Serious Question About Our Offense

[HelenaHandBasket]

Yes. WE all see the difference, but it is ABUNDANTLY clear that you do not. It is also very clear that your only purpose here is to try, however futile your attempts are, to stir up shit and pretend you know something about football. I'd suggest Midol for those cramps, by the way.

Got it. After prattling on about how easy the transition will be for a high school QB because he is "a perfect fit ... for Stitt and the Griz because he is already running that type of offense," now you admit, oh, there are DIFFERENCES!

Good to hear, but not what you were saying. I suspected as much. It was the point of my short comment, one that obviously went over that tiny head with the giant brain. You are accusing me of pointing out, by a sarcastic comment, that the high school game is not likely "the same."

But, as I noted, I don't follow 16 year old boys at all, whereas you claim you claim that particular expertise. Be careful.

75, it is not so much the level, it is more about offensive design and concepts. There are many high schools that will run offenses that are similar to teams on higher levels. Jensen has been running an offense with similar concepts and design to what Stitt uses. Are they exactly the same? NO, because every single coach has some things they do different, whether it is terminology, some tweaks to technique, etc. The entire point was that Jensen is more prepared based on what he has done than Gus because he was new to the offense. I don't get why you struggle to understand. It is common sense that a kid that runs an uptempo spread offense would be better prepared for the offense Stitt runs than a kid that has run nothing but triple option throughout high school. So yes, Jensen can be more advanced with the offense coming out of high school than Gus was when Stitt was hired.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Oh, he's absolutely this stupid. But he thinks he's being clever.

Wow. Look at those two!

The question posed is, if HS QBs already know this system, don't most DCs? I know for idiots that might be too steep an intellectual hill to climb, but judging by the enthusiasm of the original post regarding how knowledgeable High School QBs already are about the "Stitt offense," exactly what does it bring to the table at the collegiate level?

Innovation?

How? Unlike some, I don't breathlessly follow High School, Grade School, and Kindergarten football, and worship the ground of 16 year QBs. But if they are already prepared to play the game at UM under Stitt, isn't there a defense already adapted to it? A high school defense?

You do realize that your question demonstrates to everyone that you are completely clueless about the X's and O's.

Handbasket, could you please explain how 75 is completely clueless about the X's and O's?

PR, it seems that you and 75 must have switched positions so you could use the keyboard.

 

[RobGriz]

Yes. WE all see the difference, but it is ABUNDANTLY clear that you do not. It is also very clear that your only purpose here is to try, however futile your attempts are, to stir up shit and pretend you know something about football. I'd suggest Midol for those cramps, by the way.

Got it. After prattling on about how easy the transition will be for a high school QB because he is "a perfect fit ... for Stitt and the Griz because he is already running that type of offense," now you admit, oh, there are DIFFERENCES!

A "Perfect fit!" mind you!

Good to hear, but not what you were saying. I suspected as much. It was the point of my short comment, one that obviously went over that tiny head with the giant brain. You are accusing me of pointing out, by a sarcastic comment, that the high school game is not likely "the same."

But, as I noted, I don't follow 16 year old boys at all, whereas you claim you claim that particular expertise. Be careful.

And yet you're the one claiming to be "orgasmic" over them. Also there is a HUGE difference between saying there are similarities between many high school offenses and the current GRIZ offense and them being the "same". Might get that grandchild you were talking about earlier to explain the difference. That's assuming you're allowed w/in 500 feet of him/her of course.

 

[tgreseth]

 

[UMGriz75]

75, it is not so much the level, it is more about offensive design and concepts. There are many high schools that will run offenses that are similar to teams on higher levels. Jensen has been running an offense with similar concepts and design to what Stitt uses.

I was offering skepticism on the euphoric hyperbole that was suggesting, in all its gloriosity, that these High School QBs already had basically played Stitt's offense, and were, therefore not just already playing "that" offense, but would be "AWESOME" at because they had already played it in high school. On the other hand, if some you geniuses believed what you were saying, then you were in essence saying that Stitt was using high school playbooks, and if so, it's time to move on. If High School QBs are already a "perfect fit" for the system, DC's probably have that one pretty well figured out, since it is now practiced at high school level, indeed, "in MANY high schools." If it is as claimed, then where is the "innovation" that made it so hard for three somewhat experienced college QBs, after a year of training under Stitt, playing at the FCS level, to pick it up last year ....

