same thing.

Spurrier commented indirectly by saying if players aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing or are lined up incorrectly, that falls on the coach because the coach has done a poor job of teaching.

So yeah, I think there's no question there's a lot of behind the scenes stuff the casual fan will never see. Shoot, it'd probably make my head spin.

However, the fact remains if players aren't executing it falls back to the coaches. That can only mean the coaches have failed. Failed to communicate their message and failed to make sure the players understand.

When I was in the military, negative reinforcement worked wonders. When you mess up, you get the piss thrased out of you ("thrashing" in military speak is hours of calisthenics) all the while someone's yelling in your ear about how you messed up and what you're going to do to not f**k up any more. Over time, the pain didn't stop until the behavior changed. I can't recall anybody for whom that did not work.

To say the players aren't executing is a total cop out.

My two cents

When your sarge was barking in your ear (as Kramer and the other coaches do to their players at practice) it was probably because you weren't executing. I'm sure if the local reporter for the Camp Pendleton Times interviewed your sarge about this he'd tell the reporter that you weren't executing. Saying they aren't executing is the PC way to go about this. I doubt any of the coaches get in a players face and say the word executing, unless they're refering to what they'll do to them if they continue to screw up.

I think a cop out is when fans simply blame it on the coach w/o knowing what's really going on.

[Platinumcat]

I'm reminded of something Bill Callahan said and what Steve Spurrier said in response.

Bill Callahan was ripping on some of his players last year after a game in which Nebraska lost. To the media, no less. Some sportscaster (I forget who) mentioned that Callahan was lambasted in Oakland for doing the same thing.

Spurrier commented indirectly by saying if players aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing or are lined up incorrectly, that falls on the coach because the coach has done a poor job of teaching.

So yeah, I think there's no question there's a lot of behind the scenes stuff the casual fan will never see. Shoot, it'd probably make my head spin.

However, the fact remains if players aren't executing it falls back to the coaches. That can only mean the coaches have failed. Failed to communicate their message and failed to make sure the players understand.

When I was in the military, negative reinforcement worked wonders. When you mess up, you get the piss thrased out of you ("thrashing" in military speak is hours of calisthenics) all the while someone's yelling in your ear about how you messed up and what you're going to do to not f**k up any more. Over time, the pain didn't stop until the behavior changed. I can't recall anybody for whom that did not work.

To say the players aren't executing is a total cop out.

My two cents

Cledus,
While I respect your opinion and agree with you on the negative reinforcement thing (in college we once had to run 50 yard sprints in practice one Monday for 1 1/2 hours because of some screw ups the weekend before in a homecoming VICTORY!), I honestly feel that in today's society this whole "everything falls back on the coach" theory is just a bunch of PC crap. Sure coaches say things in public that are modest and just the words we all want to hear. But, do you really think in the football offices they're sitting there saying things like "Boy I sure wish I would have told that player to lineup outside shade in that formation instead of inside shade? I gurantee you not!!!! Those players have been insructed in the proper place to line up and to go during a play. What they are saying in that office is probably more along the lines of what your drill sergeant was saying to you when you were getting "thrashed". Football coaches just can't say that to the public, and we all know why. Why do you suppose Kramer chewed the asses of his coaches on Sunday and Monday? It's not from a lack of coaching technique, it's that the time had come to bring out the drill sergeant in those guys and get tough.

That's my $.02

[Bleedinbluengold]

Let me preface by saying I know enough about the Cat offense and defense just to be dangerous and ignorant.

However, it has always been my concern, especially with Bailey's offense, that the system might be too complicated in many respects. That's why I get frustrated with games like last week's game when our guys are bigger, stronger and faster, and our game plan seems to be to out-system the opponent, instead of just beating them down on the offensive and defensive lines.

