Welcome to Hogville!      Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Because it's summer and we keep having the same stupid conversation, a poll...

Started by Deep Shoat, May 17, 2017, 02:50:13 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Which method of building the football program best serves Arkansas?

Cheat like SMU and Ole Miss
14 (6.2%)
Hire and fire coaches every two years until we hit "The Next Big Thing"
7 (3.1%)
Build with a long term plan that may not come to fruition for 8-10 years
149 (65.6%)
Break the bank and hire Urban or Nick.  Pay them ANY amount of money to get them here.
57 (25.1%)

Total Members Voted: 227

PorkSoda

Quote from: LRRandy on May 19, 2017, 09:14:20 pm
that says awfully easy. It's the doing it that becomes the hard part. You're stretching quite a bit tonight. Cerveza must be flowing.
right, easy to say, not so easy to do.  the point is that you need a solid foundation for it to even be possible.  you can't build a solid foundation by tearing it up and rebuilding every other year.

CBB being a CEO style coach, he actually has the opportunity to try different coordinators and schemes until he finds the right mix, all while maintaining a stable program.
"I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity." ― Edgar Allan Poe
"If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." – Niels Bohr
"A mind stretched to a new idea, never returns to its original dimensions" ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes
Quote from: PonderinHog on August 07, 2023, 06:37:15 pmYeah, we're all here, but we ain't all there.

Hogs-n-Roses

Quote from: PorkSoda on May 19, 2017, 08:52:22 pm
I do agree with that.  Jeff Long has been good for the university, but he is not a sports guy, and has shown no ability to distinguish between a good coach and a not so good coach.  both petrino and BB basically fell in his lap. 

 

Hogs-n-Roses

Quote from: EastexHawg on May 19, 2017, 08:29:35 pm
There are several facets to this conversation and Bielema is only one of them.  If the two options are keeping Bielema or eventually letting Jeff Long pick his successor I guess I am in favor of holding onto him

I agree

Gonzo

Quote from: PorkSoda on May 19, 2017, 09:29:40 pm
right, easy to say, not so easy to do.  the point is that you need a solid foundation for it to even be possible.  you can't build a solid foundation by tearing it up and rebuilding every other year.

CBB being a CEO style coach, he actually has the opportunity to try different coordinators and schemes until he finds the right mix, all while maintaining a stable program.

BB is entering season 5. Tossing out the "every two year" red herring is no more rational at this point than the folks who might have actually been calling for his head after two years. It hasn't happened that way for the Hogs, and it likely won't down the road.


Go Hogs!

bphi11ips

Quote from: PorkSoda on May 19, 2017, 09:29:40 pm
right, easy to say, not so easy to do.  the point is that you need a solid foundation for it to even be possible.  you can't build a solid foundation by tearing it up and rebuilding every other year.

CBB being a CEO style coach, he actually has the opportunity to try different coordinators and schemes until he finds the right mix, all while maintaining a stable program.

By "stable" I hope you don't mean 8-5 and 7-6. 
Life is too short for grudges and feuds.

Deep Shoat

Quote from: lakecityhog on May 19, 2017, 09:23:10 pm
Shoat, what do you consider a "fair" amount of time to give a guy to "get-it-done"? And, what do you consider getting it done to be?

I said 5 years should be time for any coach to show real improvement, but I have also said that what the hell, let's give BB the full 6 years. In year 5 a coach should have a fair amount of 5th year seniors and his system should be pretty well established.

What would you consider as a fair expectation for the 5th year of the BB era? What about the 6th year?
I think we need to see 17+ wins over the next two seasons, barring something crazy like losing Austin for the season in the 1st game.  I think 16 will be all the PTB need to extend him, but 17+ for me to be satisfied that he is moving us forward.

I'd like to see at least 9 this season, and I think that is doable.  Not easy, that 10 straight to close the season crap kind of sucks.  But I actually prefer Alabama/LSU on the road.
All Gas, No Brakes!

Deep Shoat

Quote from: Gonzo on May 19, 2017, 09:41:27 pm
BB is entering season 5. Tossing out the "every two year" red herring is no more rational at this point than the folks who might have actually been calling for his head after two years. It hasn't happened that way for the Hogs, and it likely won't down the road.


Go Hogs!
But there is a loud minority of fans who have been complaining against CBB since the day he was hired.  And every day he isn't fired is one they are unhappy.  The same will be true for the next guy and the next guy.