I thought the remarks were stupid. I phrased it in the form of a question that judging by the hyperbolic and asinine responses, suggests that I hit that nerve of the avowedly self-referential, much-inflated egos that are so self-invested, they cannot understand criticism even as the light slowly dawns and they start frantically back-tracking, no, no its actually DIFFERENT!

JJ would've been perfect in this offense. And Gresch will be awesome in it. The truth is that many high schools are running an offense very similar to ours so development of QBs should not be an issue.

Who's to argue? "The truth is ...".

 

[UMGriz75]

And yet you're the one claiming to be "orgasmic" over them.

Well, you got that exactly backwards too. So far, on comprehension, you're batting 0%. You're the one "following" 16 and 17 year olds in such detail as you are willing to describe them as "awesome." It is embarrassing to see an adult exalting an adolescent on a public forum in quite such terms, before he's ever even thrown a college football.

My suggestion was that you ratchet back your orgasms, and your delirious claims that these kids have already essentially played Stitt's offense, because all you do is argue that Stitt is using an offense widely used at the high school level. If what you say is true, I would not be impressed by it because, to me, "innovative" has a different meaning. Caveat: this says nothing about "Stitt." This is all about hyperventilating fanboys who say shit and then spend 15 posts trying to retract by insulting and spinning.

 

[RobGriz]

75, it is not so much the level, it is more about offensive design and concepts. There are many high schools that will run offenses that are similar to teams on higher levels. Jensen has been running an offense with similar concepts and design to what Stitt uses.

I was offering skepticism on the euphoric hyperbole that was suggesting, in all its gloriosity, that these High School QBs already had basically played Stitt's offense, and were, therefore not just already playing "that" offense, but would be "AWESOME" at because they had already played it in high school. On the other hand, if some you geniuses believed what you were saying, then you were in essence saying that Stitt was using high school playbooks, and if so, it's time to move on. If High School QBs are already a "perfect fit" for the system, DC's probably have that one pretty well figured out, since it is now practiced at high school level, indeed, "in MANY high schools." If it is as claimed, then where is the "innovation" that made it so hard for three somewhat experienced college QBs, after a year of training under Stitt, playing at the FCS level, to pick it up last year ....

I thought the remarks were stupid. I phrased it in the form of a question that judging by the hyperbolic and asinine responses, suggests that I hit that nerve of the avowedly self-referential, much-inflated egos that are so self-invested, they cannot understand criticism even as the light slowly dawns and they start frantically back-tracking, no, no its actually DIFFERENT!

JJ would've been perfect in this offense. And Gresch will be awesome in it. The truth is that many high schools are running an offense very similar to ours so development of QBs should not be an issue.

And again you need to learn the difference between "similar" and "same". My sons high school coach was one of a handful that was invited to learn the concepts of Oregons offense when Kelley was the HC there. Did he teach them the SAME O that Oregon ran? No he taught them the concepts of the offense. Similar, not same. And it seems to be working since he is one of the winningest coaches in the state of Washington. His names Dave Miller, but you probably know him better as Drew Millers dad.
It's very disconcerting the way you keep bringing up your orgasms while speaking about these young kids. You may want to contact some kind of pedophile support group.

 

[RobGriz]

75, it is not so much the level, it is more about offensive design and concepts. There are many high schools that will run offenses that are similar to teams on higher levels. Jensen has been running an offense with similar concepts and design to what Stitt uses.

I was offering skepticism on the euphoric hyperbole that was suggesting, in all its gloriosity, that these High School QBs already had basically played Stitt's offense, and were, therefore not just already playing "that" offense, but would be "AWESOME" at because they had already played it in high school. On the other hand, if some you geniuses believed what you were saying, then you were in essence saying that Stitt was using high school playbooks, and if so, it's time to move on. If High School QBs are already a "perfect fit" for the system, DC's probably have that one pretty well figured out, since it is now practiced at high school level, indeed, "in MANY high schools." If it is as claimed, then where is the "innovation" that made it so hard for three somewhat experienced college QBs, after a year of training under Stitt, playing at the FCS level, to pick it up last year ....

