High quality, full effort

After reading and listening to people speaking about Mike leach I see how we ended up with Arnett. Leach had a history of gambling on people that sometimes had no background for their position. He was good at reading people.
Due to this he has a very loyal group that is very hard to come by these days.
That being said, I really hope Spurrier, Mele, etc show out during the bowl game. I hope they show CZA that they how to adapt this offense. I hope Mississippi state continues to have high quality coaches that are full of energy and put 100% effort. We've come a long ways from the county club that we had with Mullen.
I think if you're going to be successful at State you need innovative guys that put in 100%effort on everything they do. I think leach surrounded himself with those types of people. I don't know if Spurrier can or will be willing to adapt the offense but I'm pulling for him/ those guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLostDawg

After reading and listening to people speaking about Mike leach I see how we ended up with Arnett. Leach had a history of gambling on people that sometimes had no background for their position. He was good at reading people.
Due to this he has a very loyal group that is very hard to come by these days.
That being said, I really hope Spurrier, Mele, etc show out during the bowl game. I hope they show CZA that they how to adapt this offense. I hope Mississippi state continues to have high quality coaches that are full of energy and put 100% effort. We've come a long ways from the county club that we had with Mullen.
I think if you're going to be successful at State you need innovative guys that put in 100%effort on everything they do. I think leach surrounded himself with those types of people. I don't know if Spurrier can or will be willing to adapt the offense but I'm pulling for him/ those guys.

---

I would be willing to bet Jr has had many conversations with Sr Spurrier on this very subject.

Don't know how CZA will do as HC but I really like what he has said so far. He says all the right stuff. He has the passion and energy. He appears to love MSU and I think he fits us like a glove. Hard working nose to the grindstone guy. That is who MSU is.

I think CZA is also the kinda guy that will demand toughness on O that when we wanna run and need to run, we gonna run it down your throat. Not saying we won't be balanced but I see a tough nosed coach that ain't going to get pushed around on line.

He is hiring Peterson(SP) as his chief of staff. Arnett is publicly prioritizing MS recruits for his program. Having a chief of staff that understands MS is a great start.
I almost wonder if we had this new COS instead of Emerick, if we could have kept young Walley, and Dante by offering them early.

Call me what you will or say what you want about me, I don't care. BUT I absolutely do NOT want Spurrier Jr. as our OC long term...period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLostDawg

After reading and listening to people speaking about Mike leach I see how we ended up with Arnett. Leach had a history of gambling on people that sometimes had no background for their position. He was good at reading people.
Due to this he has a very loyal group that is very hard to come by these days.
That being said, I really hope Spurrier, Mele, etc show out during the bowl game. I hope they show CZA that they how to adapt this offense. I hope Mississippi state continues to have high quality coaches that are full of energy and put 100% effort. We've come a long ways from the county club that we had with Mullen.
I think if you're going to be successful at State you need innovative guys that put in 100%effort on everything they do. I think leach surrounded himself with those types of people. I don't know if Spurrier can or will be willing to adapt the offense but I'm pulling for him/ those guys.

---

Hopefully Arnett brings in an experienced OC instead of sticking with an inexperienced one. Much smarter move. much better move for the program. Jr is a decent WR coach and a good recruiter. But he’s not a 51 year old career position coach without reason.

There are much better and more experienced/successful options than him. It’s obvious there will be staff changes this year. This is Arnett’s team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santiago

He is hiring Peterson(SP) as his chief of staff. Arnett is publicly prioritizing MS recruits for his program. Having a chief of staff that understands MS is a great start.
I almost wonder if we had this new COS instead of Emerick, if we could have kept young Walley, and Dante by offering them early.

---

100% guaranteed Walley and Dowdell would've been bulldogs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoachT14

Hopefully Arnett brings in an experienced OC instead of sticking with an inexperienced one. Much smarter move. much better move for the program. Jr is a decent WR coach and a good recruiter. But he’s not a 51 year old career position coach without reason.

There are much better and more experienced/successful options than him. It’s obvious there will be staff changes this year. This is Arnett’s team.

---

Eh. Every one of these Leach protege's from Littrell to Hatcher to Lincoln Riley- none of them called plays under Leach and were all unknowns at one point and almost every one of his protege's has been successful.

I have an open mind on this. If we get an experienced guy- that's fine. If Spurrier looks good in the bowl game and Arnett wants to keep him that's fine too.

Age doesn't matter to me either. If we hire 27 year old Ben Arbuckle I'm fine with that. If we hire 50 year old Hatcher to Spurrier that's fine too.