Then, there are people like Wildhog who are fine with playing coaching roulette.  They think it improves our chance of having a breakthrough.

To pretend like there isn't a vocal segment of the fanbase who think this way is kind of ridiculous.
All Gas, No Brakes!

Deep Shoat

Quote from: bphi11ips on May 19, 2017, 10:04:23 pm
By "stable" I hope you don't mean 8-5 and 7-6.
That is stable.  And it gives us a base to build on to improve stable to 8-4/9-3.  And it means that when we have those special players or the stars come together, or whatever, that we jump up from 9-3 to 11-1 or something.

It really is the most logical way for a program like Arkansas to build for the long haul.

The other option would be to return to the Big Texas conference and we both know that ain't happening.
All Gas, No Brakes!

Gonzo

Quote from: Deep Shoat on May 19, 2017, 11:12:33 pm
But there is a loud minority of fans who have been complaining against CBB since the day he was hired.  And every day he isn't fired is one they are unhappy.  The same will be true for the next guy and the next guy.

Then, there are people like Wildhog who are fine with playing coaching roulette.  They think it improves our chance of having a breakthrough.

To pretend like there isn't a vocal segment of the fanbase who think this way is kind of ridiculous.

Who said there isn't? Not me, feel free to reread what I wrote. Never said that. What I said was that to portray any questioning of a coach entering his 5th season as wanting them fired "every other season" is just as inane, and I stand by that. Don't pretend either that the portion of this board/fanbase that won't tolerate any questioning is any less vocal.


Go Hogs!

MuskogeeHogFan

Quote from: Deep Shoat on May 19, 2017, 11:15:46 pm
That is stable.  And it gives us a base to build on to improve stable to 8-4/9-3.  And it means that when we have those special players or the stars come together, or whatever, that we jump up from 9-3 to 11-1 or something.

It really is the most logical way for a program like Arkansas to build for the long haul.

The other option would be to return to the Big Texas conference and we both know that ain't happening.

I like Bielema, have from the beginning. I think he has done some really good things for the program and for the kids within the program. All that said, with all of the talk about turning the program around, what is the definition of a turnaround? I think that is relative to not only where you were as a program when he took over, but what level of average success the program has always seemed to experience over the course of time. For our purposes here, let's limit that to the amount of time that we have been in the SEC because let's face it, what happened in the old SWC really isn't relevant to our current situation.

Since we joined the SEC in 1992 our average season record over all of that time has been 7-6 (it's actually 6.7-5.5). 7-6 is a winning record, but just barely. That's who we have been, that is our base identity in the SEC. If we look at Bielema's 4 seasons at Arkansas we have an average record of 6-7 (actually 6.3-6.5) which is just slightly under our average since joining the SEC. As a qualifier I have to say that this has occurred at a time when the talent level in the SEC as a whole is at an all time high.

Nonetheless, a 6-7 average record is still 6-7 regardless of other factors. It looks slightly better if you take out 2013 but unlike some, I can't do that. He was officially the HC so that season counts as well and it is the same as with any other HC. So basically, if we average winning 8 or more games a season, that could be termed as improvement. Is it a "turnaround"? I wouldn't say so. I think using the term a "turnaround" means literally returning to where you once were, but the problem is that where we have traditionally been is 7-6.

Now, how much time should be required to improve the record on the field? There was a time that any HC (HS or College) basically had just 3 years to show improvement and if you didn't, you were gone. That seems to have changed over the years and in most cases at the College level a coach is generally expected to be given 4 years. I don't think I have ever seen a situation where a HC has been given 6 years, but I'm sure there have been instances where that has happened before, I just can't think of any at the moment.

Like many of you, regardless of any other contributing factors, it is a head scratcher to me why a big time HC like Bielema hasn't been able to produce a higher win percentage in the 4 seasons that he has been here. It started out well after stumbling in 2013 but we have failed to gain hardly any altitude since 2014. And probably the most frustrating part is that we can all identify wins from 2013-2016 that we have left on the field, maybe as many as 10-13 wins. Would anyone be complaining if we had won 9-10 games every season since the 2013 season? I doubt it.