I thought the remarks were stupid. I phrased it in the form of a question that judging by the hyperbolic and asinine responses, suggests that I hit that nerve of the avowedly self-referential, much-inflated egos that are so self-invested, they cannot understand criticism even as the light slowly dawns and they start frantically back-tracking, no, no its actually DIFFERENT!

JJ would've been perfect in this offense. And Gresch will be awesome in it. The truth is that many high schools are running an offense very similar to ours so development of QBs should not be an issue.

Who's to argue? "The truth is ...".

On second thought, you're right. I mean what kind of dumbass football coach WOULD EVER recruit a QB that would fit in his offense. That's just crazy talk.

 

[doc3kgt]

Have you seen um's rushing stats last year? Go look them up, I'll wait.

That doesn't mean that Stiit would not like to run more effectively.....nor does it mean that UM does not have a quality running back.....and imo it relates more to OL play and offensive execution....

I guess so if that's how you want to spin it. I'm just saying maybe focusing more on beefing up and improving the run game rather than having an excessive number of incoming WRs might be a good idea. PR we aren't talking about MSU, and spinning your stats to try to prove that um had a better running game than Montana State last year is laughable. MSU's offense was one of the best in the nation last year. Newell will be near the top in rushing this year, and certainly a hell of a lot higher than any UM RB.

What did your great rushing stats get you last year? I got the answer a losing record!!! Go look it up!!

Yea the defense sucked last year....doesn't change what the offense accomplished.

 

[doc3kgt]

I guess so if that's how you want to spin it. I'm just saying maybe focusing more on beefing up and improving the run game rather than having an excessive number of incoming WRs might be a good idea. PR we aren't talking about MSU, and spinning your stats to try to prove that um had a better running game than Montana State last year is laughable. MSU's offense was one of the best in the nation last year. Newell will be near the top in rushing this year, and certainly a hell of a lot higher than any UM RB.

my understanding is they have been working hard in the off season to beef up and improve.....Stitt is not abandoning the running game....

Well you would know more than me, just seems like a lot of emphasis on one position.

You do realize that based on percentage, MSU has more WR/TE on its current roster than does UM......

I'm not talking current roster...we are discussing the plethora of WR that stitt is bringing in compared to other positions.

 

[Paytonlives]

Moved for obvious reasons...

 

[grizindabox]

my understanding is they have been working hard in the off season to beef up and improve.....Stitt is not abandoning the running game....

Well you would know more than me, just seems like a lot of emphasis on one position.

You do realize that based on percentage, MSU has more WR/TE on its current roster than does UM......

I'm not talking current roster...we are discussing the plethora of WR that stitt is bringing in compared to other positions.

Once again, the current roster includes all incoming players...

 

[grizindabox]

I was offering skepticism on the euphoric hyperbole that was suggesting, in all its gloriosity, that these High School QBs already had basically played Stitt's offense, and were, therefore not just already playing "that" offense, but would be "AWESOME" at because they had already played it in high school. On the other hand, if some you geniuses believed what you were saying, then you were in essence saying that Stitt was using high school playbooks, and if so, it's time to move on. If High School QBs are already a "perfect fit" for the system, DC's probably have that one pretty well figured out, since it is now practiced at high school level, indeed, "in MANY high schools." If it is as claimed, then where is the "innovation" that made it so hard for three somewhat experienced college QBs, after a year of training under Stitt, playing at the FCS level, to pick it up last year ....

I thought the remarks were stupid. I phrased it in the form of a question that judging by the hyperbolic and asinine responses, suggests that I hit that nerve of the avowedly self-referential, much-inflated egos that are so self-invested, they cannot understand criticism even as the light slowly dawns and they start frantically back-tracking, no, no its actually DIFFERENT!

