forums

I told you all are idiots

craval85 said:
1.) Clemson also faced UL and they scored 45. We could've easily scored 60 on them. We also faced UF, a team with a good Defense. We scored more pts on them than Auburn did, all with 1st time starters on Offense.

2.) Jarren was not the starter in the GT game-N'Kosi was. Also..kicking played a huge role in that game. That's an extenuating circumstance that simply does not happen on a consistent basis yr to yr. UNC went from a Larry Fedora spread Offense to an Air Raid. That's much more of a seamless transition than what MIA went through in the off season. When you go from an Offense led by the Pastor to one that is NFL caliber, there are inevitably going to be growing pains.

3.) Even a dummy can understand that this program is improving by leaps & bounds down the stretch.

4.) It's also pretty retarded to discredit a blowout win against your rival. Regardless of whether or not your rival is a dumpster fire it is never easy to blowout your rival. The last game in the series that ended in such a resounding fashion occurred in 13' when FSU won the NC.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to compare Florida with Franks to Florida with Trask? I sure as **** hope not.

Comparing opponents is a waste of time. Miami beats Miami. They did it against UF (much worse with Franks), they did it with GT, VT and UNC....three teams who had no business being within 17 points of this squad, and they almost did it with WAAAY outmatched Central Michigan.

To brag about a team improving during a season, as if that is some sort of shocking prognostication? That should have started Week 2, with 2 weeks to prepare for UNC, but instead, we regressed after worse opponents.

So...happy we are getting the monkey off of our back, at least for the time being...but WE are the monkey. That is the concern, especially for next year with the pathetic schedule we face.
 
Don canon said:
I blame this season on Enos, if we score 29 point in all of our games we would be 9-1. That’s just four ******* touchdowns. With the talent we have on O, we should be getting this every first half. But let’s see how the season ends if we continue and drop 50 a game even in the bowl game I’ll say we turned a corner.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that OL was frighteningly bad the first half of the season. To your point though, Enos did them no favors. He definitely deserves most of the blame. Baxa and the kicking game was *** too, though. That hurt us equally.

And no way in **** do you give up 28 and 42 points to the Techs. Baker has to own that.
 
JimmyJohnsonsHair said:
One good performance against a horrific Louisville defense doesn't change my opinion. I still want En_s to be fired. It took him 9 games to realize he doesn't have the o-line to run the offense he ran at Arkansas.
Click to expand...

Blake can go too. Louisville made him his *****.
 
"I told you all are idiots"?
I told you all ___ are idiots?
Or, I told you, all of you are idiots?

A little grammar and punctuation would help us figure out exactly who you told what and who or what are the idiots are in the thread title. If properly written we most likely could of completely ignored this post in the first place and not wasted our time.

Thanks for your cooperation in the future.
 
craval85 said:
I think the 3 game winning streak is more so a product of player development, which in turn has forced schematic/tactical changes Offensively. IE..Jarren's improved pocket presence & deep ball mechanics. I never once said that everything was going smoothly or perfectly and that the coaches should be absolved of responsibility. My pt was that it is extremely counterproductive to constantly succumb to knee-jerk reactions at a moments notice. Taking a wait & see approach is/was the wiser thing to do. I honestly feel like many of the challenges/issues that occurred this season are uncommon, and theres a strong probability this is the only season in Manny's tenure that they surface. Issues like place kicking and starting multiple true FR on the O-line for example. Finishing 9-4 will be a tremendous blessing for this program, because it will put us next yr in position & on a collision course to give Clemson everything they can handle
Click to expand...

They are definitely developing.

Enos demanded too much of them to soon.

When he made the comment about 40 starts with Jarren, it told us everything we needed to know about him. He felt that way about the linemen too, and it bit him in the ***.

He actually delayed their development putting too much on all of them. Jarren got hurt and was seeing ghosts from all the pressure. The young linemen were developing bad habits because of being overmatched due to inexperience.

A good gameplan has to account for where your guys are RIGHT NOW. You can’t call a game for where you want or expect them to be. Doing so makes them play poorly, reinforces bad habits, and kills their confidence.

It makes you worse off long term AND short term.

Hopefully he learned his lesson. I like the multiple philosophy. I just want to see more three step drop short passing and more quick hitting inside runs, whether shotgun or under center. Those type plays open up everything else we do, and has been the case for a long time.
 
CaneDogX said:
Been saying it all season... people talk about flying banners and firing coaches after a few games. You know who you are.

amazing how great our offense looks now that our OL is starting to play well. William setting an all-time TD record... but you wanted to fire Enos.
Click to expand...
Saw this thread again and realized that YOU ARE DAN PENOS!

BOO THIS MAAANNNNN!
 
TruCane81 said:
They are definitely developing.

Enos demanded too much of them to soon.