So, can we win at a higher level at Arkansas with the recruiting challenges that we face and the fact that while we are producing NFL level talent at a pretty good pace, it isn't the higher end talent (1st through 3rd Round Draftees) that most of our opponents are producing? Do you know who has fewer 1st-3rd Round Draftees than us since the 2013 Draft? S. Carolina is tied with us at 3, then there is Kentucky and Vanderbilt. Need I point out that none of those three are in our Division? But keep in mind that even while we have experienced this rather extreme difference in talent levels compared to our SEC West opponents, Bielema has had us in position to have won 10-13 more games than we have since he took the reins at Arkansas.

Regardless of any internal improvements in the program, regardless of graduating players, regardless of any other factors, Bielema has to move beyond 8 wins this season or it may be time to start laying a plan for his replacement. Because I like the guy and like what he has done for the Arkansas program in so many other ways, I would hate to see this happen, but he has to win at a higher level, that is what he was hired to do.
Go Hogs Go!

runninhog

Quote from: MuskogeeHogFan on May 20, 2017, 07:24:08 am
I like Bielema, have from the beginning. I think he has done some really good things for the program and for the kids within the program. All that said, with all of the talk about turning the program around, what is the definition of a turnaround? I think that is relative to not only where you were as a program when he took over, but what level of average success the program has always seemed to experience over the course of time. For our purposes here, let's limit that to the amount of time that we have been in the SEC because let's face it, what happened in the old SWC really isn't relevant to our current situation.

Since we joined the SEC in 1992 our average season record over all of that time has been 7-6 (it's actually 6.7-5.5). 7-6 is a winning record, but just barely. That's who we have been, that is our base identity in the SEC. If we look at Bielema's 4 seasons at Arkansas we have an average record of 6-7 (actually 6.3-6.5) which is just slightly under our average since joining the SEC. As a qualifier I have to say that this has occurred at a time when the talent level in the SEC as a whole is at an all time high.

Nonetheless, a 6-7 average record is still 6-7 regardless of other factors. It looks slightly better if you take out 2013 but unlike some, I can't do that. He was officially the HC so that season counts as well and it is the same as with any other HC. So basically, if we average winning 8 or more games a season, that could be termed as improvement. Is it a "turnaround"? I wouldn't say so. I think using the term a "turnaround" means literally returning to where you once were, but the problem is that where we have traditionally been is 7-6.

Now, how much time should be required to improve the record on the field? There was a time that any HC (HS or College) basically had just 3 years to show improvement and if you didn't, you were gone. That seems to have changed over the years and in most cases at the College level a coach is generally expected to be given 4 years. I don't think I have ever seen a situation where a HC has been given 6 years, but I'm sure there have been instances where that has happened before, I just can't think of any at the moment.

Like many of you, regardless of any other contributing factors, it is a head scratcher to me why a big time HC like Bielema hasn't been able to produce a higher win percentage in the 4 seasons that he has been here. It started out well after stumbling in 2013 but we have failed to gain hardly any altitude since 2014. And probably the most frustrating part is that we can all identify wins from 2013-2016 that we have left on the field, maybe as many as 10-13 wins. Would anyone be complaining if we had won 9-10 games every season since the 2013 season? I doubt it.

So, can we win at a higher level at Arkansas with the recruiting challenges that we face and the fact that while we are producing NFL level talent at a pretty good pace, it isn't the higher end talent (1st through 3rd Round Draftees) that most of our opponents are producing? Do you know who has fewer 3rd Round Draftees than us since the 2013 Draft? S. Carolina is tied with us at 3, then there is Kentucky and Vanderbilt. Need I point out that none of those three are in our Division? But keep in mind that even while we have experienced this rather extreme difference in talent levels compared to our SEC West opponents, Bielema has had us in position to have won 10-13 more games than we have since he took the reins at Arkansas.

Regardless of any internal improvements in the program, regardless of graduating players, regardless of any other factors, Bielema has to move beyond 8 wins this season or it may be time to start laying a plan for his replacement. Because I like the guy and like what he has done for the Arkansas program in so many other ways, I would hate to see this happen, but he has to win at a higher level, that is what he was hired to do.

great post...the numbers are the numbers...no getting around it

bphi11ips

Quote from: MuskogeeHogFan on May 20, 2017, 07:24:08 am
I like Bielema, have from the beginning. I think he has done some really good things for the program and for the kids within the program. All that said, with all of the talk about turning the program around, what is the definition of a turnaround? I think that is relative to not only where you were as a program when he took over, but what level of average success the program has always seemed to experience over the course of time. For our purposes here, let's limit that to the amount of time that we have been in the SEC because let's face it, what happened in the old SWC really isn't relevant to our current situation.

