menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Frank's post-game radio show
Page: 1 of 1
mail
OhioCatFan
10/16/2016 12:50 AM
Did anyone else catch Frank's post-game interview? He was very critical of the offense play calling. He specifically said the 4th down call with the option to the left was an indefensible call. I really got the impression that someone's job might be on the line. It was very out-of-character for him to single out a coach like this (though he didn't name any names). He was also very critical of the pass defense. He started out just saying that a lot of the blame for the loss was on the coaches, and then he started to get more specific. It'll be interesting to see what happens on Monday.

Also, I noticed during the game at one point when Maxwell was in that we were marching down the field very effectively with three redshirt freshman carrying the bulk of the load -- Maxwell, Belack, and Ball. That seems to bode well for the future.
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
10/16/2016 2:23 AM
Just to be sure, isn't Frank Solich the head coach?

Hasn't he been so for 11.5 years with the same coordinators during that time?

If that is so, then you have made a point by referring to Solich's post game comments.

What that point is, of course, remains a mystery.
mail
person
allen
10/16/2016 4:10 AM
At least he is starting to notice it. They need to bring in a young consultant to help Albin and the DB coach, if he is not a GREAT recruiter, he may need to walk. We get absolutely abused by good passing teams. The Texas State debacle still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
mail
UpSan Bobcat
10/16/2016 9:13 AM
The first thing he said in the press conference was he didn't think they did a good job coaching. Later he mentioned they've got to make play calls that put the QBs in position to succeed. Then said something similar about the DBs.
mail
Valley Cat
10/16/2016 10:58 AM
Still not sure why 80 percent t or so of the throws are to the numbers and they refuse to insert an additional defensive back when they are seeing four and five wides all day. No adjustments.
mail
OU_Country
10/16/2016 11:01 AM
allen wrote:expand_more
At least he is starting to notice it. They need to bring in a young consultant to help Albin and the DB coach, if he is not a GREAT recruiter, he may need to walk. We get absolutely abused by good passing teams. The Texas State debacle still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
A consultant, or a replacement? I'm not one for calling for a person's job. Let's be honest though, there's a line between keeping the status quo because it's working well, and the status quo becoming stagnant, stale.
mail
TWT
10/16/2016 1:11 PM
This whole situation with Windhan and Maxwell I find disconcerting. How do you decide to go with a redshirt Freshman QB to lead a comeback in a mid season conference game? If Maxwell was better this entire time why wasn't he given the starting job to begin with? To not give a guy a job because he doesn't have enough in game experience doesn't make sense. Texas State could have been a win with Maxwell. That was a perfectly designed tune up game. Some of these thought processes by the staff that a player is as good as the amount of snaps they've played doesn't hold in a lot of situations.
mail
person
BryanHall
10/16/2016 1:26 PM
Uncle Wes wrote:expand_more
This whole situation with Windhan and Maxwell I find disconcerting. How do you decide to go with a redshirt Freshman QB to lead a comeback in a mid season conference game? If Maxwell was better this entire time why wasn't he given the starting job to begin with? To not give a guy a job because he doesn't have enough in game experience doesn't make sense. Texas State could have been a win with Maxwell. That was a perfectly designed tune up game. Some of these thought processes by the staff that a player is as good as the amount of snaps they've played doesn't hold in a lot of situations.
The decision to use Maxwell was quite obvious.The offense was largely ineffective over the past 2+ games against fairly weak teams. I get the feeling that Windham won the job initially based on the fact that Maxwell struggled a bit in the preseason camp. I'm guessing that staff would have liked to see him win the job against a guy that could not pass Sprague of Vick on the depth chart based on the coaching interviews I saw. In limited game action, he has looked like the better alternative. I thought the situation was handled very well. Maxwell looked much better during his 1st half game time. Windham had the last drive in the first half to keep his job. He did not keep it. Maxwell looked very good in the second half. His weakness seemed to be his inability to play pass defense. IMO, it's his job to lose at this point.
mail
TWT
10/16/2016 1:30 PM
BurritoBuggySlave wrote:expand_more
This whole situation with Windhan and Maxwell I find disconcerting. How do you decide to go with a redshirt Freshman QB to lead a comeback in a mid season conference game? If Maxwell was better this entire time why wasn't he given the starting job to begin with? To not give a guy a job because he doesn't have enough in game experience doesn't make sense. Texas State could have been a win with Maxwell. That was a perfectly designed tune up game. Some of these thought processes by the staff that a player is as good as the amount of snaps they've played doesn't hold in a lot of situations.
The decision to use Maxwell was quite obvious.The offense was largely ineffective over the past 2+ games against fairly weak teams. I get the feeling that Windham won the job initially based on the fact that Maxwell struggled a bit in the preseason camp. I'm guessing that staff would have liked to see him win the job against a guy that could not pass Sprague of Vick on the depth chart based on the coaching interviews I saw. In limited game action, he has looked like the better alternative. I thought the situation was handled very well. Maxwell looked much better during his 1st half game time. Windham had the last drive in the first half to keep his job. He did not keep it. Maxwell looked very good in the second half. His weakness seemed to be his inability to play pass defense. IMO, it's his job to lose at this point.
Maxwell had a very good camp and the coaches were raving about him at media day. He should have played from day 1. How do you throw away 2 games as a staff to stick by your starter? Staff is too conservative.
mail
UpSan Bobcat
10/16/2016 2:08 PM
Windham was outstanding the first few games of the year. You can't bench him after one bad game when he had three or four good ones. Now it's to the point where you have to consider what has caused the change and are you better off.
mail
Joe McKinley
10/16/2016 2:18 PM
Valley Cat wrote:expand_more
Still not sure why 80 percent t or so of the throws are to the numbers and they refuse to insert an additional defensive back when they are seeing four and five wides all day. No adjustments.
Are you suggesting we go dime coverage instead of the nickel we used when EMU spread the field? How do you account for motion and shifts which allow running plays or the QB scramble because you have one LB?