When he made the comment about 40 starts with Jarren, it told us everything we needed to know about him. He felt that way about the linemen too, and it bit him in the ***.

He actually delayed their development putting too much on all of them. Jarren got hurt and was seeing ghosts from all the pressure. The young linemen were developing bad habits because of being overmatched due to inexperience.

A good gameplan has to account for where your guys are RIGHT NOW. You can’t call a game for where you want or expect them to be. Doing so makes them play poorly, reinforces bad habits, and kills their confidence.

It makes you worse off long term AND short term.

Hopefully he learned his lesson. I like the multiple philosophy. I just want to see more three step drop short passing and more quick hitting inside runs, whether shotgun or under center. Those type plays open up everything else we do, and has been the case for a long time.
Click to expand...

I think it was 100% the right thing to do, and here's why: The staff made a conscious decision & investment to play younger less experienced players because they realize they have higher ceilings than the older players. This decision is not only starting to play dividends now, but will also prove to be extremely critical for next season. For example starting Scaife @ LT instead of Zion earlier in the yr was not the right decision because it only accounts for the short term. Zion has a much higher ceiling than Scaife @ LT, and actually has the potential to one day become a high rd draft pick by the time his career is over @ MIA. Were there growing pains and struggles early on? Yes. But if you don't play him, you're right back @ Sq 1 again next yr, because LTs don't grow on trees, and you actually have to develop them organically. The fans may not want to hear this, but the bottom line is it makes much more sense to go through early struggles/growing pains and lose games we should be winning in order to make progress towards becoming the best team possible, than to adopt a myopic mentality/vision by only focusing on short term wins. Because we have to remember..the ultimate goal is to not just defeat lowly coastal teams like GT, it's to be able to compete with & defeat Clemson next yr.

A good coach doesn't just assess where his players are NOW, he also projects & envisions where his players could be. Because Enos & Barry made significant investments in these younger players, their development is actually being accelerated not slowed. And because of this..for the 1st time in many many yrs MIA will finally have an O-line that will be more than serviceable. Bravo Enos..Bravo
 
craval85 said:
I think it was 100% the right thing to do, and here's why: The staff made a conscious decision & investment to play younger less experienced players because they realize they have higher ceilings than the older players. This decision is not only starting to play dividends now, but will also prove to be extremely critical for next season. For example starting Scaife @ LT instead of Zion earlier in the yr was not the right decision because it only accounts for the short term. Zion has a much higher ceiling than Scaife @ LT, and actually has the potential to one day become a high rd draft pick by the time his career is over @ MIA. Were there growing pains and struggles early on? Yes. But if you don't play him, you're right back @ Sq 1 again next yr, because LTs don't grow on trees, and you actually have to develop them organically. The fans may not want to hear this, but the bottom line is it makes much more sense to go through early struggles/growing pains and lose games we should be winning in order to make progress towards becoming the best team possible, than to adopt a myopic mentality/vision by only focusing on short term wins. Because we have to remember..the ultimate goal is to not just defeat lowly coastal teams like GT, it's to be able to compete with & defeat Clemson next yr.

A good coach doesn't just assess where his players are NOW, he also projects & envisions where his players could be. Because Enos & Barry made significant investments in these younger players, their development is actually being accelerated not slowed. And because of this..for the 1st time in many many yrs MIA will finally have an O-line that will be more than serviceable. Bravo Enos..Bravo
Click to expand...
Agreed with this. They went really young intentionally. Safe choice would've been Tate and older offensive linemen. Thing is, they could have gone young, grew while playing, and still win 10-11 games if they had just an average kicker.
 
craval85 said:
I think it was 100% the right thing to do, and here's why: The staff made a conscious decision & investment to play younger less experienced players because they realize they have higher ceilings than the older players. This decision is not only starting to play dividends now, but will also prove to be extremely critical for next season. For example starting Scaife @ LT instead of Zion earlier in the yr was not the right decision because it only accounts for the short term. Zion has a much higher ceiling than Scaife @ LT, and actually has the potential to one day become a high rd draft pick by the time his career is over @ MIA. Were there growing pains and struggles early on? Yes. But if you don't play him, you're right back @ Sq 1 again next yr, because LTs don't grow on trees, and you actually have to develop them organically. The fans may not want to hear this, but the bottom line is it makes much more sense to go through early struggles/growing pains and lose games we should be winning in order to make progress towards becoming the best team possible, than to adopt a myopic mentality/vision by only focusing on short term wins. Because we have to remember..the ultimate goal is to not just defeat lowly coastal teams like GT, it's to be able to compete with & defeat Clemson next yr.