Since we joined the SEC in 1992 our average season record over all of that time has been 7-6 (it's actually 6.7-5.5). 7-6 is a winning record, but just barely. That's who we have been, that is our base identity in the SEC. If we look at Bielema's 4 seasons at Arkansas we have an average record of 6-7 (actually 6.3-6.5) which is just slightly under our average since joining the SEC. As a qualifier I have to say that this has occurred at a time when the talent level in the SEC as a whole is at an all time high.

Nonetheless, a 6-7 average record is still 6-7 regardless of other factors. It looks slightly better if you take out 2013 but unlike some, I can't do that. He was officially the HC so that season counts as well and it is the same as with any other HC. So basically, if we average winning 8 or more games a season, that could be termed as improvement. Is it a "turnaround"? I wouldn't say so. I think using the term a "turnaround" means literally returning to where you once were, but the problem is that where we have traditionally been is 7-6.

Now, how much time should be required to improve the record on the field? There was a time that any HC (HS or College) basically had just 3 years to show improvement and if you didn't, you were gone. That seems to have changed over the years and in most cases at the College level a coach is generally expected to be given 4 years. I don't think I have ever seen a situation where a HC has been given 6 years, but I'm sure there have been instances where that has happened before, I just can't think of any at the moment.

Like many of you, regardless of any other contributing factors, it is a head scratcher to me why a big time HC like Bielema hasn't been able to produce a higher win percentage in the 4 seasons that he has been here. It started out well after stumbling in 2013 but we have failed to gain hardly any altitude since 2014. And probably the most frustrating part is that we can all identify wins from 2013-2016 that we have left on the field, maybe as many as 10-13 wins. Would anyone be complaining if we had won 9-10 games every season since the 2013 season? I doubt it.

So, can we win at a higher level at Arkansas with the recruiting challenges that we face and the fact that while we are producing NFL level talent at a pretty good pace, it isn't the higher end talent (1st through 3rd Round Draftees) that most of our opponents are producing? Do you know who has fewer 3rd Round Draftees than us since the 2013 Draft? S. Carolina is tied with us at 3, then there is Kentucky and Vanderbilt. Need I point out that none of those three are in our Division? But keep in mind that even while we have experienced this rather extreme difference in talent levels compared to our SEC West opponents, Bielema has had us in position to have won 10-13 more games than we have since he took the reins at Arkansas.

Regardless of any internal improvements in the program, regardless of graduating players, regardless of any other factors, Bielema has to move beyond 8 wins this season or it may be time to start laying a plan for his replacement. Because I like the guy and like what he has done for the Arkansas program in so many other ways, I would hate to see this happen, but he has to win at a higher level, that is what he was hired to do.

Thanks for saving me the time, Muskogee.  Excellent summary. 

8-5 and 7-6 is the type of stability we had in 2007 and 2016, both disappointing years.  It's fine for year three and four, but not for 5 though 10.  Nutt stability is not what we're looking for. If those numbers are Bielema's ceiling, no thanks.

Having said that, I'll take the kind of stability followed by success Steve Spurrier brought to South Carolina.  Here are his 10 full seasons, in order:

7-5
8-5
6-6
7-6
7-6
9-5
11-2
11-2
11-2
7-6

Spurrier didn't win 9 games until year 6.  Barring a worst case scenario 3-9 season, Bielema will get year 6. 

Two things should be considered when looking at how much time South Carolina gave Spurrier.  First, South Carolina had little "tradition" to look to when it hired Lou Holtz six years before it hired Spurrier.  USC obviously took the big name approach after decades of futility.  Holtz "stabilized" the program and had 8 and 9 win seasons before falling back to 5-7, 5-7, 6-5.  Arkansas has far greater history than South Carolina, and, throwing out the aberrant Smiley season, the Hogs averaged 8.5 wins per season during the six years before Bielema took over.  Second, Brett Bielema is not Steve Spurrier.  Bielema was a big name when he was hired for good reason.  Spurrier was an icon, the Nick Saban of the 90s.  Spurrier warranted 8-10 years after 5 years of mediocre stability given South Carolina's mediocre history and recent past and Spurrier's track record.  In years 7-9 he gave South Carolina its greatest 3 year run in its history.