Last week, in my opinion, was a classic example of, perhaps, panicking when there was no need to panic. Being down 14 (and later 18 by half), why not just continue to hammer the run? Maybe 1 game out of 100, a team that throws 50+ and runs 15 will win. In hindsight, perhaps it would have been better to emphasize the run even more, even if not successful early on. That would maybe have done two things. First, it would have allowed our offensive line to go out and smash somebody (which all O-line guys like doing), and two, by doing that, it would have allowed everyone to spend some of that extra adrenaline and get comfortable in the game. I guess there's a third thing, too. Third, by having success running the ball, that would have helped the passing game, and would have taken the pressure of the D. The defense was probably thinking that they had to make the big plays, and unfortunately, they kept getting caught out of position, not sticking to their individual responsiblity and not making the plays they plays they know they can make. In other words, everyone started trying to make the other guys play, instead of just sticking to their own responsiblity.

[CARDIAC_CATS]

Let me preface by saying I know enough about the Cat offense and defense just to be dangerous and ignorant.

However, it has always been my concern, especially with Bailey's offense, that the system might be too complicated in many respects. That's why I get frustrated with games like last week's game when our guys are bigger, stronger and faster, and our game plan seems to be to out-system the opponent, instead of just beating them down on the offensive and defensive lines.

Last week, in my opinion, was a classic example of, perhaps, panicking when there was no need to panic. Being down 14 (and later 18 by half), why not just continue to hammer the run? Maybe 1 game out of 100, a team that throws 50+ and runs 15 will win. In hindsight, perhaps it would have been better to emphasize the run even more, even if not successful early on. That would maybe have done two things. First, it would have allowed our offensive line to go out and smash somebody (which all O-line guys like doing), and two, by doing that, it would have allowed everyone to spend some of that extra adrenaline and get comfortable in the game. I guess there's a third thing, too. Third, by having success running the ball, that would have helped the passing game, and would have taken the pressure of the D. The defense was probably thinking that they had to make the big plays, and unfortunately, they kept getting caught out of position, not sticking to their individual responsiblity and not making the plays they plays they know they can make. In other words, everyone started trying to make the other guys play, instead of just sticking to their own responsiblity.

Excellent post. While I like Bailey we should have punched Chadron in the mouth the whole game. We were way to 'CUTE' in our play calling last week I thought. This week, we need to have balance.

[Cat Grad]

Let me preface by saying I know enough about the Cat offense and defense just to be dangerous and ignorant.

However, it has always been my concern, especially with Bailey's offense, that the system might be too complicated in many respects. That's why I get frustrated with games like last week's game when our guys are bigger, stronger and faster, and our game plan seems to be to out-system the opponent, instead of just beating them down on the offensive and defensive lines.

Last week, in my opinion, was a classic example of, perhaps, panicking when there was no need to panic. Being down 14 (and later 18 by half), why not just continue to hammer the run? Maybe 1 game out of 100, a team that throws 50+ and runs 15 will win. In hindsight, perhaps it would have been better to emphasize the run even more, even if not successful early on. That would maybe have done two things. First, it would have allowed our offensive line to go out and smash somebody (which all O-line guys like doing), and two, by doing that, it would have allowed everyone to spend some of that extra adrenaline and get comfortable in the game. I guess there's a third thing, too. Third, by having success running the ball, that would have helped the passing game, and would have taken the pressure of the D. The defense was probably thinking that they had to make the big plays, and unfortunately, they kept getting caught out of position, not sticking to their individual responsiblity and not making the plays they plays they know they can make. In other words, everyone started trying to make the other guys play, instead of just sticking to their own responsiblity.

Excellent post. While I like Bailey we should have punched Chadron in the mouth the whole game. We were way to 'CUTE' in our play calling last week I thought. This week, we need to have balance.

Great point. Like the senior company grade officers or junior NCOs, just enough to be dangerous Anyway, when in deep stuff, simplify instead of going back to the huddle and drawing up new plays on the sandtable. We know Bailey can create all types of plays, but when there's too much to install in one week, we'll continue to waste time outs, kids will hit the wrong holes, run the wrong routes...and not execute. Time for some football instead of Mouse Davis...

[kmax]

Let me preface by saying I know enough about the Cat offense and defense just to be dangerous and ignorant.

However, it has always been my concern, especially with Bailey's offense, that the system might be too complicated in many respects. That's why I get frustrated with games like last week's game when our guys are bigger, stronger and faster, and our game plan seems to be to out-system the opponent, instead of just beating them down on the offensive and defensive lines.