A good coach doesn't just assess where his players are NOW, he also projects & envisions where his players could be. Because Enos & Barry made significant investments in these younger players, their development is actually being accelerated not slowed. And because of this..for the 1st time in many many yrs MIA will finally have an O-line that will be more than serviceable. Bravo Enos..Bravo
Click to expand...
Great stuff, I said that once they put this O-line together and they had the young OTs starting they needed to stick with it, take their lumps and it would pay dividends. It would be bad if they started to juggle the O-line packages like they did in 2018 hoping for a combination that works. I played O-line from Jr. High through (small) College, they take time to gel. I always started young with other young guys and we became solid units and the strength of the teams- probably just a coincidence I played on the best teams ever, at every level I played at. In college, we started 4 freshman and a soph. We got beat by Colorado College 56-6 that year, but won 6 games. We won the conference two of the next three years with Top 10 offense.
 
craval85 said:
I think it was 100% the right thing to do, and here's why: The staff made a conscious decision & investment to play younger less experienced players because they realize they have higher ceilings than the older players. This decision is not only starting to play dividends now, but will also prove to be extremely critical for next season. For example starting Scaife @ LT instead of Zion earlier in the yr was not the right decision because it only accounts for the short term. Zion has a much higher ceiling than Scaife @ LT, and actually has the potential to one day become a high rd draft pick by the time his career is over @ MIA. Were there growing pains and struggles early on? Yes. But if you don't play him, you're right back @ Sq 1 again next yr, because LTs don't grow on trees, and you actually have to develop them organically. The fans may not want to hear this, but the bottom line is it makes much more sense to go through early struggles/growing pains and lose games we should be winning in order to make progress towards becoming the best team possible, than to adopt a myopic mentality/vision by only focusing on short term wins. Because we have to remember..the ultimate goal is to not just defeat lowly coastal teams like GT, it's to be able to compete with & defeat Clemson next yr.

A good coach doesn't just assess where his players are NOW, he also projects & envisions where his players could be. Because Enos & Barry made significant investments in these younger players, their development is actually being accelerated not slowed. And because of this..for the 1st time in many many yrs MIA will finally have an O-line that will be more than serviceable. Bravo Enos..Bravo
Click to expand...

I thought starting Zion was the right call.

I didn’t think it was wise to put another freshman at RT.

I figured with Scaife on the RT, you could solidify a side and help Zion as necessary over the course of the game.

Campbell has been decent at LG replacing Donaldson. Maybe he should have been RG instead of RT. Clark has played decent for a freshman as well.

I agree with letting young players play. I just don’t agree with throwing them to the wolves trying to run the offense like you have an experienced unit.

They marched on Florida with a quick passing game. They struggled mightily with under center play action. That didn’t come out of nowhere. They saw it in practice too.

Enos and Manny thought they could get away with it, but no dice. Thankfully, they are going more and more to concepts that fit our talent better. Brevin was out. JT4 and Osborne were quiet. Top 3 receivers didn’t give us much , but Jarren still had a record setting day. This is very exciting and has potential to be a big time passing game.

The run fake is deadly. We should do it more from shotgun until the line gets better, whether rpo or a more traditional play action call. The short passing game has to be the identity. It opens the run and the downfield passing. If teams keep attacking the run hard like Louisville even when we are hurting them with the pass, expect Jarren’s numbers to get more and more impressive.
 
Silver King said:
Great stuff, I said that once they put this O-line together and they had the young OTs starting they needed to stick with it, take their lumps and it would pay dividends. It would be bad if they started to juggle the O-line packages like they did in 2018 hoping for a combination that works. I played O-line from Jr. High through (small) College, they take time to gel. I always started young with other young guys and we became solid units and the strength of the teams- probably just a coincidence I played on the best teams ever, at every level I played at. In college, we started 4 freshman and a soph. We got beat by Colorado College 56-6 that year, but won 6 games. We won the conference two of the next three years with Top 10 offense.
Click to expand...

Yeah..it reminds me of those Dallas Cowboys teams that struggled early on, but eventually became a juggernaut. Offensive football is all about chemistry & continuity
 
Antcane said:
Wrong yet again after 10 games this season miami is averaging under 30 points a game. CMR was above 30 all 3 years.....Keep jacking it buddy, one day you'll get it right, like right in your eye.
Click to expand...

Nope. Richt had one year higher than this year's average point total. And with FIU and Duke coming up, even that's in jeopardy.
 
craval85 said:
Yeah..it reminds me of those Dallas Cowboys teams that struggled early on, but eventually became a juggernaut. Offensive football is all about chemistry & continuity
Click to expand...

Ha! I played in High School (over here in Punta Gorda) with Dallas Cowboy Guard, Burton Lawless who was the only rookie starter in Super Bowl X, he was with the Cowboys for three Super Bowls. Was named by the FHSAA a few years back as one of the Top 100 HS Football players in Florida's History. But I played guard, he was our TE/OLB in high school.
 
Image result for you were saying gif
 
Back
Top