I agree that Bielema gets an extension if he wins 8 or 9 games the next two years.  He should.  I don't think many here would argue with Deep Shoat about that.  That doesn't mean that any coach at any program should be given 8-10 years to build a winner.

Life is too short for grudges and feuds.

Gonzo

Musk and bh, both good posts.  There are some things to be encouraged by with regard to building a solid foundation, and there is reasonable room for some uncertainty regarding the on field record. To be totally fair to him IMO, even his harshest critics should acknowledge last season was the first non-improvement in the record. Hopefully that is the outlier and not a sign of a ceiling. My gut tells me I'm a rather typical Hog fan at the moment, I have some encouragement and hope in one hand and some concerns in the other, and my wish is certainly for the encouraged side to win out. Bottom line, it's all about wanting the Hogs win, no matter who's in charge.



Go Hogs!

 

MuskogeeHogFan

Quote from: bphi11ips on May 20, 2017, 08:51:54 am
Thanks for saving me the time, Muskogee.  Excellent summary. 

8-5 and 7-6 is the type of stability we had in 2007 and 2016, both disappointing years.  It's fine for year three and four, but not for 5 though 10.  Nutt stability is not what we're looking for. If those numbers are Bielema's ceiling, no thanks.

Having said that, I'll take the kind of stability followed by success Steve Spurrier brought to South Carolina.  Here are his 10 full seasons, in order:

7-5
8-5
6-6
7-6
7-6
9-5
11-2
11-2
11-2
7-6

Spurrier didn't win 9 games until year 6.  Barring a worst case scenario 3-9 season, Bielema will get year 6. 

Two things should be considered when looking at how much time South Carolina gave Spurrier.  First, South Carolina had little "tradition" to look to when it hired Lou Holtz six years before it hired Spurrier.  USC obviously took the big name approach after decades of futility.  Holtz "stabilized" the program and had 8 and 9 win seasons before falling back to 5-7, 5-7, 6-5.  Arkansas has far greater history than South Carolina, and, throwing out the aberrant Smiley season, the Hogs averaged 8.5 wins per season during the six years before Bielema took over.  Second, Brett Bielema is not Steve Spurrier.  Bielema was a big name when he was hired for good reason.  Spurrier was an icon, the Nick Saban of the 90s.  Spurrier warranted 8-10 years after 5 years of mediocre stability given South Carolina's mediocre history and recent past and Spurrier's track record.  In years 7-9 he gave South Carolina its greatest 3 year run in its history.

I agree that Bielema gets an extension if he wins 8 or 9 games the next two years.  He should.  I don't think many here would argue with Deep Shoat about that.  That doesn't mean that any coach at any program should be given 8-10 years to build a winner.



That's probably a pretty good comparison to the Arkansas program. I look at Florida's level of patience with Will Muschamp, 7-6, 11-2 but then 4-8, 7-5, which got him canned. Of course I can sorta understand that given his access to the fertile recruiting grounds of Florida, Georgia and Alabama that are in such close physical proximity to the U of Florida. The talent was there to do much better than he did.

Mark Richt is another example at Georgia, even though I think that he averaged something like 10 wins a year during his tenure there, with the recruiting classes that he had, he really should have won more than he did. I think that since his arrival to his departure (15 seasons) he won or tied for the SEC East 6 times but never won an SECCG.

But neither of those examples are anything close to that of Arkansas which I believe, has more difficult challenges in terms of recruiting than that of S. Carolina.
Go Hogs Go!

LZH

Good job MHF & BP....quite fair.

As for the rest of you's guys, just because I call it like I see it does not mean I'm being negative. My confidence in BB is luke-warm at best right now, but that doesn't mean I've given up hope. Problem is, switching to a 3-4 is gonna involve some serious growing pains (if, in fact, we run a true 3-4 and not a hybrid 4-3/3-4 version).

I've called for 9-3 the past two seasons, but just can't see it this year. One could argue that BB, should he go 5-7, could say "but it's our first season in a new defense." That could be a rallying cry by the excuse-makers if he tries to defend himself and keep his job. Or, some may argue that he switched defenses just at the right time to extend his tenure for another year or two. I'll leave that up others.

Bottom line? If you don't think we're at a crossroads right now, you're wrong. This year, even more so than last, will determine Razorback football for the next decade.

MuskogeeHogFan

Quote from: LZH on May 20, 2017, 10:07:36 am
Good job MHF & BP....quite fair.