Last week, in my opinion, was a classic example of, perhaps, panicking when there was no need to panic. Being down 14 (and later 18 by half), why not just continue to hammer the run? Maybe 1 game out of 100, a team that throws 50+ and runs 15 will win. In hindsight, perhaps it would have been better to emphasize the run even more, even if not successful early on. That would maybe have done two things. First, it would have allowed our offensive line to go out and smash somebody (which all O-line guys like doing), and two, by doing that, it would have allowed everyone to spend some of that extra adrenaline and get comfortable in the game. I guess there's a third thing, too. Third, by having success running the ball, that would have helped the passing game, and would have taken the pressure of the D. The defense was probably thinking that they had to make the big plays, and unfortunately, they kept getting caught out of position, not sticking to their individual responsiblity and not making the plays they plays they know they can make. In other words, everyone started trying to make the other guys play, instead of just sticking to their own responsiblity.

Excellent post BBG.

You know last week leading up to the game, I was struck by the ironic similarities between how we were acting towards Chadron vs. how Buff fans acted toward us. I wasn't going to say anything, but it was striking when reading things like the predications and such. Reading your post, just completes the whole loop. Go read some Buff sites about the MSU game and you will see them saying the same thing. When you have got size (okay not as much with us and the Buffs) and depth on your side, forget the cute and wear em down and punish as much as possible. There is a reason that inter-division games 9 times out of 10 follow the trend of close early and then the higher team pulls away. This is a time tested method, and when you try to get too cute and rely on system and how much more "talented" you are it opens the door for an upset. I feel that CU, and now MSU, learned this the hard way this year.

[CelticCat]

CU didn't run anything fancy though. They took shots downfield and couldn't connect, that is about it. Their running game was very vanilla.

While I don't agree necessarily that you should just play bland, hard-nose football (you need to get practice in for everybody, including practicing the plays in game situations), when it obviously isn't working, and running straight at them was working, then a switch should be made.

In cases of playing up, the lower division team always needs breaks to keep the game from snowballing. There were several times they got this - on the fumble by Wheaton, and on the roughing the kicker penalty. Hell, we were driving several times and had balls tipped for INTs.

Our gameplan wasn't a bad one, I do wish we'da run a bit more, if anything to get more experience for the young backs, but we kept putting ourselves out of position offfensively to win the game. I hate to be the the cocky guy that says "we beat ourselves", but when you are playing a team from a division lower, that is usually the case, at least offensively. We could drive the ball, but we couldn't finish (INTs, stuffed runs, dropped passes, bad passes, what have you). But we were moving the ball pretty easily for the most part when we were executing.

[Platinumcat]

CU didn't run anything fancy though. They took shots downfield and couldn't connect, that is about it. Their running game was very vanilla.

While I don't agree necessarily that you should just play bland, hard-nose football (you need to get practice in for everybody, including practicing the plays in game situations), when it obviously isn't working, and running straight at them was working, then a switch should be made.

In cases of playing up, the lower division team always needs breaks to keep the game from snowballing. There were several times they got this - on the fumble by Wheaton, and on the roughing the kicker penalty. Hell, we were driving several times and had balls tipped for INTs.

Our gameplan wasn't a bad one, I do wish we'da run a bit more, if anything to get more experience for the young backs, but we kept putting ourselves out of position offfensively to win the game. I hate to be the the cocky guy that says "we beat ourselves", but when you are playing a team from a division lower, that is usually the case, at least offensively. We could drive the ball, but we couldn't finish (INTs, stuffed runs, dropped passes, bad passes, what have you). But we were moving the ball pretty easily for the most part when we were executing.

I think the number of offensive yards we put up certainly drives home your point here Celtic.

[083190]

I like Bailey, but, third and 2 inside their 40 and you throw it twice? Incomplete both times! Not good play calling.

[CelticCat]

460 yards of offense. That includes 4 interceptions and a fumble, not to mention 10 penalties.

I think a quote by Carpenter sums it up:

"We got down a couple of scores and we were stunned," he said. "We just couldn't get our feet back on the ground. We couldn't get that rhythm."

[kmax]

CU didn't run anything fancy though. They took shots downfield and couldn't connect, that is about it. Their running game was very vanilla.

