Search results

This is not true. Guys who go to the NFL are generally developed. If they didn’t look good at UM, it’s most likely because our scheme and game planning and play calling suck. Those things make the team unproductive. They don;t prove that a kid wasn’t ‘developed.’ We’ve had a few kids do...

‘Development’ as a label has been a term people use to cover up for bad evals. Hey, we recruited kids with stars, so if they don’t pan out, it must be because ’development.’ Whatever that means. It’s not all that helpful as a term. People should be more specific. Is it bad technical...

My point has been that of course we have more talent than most teams we lose to. That’s what happens with bad coaching. But if people don’t realize how far our talent and culture have fallen, then their hoped for fixes will miss the mark. I call it like I see it, and I’ve seen multiple...

I said this when he ignored OL in his first transition class. And when he deferred to Searels lazy recruiting and evals the next cycle.

Do you think it is now safe for mainstream posters to admit we have had a talent issue in addition to coaching issues?

Coulda woulda shoulda. we have evaluated terribly. And it remains a fact that better evals will matter. Because good local kids go to plemty of plsces we cam compete with in recruiting. Every cycle.

This is a confusing thread. I'm sure I read on this site that we had guys with stars so that proves they were talented. /evals //evals ///evals