 

[HookedonGriz]

Yes. WE all see the difference, but it is ABUNDANTLY clear that you do not. It is also very clear that your only purpose here is to try, however futile your attempts are, to stir up shit and pretend you know something about football. I'd suggest Midol for those cramps, by the way.

Got it. After prattling on about how easy the transition will be for a high school QB because he is "a perfect fit ... for Stitt and the Griz because he is already running that type of offense," now you admit, oh, there are DIFFERENCES!

Good to hear, but not what you were saying. I suspected as much. It was the point of my short comment, one that obviously went over that tiny head with the giant brain. You are accusing me of pointing out, by a sarcastic comment, that the high school game is not likely "the same."

But, as I noted, I don't follow 16 year old boys at all, whereas you claim you claim that particular expertise. Be careful.

75, it is not so much the level, it is more about offensive design and concepts. There are many high schools that will run offenses that are similar to teams on higher levels. Jensen has been running an offense with similar concepts and design to what Stitt uses. Are they exactly the same? NO, because every single coach has some things they do different, whether it is terminology, some tweaks to technique, etc. The entire point was that Jensen is more prepared based on what he has done than Gus because he was new to the offense. I don't get why you struggle to understand. It is common sense that a kid that runs an uptempo spread offense would be better prepared for the offense Stitt runs than a kid that has run nothing but triple option throughout high school. So yes, Jensen can be more advanced with the offense coming out of high school than Gus was when Stitt was hired.

The fact you even had to spell this out in an attempt for him to understand is just sad. To look at it another way, if Cal Poly could recruit an athletic, running QB who has already run a triple option attack in high school for 3 years, at a high level with a lot of success, you bet they'd be thrilled to do so. You could also bet that QB is better prepared to run that triple option at a high level in college. How is this hard to understand? It was late and maybe 75 had hit the bottle earlier or woke up from an Ambien cloud.

 

[UMGriz75]

It's very disconcerting the way you keep bringing up your orgasms while speaking about these young kids. You may want to contact some kind of pedophile support group.

Nice try, but you're the one who always claims to "know all about them" and how admiring you are of their "AWESOMENESS!" How early do you start watching the careers of barely adolescent males, anyway?

 

[UMGriz75]

You could also bet that QB is better prepared to run that triple option at a high level in college. How is this hard to understand? It was late and maybe 75 had hit the bottle earlier or woke up from an Ambien cloud.

Not at all. That was part of my point, which a single short-sentence question seemed to provoke an immense amount of "stay out of my treehouse" response.

But, you do again make my specific point. If he's running the triple option in high school, then how does running the triple option in college make running the triple option in college "innovative"?

How is a common "high school strategy" innovative at the collegiate level?

Do you get that?

 

[grizindabox]

You could also bet that QB is better prepared to run that triple option at a high level in college. How is this hard to understand? It was late and maybe 75 had hit the bottle earlier or woke up from an Ambien cloud.

Not at all. That was part of my point, which a single short-sentence question seemed to provoke an immense amount of "stay out of my treehouse" response.

But, you do again make my specific point. If he's running the triple option in high school, then how does running the triple option in college make running the triple option in college "innovative"?

How is a common "high school strategy" innovative at the collegiate level?

Do you get that?

You do understand that there is nothing innovative about the base concepts....and this applies for every single offense...and defense even......and Jensen is well versed in the base concepts of what Stitt does.....innovations are the little tweaks, personalizations, and additions each and every coach makes....I would say that almost every offense and corresponding defense had beginnings at the high school level.....but you still can't quite seem to grasp this....probably because you really don't understand basic concepts.....but keep trolling away....

 

[UMGriz75]

You do understand that there is nothing innovative about the base concepts....and this applies for every single offense...and defense even......and Jensen is well versed in the base concepts of what Stitt does.....innovations are the little tweaks, personalizations, and additions each and every coach makes....I would say that almost every offense and corresponding defense had beginnings at the high school level.....but you still can't quite seem to grasp this....probably because you really don't understand basic concepts.....but keep trolling away....

Talk about trolling.

You're the idiot trying to make this something it isn't, as usual.