The biggest thing is we don't need to make the biggest mistake we made in the Joe Moorhead era and go away from what we have been doing in general scheme wise- we need someone with an Air Raid background. It won't be the same as Leach- but the general basic structure will be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santiago

He is hiring Peterson(SP) as his chief of staff. Arnett is publicly prioritizing MS recruits for his program. Having a chief of staff that understands MS is a great start.
I almost wonder if we had this new COS instead of Emerick, if we could have kept young Walley, and Dante by offering them early.

---

Peterson is an outstanding choice to be chief of staff. MSU fans typically want to add former players as assistants when we have an opening. But the recruiting analysts are the places where we really need to add a guy like Johnathan Banks and people like that. I hope we add Ottis Riddley from Jackson State as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R2Dawg

Don't know how CZA will do as HC but I really like what he has said so far. He says all the right stuff. He has the passion and energy. He appears to love MSU and I think he fits us like a glove. Hard working nose to the grindstone guy. That is who MSU is.

I think CZA is also the kinda guy that will demand toughness on O that when we wanna run and need to run, we gonna run it down your throat. Not saying we won't be balanced but I see a tough nosed coach that ain't going to get pushed around on line.

---

More run blocking reps for the OL means less pass blocking reps. The secret to Leach's air raid was the limited number of plays practiced over and over. I remember Kiffin saying on a passing touchdown, for MSU in the egg bowl, that they knew the route we were going to run but couldn't stop it due to the timing and precision of our execution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TorpedoIPA

More run blocking reps for the OL means less pass blocking reps. The secret to Leach's air raid was the limited number of plays practiced over and over. I remember Kiffin saying on a passing touchdown, for MSU in the egg bowl, that they knew the route we were going to run but couldn't stop it due to the timing and precision of our execution.

---

OK, so lets apply the logic. If that is true, then lets run one play to perfection and practice it all day every day, then no one will be able to stop us ever.

But wait, what if the D practices the play over and over. Can they not play to perfection? Are they not allowed?

When it works so well, every team will choose one play - I hope it is a different play.

In the egg bowl, we knew what play the OM 2pt conv was and we stopped it.

We have lost our thinking skills in 2022.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R2Dawg

OK, so lets apply the logic. If that is true, then lets run one play to perfection and practice it all day every day, then no one will be able to stop us ever.

But wait, what if the D practices the play over and over. Can they not play to perfection? Are they not allowed?

When it works so well, every team will choose one play - I hope it is a different play.

In the egg bowl, we knew what play the OM 2pt conv was and we stopped it.

We have lost our thinking skills in 2022.

---

I don't think your appeal to extremes makes a practical point. There's a reason it's called a logical fallacy. Ironic that you accuse others of losing their thinking skills. Lol.

There's nuance to choosing a system. I'm sure there's a bell curve between the number of plays run and the positive outcomes realized. You have a finite amount of time in practice time and are also limited by your personnel (experience, ability, intelligence, etc.) Run one play over and over, as in your example, and your team becomes one dimensional. You may perfect it but it's predictable to the other team. Run too many and your team becomes a jack of all trades and master of none. It may be harder for the other team to prepare for, but the dropoff in execution can be costly. The air raid, as the argument goes, is close to the sweet spot on this spectrum.

Call me dumb for asking, but just how many plays do y?all think Leach had on that little piece of paper? My guess is about 12 versions of the same play. 5 guys going out to find open grass. The QB has to find the most open. But the best result is still to throw a receiver open or be so accurate, you can hit a covered receiver on the hands. Ergo the multiple repetitious practice of those few plays but throwing to different areas of open grass. As good as Will has been, he still fears the <throw the open> or fit it in a tight window. So he defers to check down or the 5 yard stop in the middle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RisperDawg

I don't think your appeal to extremes makes a practical point. There's a reason it's called a logical fallacy. Ironic that you accuse others of losing their thinking skills. Lol.

There's nuance to choosing a system. I'm sure there's a bell curve between the number of plays run and the positive outcomes realized. You have a finite amount of time in practice time and are also limited by your personnel (experience, ability, intelligence, etc.) Run one play over and over, as in your example, and your team becomes one dimensional. You may perfect it but it's predictable to the other team. Run too many and your team becomes a jack of all trades and master of none. It may be harder for the other team to prepare for, but the dropoff in execution can be costly. The air raid, as the argument goes, is close to the sweet spot on this spectrum.