As for the rest of you's guys, just because I call it like I see it does not mean I'm being negative. My confidence in BB is luke-warm at best right now, but that doesn't mean I've given up hope. Problem is, switching to a 3-4 is gonna involve some serious growing pains (if, in fact, we run a true 3-4 and not a hybrid 4-3/3-4 version).

I've called for 9-3 the past two seasons, but just can't see it this year. One could argue that BB, should he go 5-7, could say "but it's our first season in a new defense." That could be a rallying cry by the excuse-makers if he tries to defend himself and keep his job. Or, some may argue that he switched defenses just at the right time to extend his tenure for another year or two. I'll leave that up others.

Bottom line? If you don't think we're at a crossroads right now, you're wrong. This year, even more so than last, will determine Razorback football for the next decade.

LZH, I believe the defense is going to be improved. Some of it due to Paul Rhoads influence and some of it due to changing the defensive scheme to one that is attacking instead of always playing off your heels or flat footed.

Despite the loss of RWIII (and that is a loss) I believe our running game will be better than last year, especially in the RZ. I worry more about the WR's being able to find the seams between coverage and gaining separation quicker than we did last year. I am also concerned about who among the younger TE's that we have, are going to ramp up their effort and production. Cantrell is going to see a bigger role and it may be that Patton transitions quickly when he arrives in the next few weeks. I hope so, he needs to fit right in right away because we need a minimum of 2 TE's that can step in and play at a high level immediately. If we don't get the production needed out of the WR's and TE's, it is going to place too big of a burden on the O-Line and RB's.
Go Hogs Go!

bphi11ips

This season gives Bielema, Enos and Rhoads a great opportunity to show their ability.  They only have three games that are virtually unwinnable, while they have six that can go either way.  If they win five of those six, it will be because of coaching.  If they lose five, it will be because of coaching. 
Life is too short for grudges and feuds.

MuskogeeHogFan

Quote from: bphi11ips on May 20, 2017, 10:37:53 am
This season gives Bielema, Enos and Rhoads a great opportunity to show their ability.  They only have three games that are virtually unwinnable, while they have six that can go either way.  If they win five of those six, it will be because of coaching.  If they lose five, it will be because of coaching. 

I agree and I'll add one thing. In my experience there is absolutely no reason not to have absolutely excellent and game changing special teams in terms of blocking and in particular, in terms of downfield coverage and downfield blocking. You may or may not be able to control kickers and punters minds (who tend to be different animals entirely), but you can doggone sure be certain that you have excellent coverage on punts and kicks and excellent return blocking. All it takes is devoting the necessary time to it and teaching a disciplined approach and instilling pride in those special teams in what they do, making them realize just how important they are to the team. As much as we talk about self discipline and always doing the right thing and how important execution is to this team (that is usually less talented than its opponents), you would think that our ST's should be first in the SEC every year. Give them t-shirts with this printed on them: "Selvmord Grupe" (Suicide Squad) Help them take pride in being a part of the unit. They can change the outcome of games.
Go Hogs Go!

bphi11ips

Quote from: MuskogeeHogFan on May 20, 2017, 11:33:56 am
I agree and I'll add one thing. In my experience there is absolutely no reason not to have absolutely excellent and game changing special teams in terms of blocking and in particular, in terms of downfield coverage and downfield blocking. You may or may not be able to control kickers and punters minds (who tend to be different animals entirely), but you can doggone sure be certain that you have excellent coverage on punts and kicks and excellent return blocking. All it takes is devoting the necessary time to it and teaching a disciplined approach and instilling pride in those special teams in what they do, making them realize just how important they are to the team. As much as we talk about self discipline and always doing the right thing and how important execution is to this team (that is usually less talented than its opponents), you would think that our ST's should be first in the SEC every year. Give them t-shirts with this printed on them: "Selvmord Grupe" (Suicide Squad) Help them take pride in being a part of the unit. They can change the outcome of games.

Man.  Arkansas special teams ain't what they used to be, are they?  Frank Broyles was the Frank Beamer of his day.  Special teams were the core of Robert Neyland's philosophy.  In a twelve game season, 25% or more of games in a conference like the SEC might come down to special teams.  Yet at times, they have seemed to Brett Bielema to be an afterthought.  I doubt they are, but is has seemed that way.