While I don't agree necessarily that you should just play bland, hard-nose football (you need to get practice in for everybody, including practicing the plays in game situations), when it obviously isn't working, and running straight at them was working, then a switch should be made.

In cases of playing up, the lower division team always needs breaks to keep the game from snowballing. There were several times they got this - on the fumble by Wheaton, and on the roughing the kicker penalty. Hell, we were driving several times and had balls tipped for INTs.

Our gameplan wasn't a bad one, I do wish we'da run a bit more, if anything to get more experience for the young backs, but we kept putting ourselves out of position offfensively to win the game. I hate to be the the cocky guy that says "we beat ourselves", but when you are playing a team from a division lower, that is usually the case, at least offensively. We could drive the ball, but we couldn't finish (INTs, stuffed runs, dropped passes, bad passes, what have you). But we were moving the ball pretty easily for the most part when we were executing.

I think the number of offensive yards we put up certainly drives home your point here Celtic.

Yes, we managed to get alot of offensive yards. However when we only needed 2 or 3 yards to keep a drive going what did we do? We got cute and threw a pass instead of pounding the ball to keep the drive going.

[kmax]

I like Bailey, but, third and 2 inside their 40 and you throw it twice? Incomplete both times! Not good play calling.

You beat me to it here, but thank you for giving a precise example of my point.

[Platinumcat]

KMAX,
I can't argue with what you're saying due to the results we saw from the two plays. But, allow me to play devil's advocate there. What is the higher percentage call there? I would bet the run.

1st attempt, we pass because maybe we catch the defense stuffing the run.

2nd attempt, we pass because maybe the defense thinks no way are they passing there.

Regardless, I admit it's thinking outside the box on this possession. But, I've been around a ton of people who get pissed with the constant predictable play calling (not talking necessarily Bobcat football) and start vocalizing a desire for some less predictable calls.

In this case, I think Bailey did that...it just didn't end up with the desired result.

I think that's what I love about football. There are so many ways to do things and there's never a lack of conversation to be had based upon how everyone views something and how "they would have done it differently".

Maybe I'll try to stop by on Saturday and say hi.

[kmax]

KMAX,
I can't argue with what you're saying due to the results we saw from the two plays. But, allow me to play devil's advocate there. What is the higher percentage call there? I would bet the run.

1st attempt, we pass because maybe we catch the defense stuffing the run.

2nd attempt, we pass because maybe the defense thinks no way are they passing there.

Regardless, I admit it's thinking outside the box on this possession. But, I've been around a ton of people who get pissed with the constant predictable play calling (not talking necessarily Bobcat football) and start vocalizing a desire for some less predictable calls.

In this case, I think Bailey did that...it just didn't end up with the desired result.

I think that's what I love about football. There are so many ways to do things and there's never a lack of conversation to be had based upon how everyone views something and how "they would have done it differently".

Maybe I'll try to stop by on Saturday and say hi.

While you may be playing Devil's advocate, I think you are reinforcing my point. I agree that sometimes you have to try to catch a team off guard and go against convential play calling. However, my point is that for almost any team playing against a lower division opponent that isn't necessary. With two downs to go 3 yards, runs would have almost assuredly gotten a first down and kept the drive alive at a time when we desperately needed it. Instead we got cute and out thought the situation and ended up punting the ball away at a critical point.

Totally agree with the love of football and never a lack of things for us armchair QB's to discuss and argue about! Ain't it great! Do try to stop by, and I will try to stop by your's as well. Are you part of the group that was there last Friday night setting up the tent canapy and what not?

[crazycat]

KMAX,
I can't argue with what you're saying due to the results we saw from the two plays. But, allow me to play devil's advocate there. What is the higher percentage call there? I would bet the run.

1st attempt, we pass because maybe we catch the defense stuffing the run.

2nd attempt, we pass because maybe the defense thinks no way are they passing there.

Regardless, I admit it's thinking outside the box on this possession. But, I've been around a ton of people who get pissed with the constant predictable play calling (not talking necessarily Bobcat football) and start vocalizing a desire for some less predictable calls.

In this case, I think Bailey did that...it just didn't end up with the desired result.