I'm the guy calling into question how a High School QB can be such a great fit into an "innovative offense," if he hasn't played in that "innovative offense" with all the "tweaks, personalizations, and additions" that "each and every coach makes."

Or, if he is a "perfect fit" and already "awesome," and the offense is "something he has already played," then that "offense" must not be so "innovative" is it?

"Innovative" has meaning. I am pointing out that the three or four posters who don't seem to grasp that "innovative" is supposed to bring something extra to the table, but you are arguing it is merely a "minor tweak." Hell, tone of voice is a "minor tweak." That's why we hired Stitt?

If it is truly "innovative," then the HS QB HASN'T played it yet, right? And if he's the "perfect fit," and has played it "for years," then it's not truly "innovative," right?

If a 17 year old High School QB is already a near perfect fit, because of "years of playing that offense," then sure, just say it: "an FCS program gets a successful HS QB who already knows the offense because the FCS school is using a common HS playbook." Nothing wrong with that if its successful, but I am saying that denigrates the other fondly held idea that the offense is "innovative" if you also claim that the QB has already been playing it "for years."

The description for two irreconcilable thoughts occupying the same small brain case is "cognitive dissonance."

It is the hyperbolic enthusiasm that, examined, is contradictory, and I pointed that out.

One short interrogatory sentence and its apparent truth is suggested by the resulting multipage, multi-post butt hurt complete with a barrage of the usual ad hominem attacks, to a simple short question. The experience is suggestive: "Do Not Feed The Psychopaths."

You are so full of bullshit talking outside both sides of your mouth, and as usual trying to put words in my mouth to make one of your canned excursions into explaining how much you think you know about football by rambling on and on with a bunch of meaningless platitudes without ever actually saying anything.

 

[grizindabox]

You do understand that there is nothing innovative about the base concepts....and this applies for every single offense...and defense even......and Jensen is well versed in the base concepts of what Stitt does.....innovations are the little tweaks, personalizations, and additions each and every coach makes....I would say that almost every offense and corresponding defense had beginnings at the high school level.....but you still can't quite seem to grasp this....probably because you really don't understand basic concepts.....but keep trolling away....

Talk about trolling.

You're the idiot trying to make this something it isn't, as usual.

I'm the guy calling into question how a High School QB can be such a great fit into an "innovative offense," if he hasn't played in that "innovative offense" with all the "tweaks, personalizations, and additions" that "each and every coach makes."

Or, if he is a "perfect fit" and already "awesome," and the offense is "something he has already played," then that "offense" must not be so "innovative" is it?

"Innovative" has meaning. I am pointing out that the three or four posters who don't seem to grasp that "innovative" is supposed to bring something extra to the table, but you are arguing it is merely a "minor tweak." Hell, tone of voice is a "minor tweak." That's why we hired Stitt?

If it is truly "innovative," then the HS QB HASN'T played it yet, right? And if he's the "perfect fit," and has played it "for years," then it's not truly "innovative," right?

If a 17 year old High School QB is already a near perfect fit, because of "years of playing that offense," then sure, just say it: "an FCS program gets a successful HS QB who already knows the offense because the FCS school is using a common HS playbook." Nothing wrong with that if its successful, but I am saying that denigrates the other fondly held idea that the offense is "innovative" if you also claim that the QB has already been playing it "for years."

The description for two irreconcilable thoughts occupying the same small brain case is "cognitive dissonance."

It is the hyperbolic enthusiasm that, examined, is contradictory, and I pointed that out.

One short interrogatory sentence and its apparent truth is suggested by the resulting multipage, multi-post butt hurt complete with a barrage of the usual ad hominem attacks, to a simple short question. The experience is suggestive: "Do Not Feed The Psychopaths."

You are so full of bullshit talking outside both sides of your mouth, and as usual trying to put words in my mouth to make one of your canned excursions into explaining how much you think you know about football by rambling on and on with a bunch of meaningless platitudes without ever actually saying anything.

Once again....you are not grasping anything....basically because you lack knowledge....it is OK to admit it...everyone has already figured it out....you are just so hung up on taking shots at Stitt that you make yourself look foolish...

 

[Glendivegriz]

Kick the F***ing field goal!