In terms of those underneath patterns, in the nickel you pick your poison with a young starter at CB. It's man coverage. Do you play those number and sideline routes aggressively with the risk of a long TD on the double move because there is no help over the top, or, do you play so the receiver can cut the route short and pick up 10-15 yards if the QB has time? Credit to EMU for overloading the field to one side and throwing to the other.

If Frank is looking at adjusting the scheme to play more zone, then that will change a lot of what we're doing up front defensively.
mail
TWT
10/16/2016 2:24 PM
UpSan Bobcat wrote:expand_more
Windham was outstanding the first few games of the year. You can't bench him after one bad game when he had three or four good ones. Now it's to the point where you have to consider what has caused the change and are you better off.
Was it the change in QB in the second half or was it a change in the play calling? I thought it had more to do with opening up the playbook. INTs are factor as per snap Maxwell has thrown more.
mail
OU_Country
10/16/2016 2:53 PM
Uncle Wes wrote:expand_more
Windham was outstanding the first few games of the year. You can't bench him after one bad game when he had three or four good ones. Now it's to the point where you have to consider what has caused the change and are you better off.
Was it the change in QB in the second half or was it a change in the play calling? I thought it had more to do with opening up the playbook. INTs are factor as per snap Maxwell has thrown more.
Even if that's true, the (gulp) "eye test" says that Maxwell is a better QB. He's more natural, has better touch, and a better arm. I agree Wes, you play the best guy regardless of experience in games. And you pick a starter, you don't play two headed QB with the guy that's supposed to be the field general on offense.
mail
person
BryanHall
10/16/2016 3:09 PM
Uncle Wes wrote:expand_more
This whole situation with Windhan and Maxwell I find disconcerting. How do you decide to go with a redshirt Freshman QB to lead a comeback in a mid season conference game? If Maxwell was better this entire time why wasn't he given the starting job to begin with? To not give a guy a job because he doesn't have enough in game experience doesn't make sense. Texas State could have been a win with Maxwell. That was a perfectly designed tune up game. Some of these thought processes by the staff that a player is as good as the amount of snaps they've played doesn't hold in a lot of situations.
The decision to use Maxwell was quite obvious.The offense was largely ineffective over the past 2+ games against fairly weak teams. I get the feeling that Windham won the job initially based on the fact that Maxwell struggled a bit in the preseason camp. I'm guessing that staff would have liked to see him win the job against a guy that could not pass Sprague of Vick on the depth chart based on the coaching interviews I saw. In limited game action, he has looked like the better alternative. I thought the situation was handled very well. Maxwell looked much better during his 1st half game time. Windham had the last drive in the first half to keep his job. He did not keep it. Maxwell looked very good in the second half. His weakness seemed to be his inability to play pass defense. IMO, it's his job to lose at this point.
Maxwell had a very good camp and the coaches were raving about him at media day. He should have played from day 1. How do you throw away 2 games as a staff to stick by your starter? Staff is too conservative.
His spring camp was great. If you go back to Arkley's comments during fall camp, he was struggling a bit with reads while Windham was not. Starting Maxwell would've been based on a gut instinct (that probably would've worked out).
mail
person
Deciduous Forest Cat
10/16/2016 8:07 PM
allen wrote:expand_more
At least he is starting to notice it. They need to bring in a young consultant to help Albin and the DB coach, if he is not a GREAT recruiter, he may need to walk. We get absolutely abused by good passing teams. The Texas State debacle still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I thought that was Isphording's job. Wasn't he supposed to help advance the offense, and provide another perspective? Him being named co-OC didn't sound like a huge vote of confidence to Albin... So what gives? Our offense is actually worse since his arrival and has been beyond stagnant. Has this plan backfired? Too many cooks in the kitchen?