I think that's what I love about football. There are so many ways to do things and there's never a lack of conversation to be had based upon how everyone views something and how "they would have done it differently".

Maybe I'll try to stop by on Saturday and say hi.

While you may be playing Devil's advocate, I think you are reinforcing my point. I agree that sometimes you have to try to catch a team off guard and go against convential play calling. However, my point is that for almost any team playing against a lower division opponent that isn't necessary. With two downs to go 3 yards, runs would have almost assuredly gotten a first down and kept the drive alive at a time when we desperately needed it. Instead we got cute and out thought the situation and ended up punting the ball away at a critical point.

Totally agree with the love of football and never a lack of things for us armchair QB's to discuss and argue about! Ain't it great! Do try to stop by, and I will try to stop by your's as well. Are you part of the group that was there last Friday night setting up the tent canapy and what not?

I'm not sure what series you're talking about, but the one before half was 2nd and 2, 3rd and 2, 4th and 2 from the 17. Not just 3rd-2, 4th-2. On fourth and two we had absolutely no business going for it. Two yards is too far in that situation. You only go on fourth and two if it's late in the game and you absolutely have to or if you're in that no-man's land around the 30-35 where a FG is too far and a punt may only net you 10-15 yards if it goes in the EZ.

[Platinumcat]

KMAX,
I can't argue with what you're saying due to the results we saw from the two plays. But, allow me to play devil's advocate there. What is the higher percentage call there? I would bet the run.

1st attempt, we pass because maybe we catch the defense stuffing the run.

2nd attempt, we pass because maybe the defense thinks no way are they passing there.

Regardless, I admit it's thinking outside the box on this possession. But, I've been around a ton of people who get pissed with the constant predictable play calling (not talking necessarily Bobcat football) and start vocalizing a desire for some less predictable calls.

In this case, I think Bailey did that...it just didn't end up with the desired result.

I think that's what I love about football. There are so many ways to do things and there's never a lack of conversation to be had based upon how everyone views something and how "they would have done it differently".

Maybe I'll try to stop by on Saturday and say hi.

While you may be playing Devil's advocate, I think you are reinforcing my point. I agree that sometimes you have to try to catch a team off guard and go against convential play calling. However, my point is that for almost any team playing against a lower division opponent that isn't necessary. With two downs to go 3 yards, runs would have almost assuredly gotten a first down and kept the drive alive at a time when we desperately needed it. Instead we got cute and out thought the situation and ended up punting the ball away at a critical point.

Totally agree with the love of football and never a lack of things for us armchair QB's to discuss and argue about! Ain't it great! Do try to stop by, and I will try to stop by your's as well. Are you part of the group that was there last Friday night setting up the tent canapy and what not?

No, That looks like it's helcat and catgal side by side there. We're just South of them. But, I am thinking of rigging up some type of out of the weather deal for tomorrow...I just got back from the Hawk's Homecoming Parade and rain in 50 degree weather is cold!!!!

[kmax]

Yeah, I met Cat gal and talked with her. The group I was meaning was just south of them, about where your marker was that's why I thought maybe it was you.

Anyway, for those that are interested in tailgating but don't have a way to stay dry, unless the wind is really blowing tomorrow I will have my awning out on my trailer so feel free to stop in for a dry place to have a beer.

The person in the spot next to me also indicated he may be unable to attend this week, and if so he said we could use his spot so I am taking an additional canopy that we may be able to put up for some additional "dry" drinking space in case it is needed.

[CARDIAC_CATS]

Yeah, I met Cat gal and talked with her. The group I was meaning was just south of them, about where your marker was that's why I thought maybe it was you.

Anyway, for those that are interested in tailgating but don't have a way to stay dry, unless the wind is really blowing tomorrow I will have my awning out on my trailer so feel free to stop in for a dry place to have a beer.

The person in the spot next to me also indicated he may be unable to attend this week, and if so he said we could use his spot so I am taking an additional canopy that we may be able to put up for some additional "dry" drinking space in case it is needed.

I will try and get around and talk to some Bnation people this week since I didn't get it done last week.

P.S - Where is Quast on the boards these days? I haven't seen him post in quite a while?