It seems simple, doesn't it? As much as I wish it were, the recruiting advantage upper crust SEC teams enjoy over us might have its biggest effect on special teams.  Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Florida, Georgia - even A&M and Tennessee - have leftover 4 and 5 star fresh, hungry, fast talent to load on their special teams.  Arkansas has a choice - put its best players on special teams like they did in the olden days, thereby risking injury and sacrificing valuable plays off, or go with the fresher, less valuable leftovers.  Even our best players may not have the speed of our opponents' leftovers. 

I see Bielema's dilemma on special teams.  Not sure how I'd handle it myself.     
Life is too short for grudges and feuds.

MuskogeeHogFan

Quote from: bphi11ips on May 20, 2017, 12:20:33 pm
Man.  Arkansas special teams ain't what they used to be, are they?  Frank Broyles was the Frank Beamer of his day.  Special teams were the core of Robert Neyland's philosophy.  In a twelve game season, 25% or more of games in a conference like the SEC might come down to special teams.  Yet at times, they have seemed to Brett Bielema to be an afterthought.  I doubt they are, but is has seemed that way.

It seems simple, doesn't it? As much as I wish it were, the recruiting advantage upper crust SEC teams enjoy over us might have its biggest effect on special teams.  Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Florida, Georgia - even A&M and Tennessee - have leftover 4 and 5 star fresh, hungry, fast talent to load on their special teams.  Arkansas has a choice - put its best players on special teams like they did in the olden days, thereby risking injury and sacrificing valuable plays off, or go with the fresher, less valuable leftovers.  Even our best players may not have the speed of our opponents' leftovers. 

I see Bielema's dilemma on special teams.  Not sure how I'd handle it myself.     

You don't have to have your best athlete's or starters on ST's. You just need people who are willing to go all-out, sacrifice their bodies, be very disciplined in their approach and take pride in being a part of those teams. You need more "willing and committed souls" than "all stars".
Go Hogs Go!

bphi11ips

Quote from: MuskogeeHogFan on May 20, 2017, 12:25:59 pm
You don't have to have your best athlete's or starters on ST's. You just need people who are willing to go all-out, sacrifice their bodies, be very disciplined in their approach and take pride in being a part of those teams. You need more "willing and committed souls" than "all stars".

All things being equal, I agree.  It's when your committed souls commit themselves against your opponents' all-stars that you run into trouble.
Life is too short for grudges and feuds.

MuskogeeHogFan

Quote from: bphi11ips on May 20, 2017, 12:40:44 pm
All things being equal, I agree.  It's when your committed souls commit themselves against your opponents' all-stars that you run into trouble.

I'll still disagree and the only reason I say that is because I've seen it and experienced it in person. 3 stars can overcome 4 and 5 stars in ST's. ST's may actually provide the most level playing field in college football as long as players are disciplined and carry out their assignments. For instance, staying in your lanes when covering a kick-off or a punt (resisting the temptation to gravitate to the returner too quickly) and being disciplined as to when to squeeze it down to the returner. More big returns are given up due to a lack of discipline than any other contributing factor and if you remain disciplined in your coverage, you increase the odds that someone is going to block you in an illegal way. All you can hope for is that an official sees it occur and doesn't choose to ignore it.
Go Hogs Go!

HiggiePiggy

Quote from: MuskogeeHogFan on May 20, 2017, 09:36:41 am

Mark Richt is another example at Georgia, even though I think that he averaged something like 10 wins a year during his tenure there, with the recruiting classes that he had, he really should have won more than he did. I think that since his arrival to his departure (15 seasons) he won or tied for the SEC East 6 times but never won an SECCG.

He actually won the SEC championship game 2 times. He just could never make it to the NC game.  His best year he lost to a mediocre Florida team ran by Ron zook to make that season 13-1. 2002 and 2005 was when he won the SECCG, but never won again after that.
If a man speaks and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

MuskogeeHogFan

Quote from: HiggiePiggy on May 20, 2017, 03:17:02 pm
He actually won the SEC championship game 2 times. He just could never make it to the NC game.  His best year he lost to a mediocre Florida team ran by Ron zook to make that season 13-1. 2002 and 2005 was when he won the SECCG, but never won again after that.

My bad, it appears that he won the SECCG in 2002 (his second year on the job) and in 2005 (his 5th season) and never after that. 1st time against us and second time vs. LSU.
Go Hogs Go!

 

Hogs-n-Roses

Outstanding evals by all today. Fair no sugar coating or unrealistic expectations/hopes.Tip of the hat to all of you.