I don't think our receivers are nearly as fast as our coordinators do. We call more freaking deep balls to guys that are just not getting open down field (to be fair, some balls have been badly underthrown too).

I think it's too bad if Greg Windham doesn't get to finish his senior season as the starter. I was really hoping for a breakthrough year. However, while I think a switch to Maxwell might bring some growing pains, at this point, we're not winning the MAC and we're going to some annoyingly unreachable bowl, so why not let him make his mistakes now. I think it's clear the ceiling is higher with Q.
Last Edited: 10/16/2016 8:11:50 PM by Deciduous Forest Cat
mail
C Money
10/16/2016 8:39 PM
Deciduous Forest Cat wrote:expand_more
I thought that was Isphording's job. Wasn't he supposed to help advance the offense, and provide another perspective?

My thought/speculation/whatever is that Albin is a RB guy and doesn't understand the offense from a QB's perspective. Isphording is a QB guy. Frank stresses the importance of balance, so naming Isphording as a co-OC gives a semblance of balance, or something like that.
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
10/16/2016 9:14 PM
My man DFC, remember the thread I started about how we have apparent limitations at qb?


I enjoyed when most told me that was not so.

Generally, when obvious evidence points one way, I try to understand that and incorporate it.



Who do I send a written apology to?
mail
person
BillyTheCat
10/16/2016 10:55 PM
Often times the title of "co" is simply to give an assistant coach a bump in pay. And possibly keep them in town. More schools than ever use the "co" title.
mail
OhioCatFan
10/16/2016 11:17 PM
Let me start by pointing out that I'm not a real good Xs and Os guy, so what I'm about to say may not pass muster with those who are better students of the game. But, for what it's worth, I noticed one thing in the game from my vantage point that's relevant to the Windham-Maxwell debate. I noted that on sideline passes when Greg was throwing that the receiver usually had to reach back for the ball. This gave time for the defender to get in place and tackle the receiver with little or no YAC. However, when Quinton was executing the same type of sideline pass the receiver would usually catch the ball in stride and was able to get a significant amount of YAC. This often made the difference between moving the sticks and not reaching the line to gain. I also observed that on slant passes Quinton has a real good "touch," whereas Greg seems to throw the ball like a rocket (when not necessary) and, therefore, has more receivers drop passes.
mail
person
GoCats105
10/17/2016 8:27 AM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
Let me start by pointing out that I'm not a real good Xs and Os guy, so what I'm about to say may not pass muster with those who are better students of the game. But, for what it's worth, I noticed one thing in the game from my vantage point that's relevant to the Windham-Maxwell debate. I noted that on sideline passes when Greg was throwing that the receiver usually had to reach back for the ball. This gave time for the defender to get in place and tackle the receiver with little or no YAC. However, when Quinton was executing the same type of sideline pass the receiver would usually catch the ball in stride and was able to get a significant amount of YAC. This often made the difference between moving the sticks and not reaching the line to gain. I also observed that on slant passes Quinton has a real good "touch," whereas Greg seems to throw the ball like a rocket (when not necessary) and, therefore, has more receivers drop passes.
Those sideline throws you speak of are the hardest throws for a QB to make, especially the deep outs. You've got to have a great arm to get them there.
mail
person
BEG
10/17/2016 4:43 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
Also, I noticed during the game at one point when Maxwell was in that we were marching down the field very effectively with three redshirt freshman carrying the bulk of the load -- Maxwell, Belack, and Ball. That seems to bode well for the future.
It might mean that, or it might mean that there isn't much left. Think of all the receivers who are injured right now. We also had 5 QB's at the beginning of the season. Hopefully these young guys playing now will remain healthy.
Showing Messages: 1 - 21 of 21
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)