• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Excellent Kaimen article w/perspective

hardycreek1

Well-known member
Kent Haslam, the director of Grizzly Athletics, did not shy away from how he felt during Monday’s press conference.

“We need to get that toughness back, that swagger,” he said after announcing the decision to fire Griz football coach Bob Stitt.

As the athletic director of such a successful football school, Haslam understands what is expected from the fans — what they expect year after year is to make the FCS playoffs and, most importantly, to beat the Montana State Bobcats.

In Stitt’s latter two seasons at the helm of the Griz, he did neither.

There were glimpses that showed promise. He routinely beat up on lesser FCS schools, went blow-for-blow with Eastern Washington this season and defeated the would-be national champion North Dakota State Bison in his inaugural game. Stitt just began to reap the benefits of the new faces he recruited, and the team is loaded with star talent. No doubt, the decision to cut ties with Stitt so early was difficult.

But at Monday’s press conference, Haslam laid out the facts. He said he tried to block out the wave of frustration from Griz Nation and made the decision on an overall evaluation of Stitt and the program over the past year. The result, apparently, was not good.

Haslam did not mean to say the Stitt-era Griz lacked toughness. He praised the student-athletes for consistently proving to be tough and to be winners. Unfortunately, the latter isn’t always in the hands of the players.

Stitt didn’t quite fit right from the beginning. His offense-first mentality contradicted the years of strong defensive tradition Montana established. The heavy reliance on the quarterback that propped up his goal of 90 plays per game inevitably came back to bite him after one suffered a season-ending injury and another, freshman Gresch Jensen, was banged up in the second half of the season.

His bend-don’t-break defense snapped against a simple college option offense in Montana State. Even the last play of his prized game against North Dakota State, in which Joey Counts took a handoff out of a strong I-formation, proved to be an anomaly to his play-calling tendencies through the next two seasons.

One could throw in the fact he was an outsider and largely naive of Montana’s football tradition, but, then again, the longer he coached in Montana, the less he seemed to understand Montana.

Several player sources, and Haslam, raved his ability to bring the team together. Stitt always looked on the bright side of tough losses during post-game press conferences, even the two to Montana State, and never stepped out of line. He just wasn’t what the Griz needed.

But that statement begs its own question: What do the Griz need? As the second head coach to emerge from the slew of scandals that dogged the program for the better part of a decade, the new guy needs to go back to basics. Perhaps that’s why it’s rumored (not confirmed) that we could see the return of Bobby Hauck, who went 80-17 with three national title appearances during his seven seasons with the Griz.

The fact remains that whoever takes over will need to understand the ruthless expectations Griz Nation have.

“We need to be winning conference championships, we need to be going to the playoffs,” Haslam said. “Those are things that are critical to us as an athletic department. They’re valuable to this University, and valuable to this community and valuable for those people who are so passionate about us.”
 
hardycreek1 said:
His offense-first mentality contradicted the years of strong defensive tradition Montana established. The heavy reliance on the quarterback that propped up his goal of 90 plays per game inevitably came back to bite him after one suffered a season-ending injury and another, freshman Gresch Jensen, was banged up in the second half of the season.

His bend-don’t-break defense snapped against a simple college option offense in Montana State. Even the last play of his prized game against North Dakota State, in which Joey Counts took a handoff out of a strong I-formation, proved to be an anomaly to his play-calling tendencies through the next two seasons.

If I'm being honest, I really like the idea of offense-first being our identity. I know this will give some older fans an aneurysm, but offense is fun. Montana running something absolutely strange and aggressive, helmed by a kid who could throw a football over them mountains and with wideouts fast enough to catch it, built on big plays, behind an O-line that will punish whatever a defense can throw at us, that to me sounds awesome.

I get the value of defense, but we aren't the midwest out here. We aren't old-school. Missoula is a weird town and it's awesome like that. We do our own thing out here in the mountains. The thought of Montana football being eccentric is not only cool, but just kind of feels right.

It's a damn shame Stitt couldn't make it work.
 
We can be both. Read's offense was fun and his D was tough as nails. Hauck D was tough and his offense could be explosive. He chose to ground and pound and eat up clock which is why his offense was a little boring at times.
 
cmtgrizzly said:
We can be both. Read's offense was fun and his D was tough as nails. Hauck D was tough and his offense could be explosive. He chose to ground and pound and eat up clock which is why his offense was a little boring at times.

TOP is largely not considered important in most read option offenses and definitely was not important to Stitt, who considered plays ran to be crucial.

Scoring fast and often puts a ton of pressure on your defenses.

Rarely ever do you see a team run read option as their primary offense AND have a stout defense. JMU does, but they place a lot of emphasis in TOP.

We have tough kids in Montana. Learn to run the ball, control the clock and play defense. I don’t understand why our fan base wants to watch a team that plays “cool” versus a team that actually wins.
 
41GrizFan said:
Rarely ever do you see a team run read option as their primary offense AND have a stout defense.

I mean, that's exactly what Nebraska did in the 90s. Not saying it will work today, but it is what they did.
 
Stop_HammerTime69 said:
41GrizFan said:
Rarely ever do you see a team run read option as their primary offense AND have a stout defense.

I mean, that's exactly what Nebraska did in the 90s. Not saying it will work today, but it is what they did.

Nope not at all. Nebraska in the 1990’s had power run schemes in most of their plays. They ran out of the I formation often and ran true option plays maybe 25% of the time.

That offense was completely different from the read option offenses today.
 
