The Agony and the Ecstasy...

[TrujilloBull2013]

Either way, we're not going to agree. You blame the players. I don't. I think they have considerable talent compared to what I have seen over the years. I don't know enough about Holtz to say he's the answer or the problem - but he sure looked good at ECU.

I believe we have more talent than ever at a number of positions, more depth than ever at RB for example. And despite the injuries more depth than we've had at WR in a long time. So, yeah, it's just a couple positions and not all. We just don't see the same issues as creating the same problems. You think we stink in pass defense because the players stink. I'm just not sure. Lejiste (Redshirt Junior) was lethal as a freshman. I wonder where he is sometimes. I've never seen Jerrelle Young play so soft (5th year Senior). Kayvon Webster is a Junior. Q Washington is a 5th year senior. Did these guys just lose it? Maybe I'm not paying attention. I think there is more to the play than just suffering from a lack of talent. It's probably not completely out of the realm of reality to suggest players are playing differently.

i don't blame the players. i simply acknowledge that a lot of them in a lot of positions are inexperienced, and without a few experienced players to lead on the field and be reliably consistent in clutch situations we're going to have missed opportunities. we absolutely have guys that can make plays. great plays. but without experience it's not going to always be consistent and it's not always going to happen in clutch situations.

that's the nature of the beast of football. we don't recruit top classes every year. there is a learning curve for young guys like Davis, Welch, Eveld. it takes time to turn athletes into football players and into leaders on the field. even Scott and Murray, as talented as they are (and they absolutely are talented), have never carried offenses up until now. Mo was the guy last year. Scott lived in the doghouse in Colorado and sat out a year. suddenly they're our feature backs and they have a learning curve too. i won't argue that our RBs are deepest ever. i think Scott, Murray and Shaw are more complete players than Ben and Mike... although Mike, Jamar and RKelly will always be "what-ifs" because for various reasons none of them developed to full potential, which was very high when they came in.

i've been far more harsh and pointed in my criticism of Holtz than i have of any player. i called him out as soft as quick as the haters did. after every loss i have pointed out moments in which Holtz' poor decisions potentially cost us the game *cough*squib*cough*, and have criticized our Downy soft DB coverage schemes all year. the schemes are garbage but even with man coverages we have not shut down anybody, jumped any routes, or made those clutch, instinctive, in-game decisions that distinguish good players from great players. yes, Lejiste was a monster in seasons past, Q and Jerelle made plays. but they were playing next to shutdown guys like Bubba and Murph and Nate that gave them the ability to play looser. now they've stepped into new roles. maybe they have a learning curve too.

i've never put these games entirely on the players' shoulders. acknowledging their shortcomings (mostly youth and inexperience) rather than completely blaming Holtz for every missed in-game opportunity is not "blaming the players." it is, as i said, realizing that in most cases TEAMS lose games, not JUST players and not JUST coaches.

[TrujilloBull2013]

Mike, u don't have to read it. some will, some won't. if u fall in the latter category that's your prerogative, Bobby Brown.

if u want short, 140-character squirts of thought, try www.twitter.com. as long as there's a big box to write in here on TBP i'm going to use as much or as little of the space as i feel appropriate.

posts tend to get longer the deeper into the weeds a conversation ventures, or the more other readers try to misinterpret what is said.

i majored in History at our alma mater. we read massive texts every week. i'm not into the ADD/Twitter/BazookaJoeComic-type short attention span posts.

I don't use twitter

I don't like to read long (and somewhat boring) posts -- so much so that I feel bad when I make them myself

I majored in Finance at our alma mater-- I want the executive summary, not to be walked through all the journal entries in an attempt to explain the balance sheet

I'm all for discussion but I am not as invested in this one as it relies far too much on objective interpretation-- and who can argue that someone's opinion is wrong? It's a pointless battle when both sides are immovable

Finally-- my position on this is pretty simple. We have kids on the team with talent. That doesn't make them perfect so they are going to occasionally not do what it takes to win games. Sadly that is been the case more often than not this year. With the exception of the Pitt game, we've had a chance to win every game on the schedule this year. You don't get to that position consistently with luck or a lack of talent. But you can lose consistently with a lack of winning attitude. SOme players have it-- guys like Grothe or Marquell (and even a coach) literally could will us to win some games. If we lack something this season-- it seems to be that factor.Maybe it's leadership or something like that-- but we just can't get there-- something is missing.