---

Vincent Thomas Lombardi - concept and yes he would practice more than one play

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RisperDawg

I don't think your appeal to extremes makes a practical point. There's a reason it's called a logical fallacy. Ironic that you accuse others of losing their thinking skills. Lol.

There's nuance to choosing a system. I'm sure there's a bell curve between the number of plays run and the positive outcomes realized. You have a finite amount of time in practice time and are also limited by your personnel (experience, ability, intelligence, etc.) Run one play over and over, as in your example, and your team becomes one dimensional. You may perfect it but it's predictable to the other team. Run too many and your team becomes a jack of all trades and master of none. It may be harder for the other team to prepare for, but the dropoff in execution can be costly. The air raid, as the argument goes, is close to the sweet spot on this spectrum.

---

Ha. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Balance is the key but you don't have balance by running the same play or few plays over and over. But you call that practice to perfect that no one can defend. When the play don't work it is we didn't execute. We didn't practice it enough. Balance is what gives you the best chance, not perfection. No one is perfect in execution.

If it is an absolute truth, there are no extremes. Right or wrong. 2+2=4 is right every time. Basic laws of science F=ma, etc. I only bring this up because everyone presents the practice the few plays to perfection as an absolute truth which it is not, hence I proved my point on previous post but the LOL don't understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R2Dawg

OK, so lets apply the logic. If that is true, then lets run one play to perfection and practice it all day every day, then no one will be able to stop us ever.

But wait, what if the D practices the play over and over. Can they not play to perfection? Are they not allowed?

When it works so well, every team will choose one play - I hope it is a different play.

In the egg bowl, we knew what play the OM 2pt conv was and we stopped it.

We have lost our thinking skills in 2022.

---

What did Leach's track record say? Lot of straw man in your post. If perfection is difficult to achieve for a football offense then why make it more complex by adding more plays? Especially if you are somewhere that isn't Alabama talent wise?

I think we had 12-16 pass plays and about 6 runs/screens. That apparently is enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R2Dawg

Ha. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Balance is the key but you don't have balance by running the same play or few plays over and over. But you call that practice to perfect that no one can defend. When the play don't work it is we didn't execute. We didn't practice it enough. Balance is what gives you the best chance, not perfection. No one is perfect in execution.

If it is an absolute truth, there are no extremes. Right or wrong. 2+2=4 is right every time. Basic laws of science F=ma, etc. I only bring this up because everyone presents the practice the few plays to perfection as an absolute truth which it is not, hence I proved my point on previous post but the LOL don't understand it.

---

The thing you aren't getting is your dealing with human beings- not raw data on paper. You don't have to be completely perfect on a play for it to work. But the more you more work on it and the more the players are familiar with the play the better the chance of executing it. Football always comes down to execution basically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

What did Leach's track record say? Lot of straw man in your post. If perfection is difficult to achieve for a football offense then why make it more complex by adding more plays? Especially if you are somewhere that isn't Alabama talent wise?

I think we had 12-16 pass plays and about 6 runs/screens. That apparently is enough.

---

Go back and read context of original before jumping in the middle. Lot of hay in your response. I never said we should have a 200 play playbook. The OP point was we didn't need to waste our time running the ball as it would waste time on running the few passing plays to perfection as it would take away practicing those plays. Example was OM couldn't stop a pass play we had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

The thing you aren't getting is your dealing with human beings- not raw data on paper. You don't have to be completely perfect on a play for it to work. But the more you more work on it and the more the players are familiar with the play the better the chance of executing it. Football always comes down to execution basically.

---

No I get it fine. That human part is my whole point. Go read my posts - past and now. I've said it forever. That is why you have to have enough plays and balance because you ain't never gonna run a perfect play. The more you can keep the O off balance the better chance you have to overcome execution issues or talent issues. The execution part is the excuse yall make every time the plays don't work.

Due to respect for Leach, I'm stopping here.

This started talking about CZA and him running the ball a little more and his ability to do good things. Yall just want to turn everything into a defense of a philosophy argument. Let it go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R2Dawg

No I get it fine. That human part is my whole point. Go read my posts - past and now. I've said it forever. That is why you have to have enough plays and balance because you ain't never gonna run a perfect play. The more you can keep the O off balance the better chance you have to overcome execution issues or talent issues. The execution part is the excuse yall make every time the plays don't work.

Due to respect for Leach, I'm stopping here.

This started talking about CZA and him running the ball a little more and his ability to do good things. Yall just want to turn everything into a defense of a philosophy argument. Let it go.

---

You and Leach are in agreement then. He said, paraphrasing, you can never be perfect but you should always strive to be perfect.