Stop_HammerTime69 said:
hardycreek1 said:
His offense-first mentality contradicted the years of strong defensive tradition Montana established. The heavy reliance on the quarterback that propped up his goal of 90 plays per game inevitably came back to bite him after one suffered a season-ending injury and another, freshman Gresch Jensen, was banged up in the second half of the season.

His bend-don’t-break defense snapped against a simple college option offense in Montana State. Even the last play of his prized game against North Dakota State, in which Joey Counts took a handoff out of a strong I-formation, proved to be an anomaly to his play-calling tendencies through the next two seasons.

If I'm being honest, I really like the idea of offense-first being our identity. I know this will give some older fans an aneurysm, but offense is fun. Montana running something absolutely strange and aggressive, helmed by a kid who could throw a football over them mountains and with wideouts fast enough to catch it, built on big plays, behind an O-line that will punish whatever a defense can throw at us, that to me sounds awesome.

I get the value of defense, but we aren't the midwest out here. We aren't old-school. Missoula is a weird town and it's awesome like that. We do our own thing out here in the mountains. The thought of Montana football being eccentric is not only cool, but just kind of feels right.

It's a damn shame Stitt couldn't make it work.
I'm with you on this. I like to go to a game and be entertained. I don't understand why we can't have a tough defense to go along with an explosive offense.

I am hopeful that UM will find a coach who can figure out to do both.
 
Post Falls Griz said:
Stop_HammerTime69 said:
hardycreek1 said:
His offense-first mentality contradicted the years of strong defensive tradition Montana established. The heavy reliance on the quarterback that propped up his goal of 90 plays per game inevitably came back to bite him after one suffered a season-ending injury and another, freshman Gresch Jensen, was banged up in the second half of the season.

His bend-don’t-break defense snapped against a simple college option offense in Montana State. Even the last play of his prized game against North Dakota State, in which Joey Counts took a handoff out of a strong I-formation, proved to be an anomaly to his play-calling tendencies through the next two seasons.

If I'm being honest, I really like the idea of offense-first being our identity. I know this will give some older fans an aneurysm, but offense is fun. Montana running something absolutely strange and aggressive, helmed by a kid who could throw a football over them mountains and with wideouts fast enough to catch it, built on big plays, behind an O-line that will punish whatever a defense can throw at us, that to me sounds awesome.

I get the value of defense, but we aren't the midwest out here. We aren't old-school. Missoula is a weird town and it's awesome like that. We do our own thing out here in the mountains. The thought of Montana football being eccentric is not only cool, but just kind of feels right.

It's a damn shame Stitt couldn't make it work.
I'm with you on this. I like to go to a game and be entertained. I don't understand why we can't have a tough defense to go along with an explosive offense.

I am hopeful that UM will find a coach who can figure out to do both.

I feel like Pflugrad was well on his way to doing that, but I suppose there's no sense in beating that dead horse anymore.
 
I see a number of people wanting an offense that is “fun” and “entertaining.” We just had that horse shot and I wasn’t very fucking entertained. Winning a s fun winning puts asses in seats winning brings in money. This fucking high flying bullshit destroyed what was left here in the last 3 years. I don’t care what we run but it damn well better beat people, and not just savannah state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Post Falls Griz said:
Stop_HammerTime69 said:
hardycreek1 said:
His offense-first mentality contradicted the years of strong defensive tradition Montana established. The heavy reliance on the quarterback that propped up his goal of 90 plays per game inevitably came back to bite him after one suffered a season-ending injury and another, freshman Gresch Jensen, was banged up in the second half of the season.

His bend-don’t-break defense snapped against a simple college option offense in Montana State. Even the last play of his prized game against North Dakota State, in which Joey Counts took a handoff out of a strong I-formation, proved to be an anomaly to his play-calling tendencies through the next two seasons.

If I'm being honest, I really like the idea of offense-first being our identity. I know this will give some older fans an aneurysm, but offense is fun. Montana running something absolutely strange and aggressive, helmed by a kid who could throw a football over them mountains and with wideouts fast enough to catch it, built on big plays, behind an O-line that will punish whatever a defense can throw at us, that to me sounds awesome.

I get the value of defense, but we aren't the midwest out here. We aren't old-school. Missoula is a weird town and it's awesome like that. We do our own thing out here in the mountains. The thought of Montana football being eccentric is not only cool, but just kind of feels right.

It's a damn shame Stitt couldn't make it work.
I'm with you on this. I like to go to a game and be entertained. I don't understand why we can't have a tough defense to go along with an explosive offense.

I am hopeful that UM will find a coach who can figure out to do both.

As long as the chains are moving and the other guys can't do a thing about it, I'm entertained.
 
Hauck’s Offense evolved to match his personnel at UNLV. The year he went 7-6 and took the rebels to a bowl game (2013 I believe), he had a dual threat qb and ran a spread to run attack that included a lot of read option, inverted veer, and speed options out of shotgun hb offset formations as well as some pistol.

I believe a power spread, multiple formation offense that forces safeties in the box and allows GJ to showcase his vertical passing abilities fits right in with Haucks past offenses philosophies, while also adapting to this current roster and modern college offenses.
 
One.Cool.Customer said:
Hauck’s Offense evolved to match his personnel at UNLV. The year he went 7-6 and took the rebels to a bowl game (2013 I believe), he had a dual threat qb and ran a spread to run attack that included a lot of read option, inverted veer, and speed options out of shotgun hb offset formations as well as some pistol.

I believe a power spread, multiple formation offense that forces safeties in the box and allows GJ to showcase his vertical passing abilities fits right in with Haucks past offenses philosophies, while also adapting to this current roster and modern college offenses.

Damn, when you put it like that I can almost believe there's some strategy to back up the swagger!
 
Back
Top