• despite the diversity of perspective, there is really only one objective truth. since there's no exact science to determine a quick, "executive summary" of why a team fails to perform, what's left is discourse in which theories and opinions are expressed. the purpose of a forum like this is to debate those theories and opinions in the open in order to determine which make the most sense to most people. you've said so much yourself ("gee if only there were a forum for debating such things..." remember that one?)
  

• functional reality is merely majority consensus of perspective. these debates are how that consensus is reached, if it all. if nothing else the truth ultimately fleshes itself out and one side gets the coveted internet "i told u so" award, which is worth it in and of itself.
  

• if u find it boring to theorize and hypothesize in order to take part in shaping the consensus of perspective on this particular subject, and are content on settling for some vague and indeterminate "sometimes players/coaches just don't do what they need to win" reductionism, nobody is going to force u to read or to participate.
  

• some of us enjoy digging in the weeds and sifting through the minutiae of football. why this should be of concern to someone who is bored by such a subject is puzzling.
  

[MikeG]

Mike, u don't have to read it. some will, some won't. if u fall in the latter category that's your prerogative, Bobby Brown.

if u want short, 140-character squirts of thought, try www.twitter.com. as long as there's a big box to write in here on TBP i'm going to use as much or as little of the space as i feel appropriate.

posts tend to get longer the deeper into the weeds a conversation ventures, or the more other readers try to misinterpret what is said.

i majored in History at our alma mater. we read massive texts every week. i'm not into the ADD/Twitter/BazookaJoeComic-type short attention span posts.

I don't use twitter

I don't like to read long (and somewhat boring) posts -- so much so that I feel bad when I make them myself

I majored in Finance at our alma mater-- I want the executive summary, not to be walked through all the journal entries in an attempt to explain the balance sheet

I'm all for discussion but I am not as invested in this one as it relies far too much on objective interpretation-- and who can argue that someone's opinion is wrong? It's a pointless battle when both sides are immovable

Finally-- my position on this is pretty simple. We have kids on the team with talent. That doesn't make them perfect so they are going to occasionally not do what it takes to win games. Sadly that is been the case more often than not this year. With the exception of the Pitt game, we've had a chance to win every game on the schedule this year. You don't get to that position consistently with luck or a lack of talent. But you can lose consistently with a lack of winning attitude. SOme players have it-- guys like Grothe or Marquell (and even a coach) literally could will us to win some games. If we lack something this season-- it seems to be that factor.Maybe it's leadership or something like that-- but we just can't get there-- something is missing.

• despite the diversity of perspective, there is really only one objective truth. since there's no exact science to determine a quick, "executive summary" of why a team fails to perform, what's left is discourse in which theories and opinions are expressed. the purpose of a forum like this is to debate those theories and opinions in the open in order to determine which make the most sense to most people. you've said so much yourself ("gee if only there were a forum for debating such things..." remember that one?)
  

• functional reality is merely majority consensus of perspective. these debates are how that consensus is reached, if it all. if nothing else the truth ultimately fleshes itself out and one side gets the coveted internet "i told u so" award, which is worth it in and of itself.
  

• if u find it boring to theorize and hypothesize in order to take part in shaping the consensus of perspective on this particular subject, and are content on settling for some vague and indeterminate "sometimes players/coaches just don't do what they need to win" reductionism, nobody is going to force u to read or to participate.
  

• some of us enjoy digging in the weeds and sifting through the minutiae of football. why this should be of concern to someone who is bored by such a subject is puzzling.
  

does it have to be so long winded though>?

it's like you vomited through your keyboard sometimes

[TrujilloBull2013]

i'm a social scientist and a h.s. teacher to boot. longwinded lecturing comes with the territory.

but at least i bullet-pointed it for u. jussayin.

.

[MikeG]

also-- I hardly think you are reaching the consensus of the USF fan base through this outlet

it's like trying to convince 1% the die hard fans of USF to be fans of USF or something

[Who'sYourData?]

DataBull, you're already on record gushing about the talent this team has, before the losses.

Really? You have a photographic memory, or you are obsessed with me and have been rooting through posts from months ago. You certainly haven't brought up this opinion before now.

I don't recall predicting more than 9 or maybe wins if everything went perfectly. Obviously things have not gone perfectly.

There is more talent on this team than last year's team. There will be more talent on next year's team than this one.

Has our secondary performed like the high draft picks we've had in the past? How come you are critical of others' assessments, but don't offer your own?

[Brad]

I guess I'm obsessed. Lol.