This season is a train wreck that I can't seem to take my eyes off, and this play is just another example. I'm sitting there watching it, with your bullet points in mind, and I'm asking myself how a supposedly elite Division-I football team throws that much in the tank from start to finish on a play....and I keep watching it thinking there must be something I'm missing. The guys on the right side get so completely blown-off the line that I'm wondering if they should be asking themselves if football's the game for them.
How much better can this team get from this year to next, because I hate to say it, but I'm not exactly optimistic.
Four people would have been unblocked. Schwapp never hits anyone. In this play he does, only because at least two Navy guys run right over him to get to Thomas. If you look at it again, if Thomas had run left he would have had a waltz to the end zone because every Navy player went that way from the snap. Nobody stayed home to cover the left side at all.
Right, they knew where the ball was going before we even snapped it.
Offenses have to be flexible and reactive. Weis' scheme this year seems just the opposite.
Charlie - Corwin's passing you like you're standing still. Wait a minute - you are standing still.
Anyone catch the last bit of sound in the video? "Nice play Charlie"
Is it time to fall on our swords yet?
Jim, if you listen, I think you can hear "Nice call, asshole" right before "Nice play, Charlie".
Charlie admitted that there was no option for Evan to check out of that play, and he even said if Brady were in the same situation, he also would not have the option to check out.
Charlie also said that of course Navy stacked 11 in the box, why wouldn't they when we've got the ball on the 1 1/2 yard line? Apparently, that didn't seem like any reason to switch the play, which makes me think that perhaps Charlie is just not very smart in goal line situations.
He is though! That two point conversion against Stanford in 2005 was brilliant (direct snap to Walker).
Your comments above are yet another example (in addition to not taking the two field goals) of Weis "taking responsibility" for the game afterward, and then on clutch bonehead moments not admitting he was wrong. Doing so is no better than Willingham! By 1) not giving sharpley an option out and 2) by saying "of course navy's gonna stack the box we're at the 1.5 yard line!" Weis essentially says "The players didn't execute." Nothing is more Willinghamesque.
And hey, Charlie. They wouldn't have loaded the box if you had gone 3 or 4 wide. If they did, you pass it out. I know this from playing NC-fucking-double-A football 2000-fucking-7.
He's a good game planner, but just outsmarts himself sometimes. In a press conference, he was talking about how Navy had left the left side vulnerable on every FG defense this year. So he comes up with the "brilliant" plan to run a fake left (with our mediocre-speed-at-best-qb), and STICKS with that plan even though it was 4th and 15.
What's shocking to me is that it apparently NEVER occurred to him that faking FG's and Punts are part of his now-developed style in head coaching. You don't think in NAVY's fucking preparation they would have thought "ok. here's a guy with a propensity for faking kicks, so we're going to change our coverage this week."
I'm still on the Weis bandwagon believe it or not. But he was absolutely BONEHEADED during the navy game and those calls lost the game. What has me pissed off now the Thursday afterward is he hasn't admitted he was wrong for ANY OF THOSE FUCKING PLAYS. But yeah, Charlie, you "take responsibility" for the loss. If he loses to Air Force this Saturday, I may spoon feed him his own bullshit.
Sorry for all the swearing Robert T. Gilleran.
The infamous Jason Whitlock weighs in on the Weis situation:
http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/sto...b/story/
7419706
Thoughts? I hate to say it (and I'm no expert on football by any stretch of the imagination), but I think he has some decent points in there.
In theory the points Whitlock make all sound valid.
And they probably are.
But how does he, or we for that matter, explain the success Weis has in his first 2 years.
If virginity to the college game is Weis' problem, why wasn't that problem popped in the first or even second season?
Luck? Residual development by Willingham perhaps? Or is the theory actually wrong?
Ugh. Blech. That was depressing ...
The two flaws in Whitlock's column are:
1. Citing the quality of the team handed to Charlie when he arrived. Yes, there was talent and experience, but Brady was still squating behind center like a dog taking a crap, Shark had barely seen the field, and Ty's West Coast offense continued to be lost on the team (they didn't execute). Left to Ty, Brady might be driving a bus in Columbus right now. So Charlie decveloped what he had, and put in an offense that jived with his talent- but wouldn't any decent coach?
2. Ty's recruiting "efforts". Like most sports writers, Whitlock likes to low key how bad Ty was in this area as time went on. Not only was the talent level suffering by the class, but so were the numbers - and it was getting progessively worse. Any objective person could see it.
With those two observations out of the way, Whitlock's right. Charlie has done a horrible job this year with average + talent - talent that even a middle of the road HC could have won half his games with. The Jenna Jamieson analogy is perfect - that's exactly where Charlie (and we) sit right now.
while he still isn't perfect, I've heard the general consensus on Whitlock is that he's been a much better writer since leaving espn, and has claimed that ESPN would try to get him to write specific opinions while he was there ala "you're the black guy...write about the racial implications of _____" (not that that's so surprising).
Commenting by HaloScan
