Mistruth.

There have been intimations on this board that some of our running backs, espec those who some here might have wanted to get more carries over the last year or so, did not get carries (or more carries) because the coaches determined that they weren't game ready...didn't know the playbook or whatever.

Well, if that's so, then those guys either 1) didn't see the field because they weren't ready or 2) they saw the field and there were problems because they weren't ready.

On the latter, has anyone noticed a more than usual amount of discombobulation, uh-oh-that-guy-doesn't-know-the-playbook over the last year or two. I don't think anyone would argue that has happened.

So, that leaves the first idea: guys were held back because they weren't ready...so, thank goodness, they weren't allowed out there where they cold make mistakes.

But that's another our-coaches-are-infallible argument which no one can reason with. How can I prove the guys were ready if they didn't play (or didn't play soon enough or often enough)?


Again, the coaches are held by the SFB as infallible despite any proof at all that guys were not ready beyond the staff's own assertion of same.

You may want to revisit the PM you received last fall from the parent of a player. You relayed in another thread that they found said RB to be polite and have no character issues (echoed by others). You conveniently left out that multiple players on the team conveyed that playing time was being curtailed because of a lack of understanding of the offense – a condition that has been echoed by others. The payers did not appear to have an issue with said playing time.

Now in PMs between the two of us, I presented that not fully grasping the offense after two years was a concern to me. However, knowing that he played HS at a small school against inferior opposition AND played using CFL rules (3 downs, etc.) and field dimensions, the situation becomes understandable – at least to most

So to date, it appears understandable to the coaches and most other posters on AB - but not to you. So what the Hell, let’s add Ohio football players as another contingency to whom you have superior football knowledge. Or perhaps there is a different canard at play.

No, per Jim Carey, there is a chance. But when we are all hearing the same thing (even from other players) then perhaps your perspective here is the one that is misplaced. Let me see…..your view….the player’s view….hmmm. Perhaps this is an area where your perspective is not perfect.

Monroe, for the umpteenth time you need to stop with the "if you disagree with me on anything, then you are in the “other” camp...in everyway, on everything.” In doing so, you paint yourself as the absolutist – in that anyone who ever disagrees with you is absolutely a “green kool-aid drinking, coaches ass-kissing, never be upset with the team or program” fan. It’s old and shows a lack of effort to listen.

Your approach to this board is what is wrong with the general approach to discussion in our country. We have gone from being able to respectfully discuss and disagree with each other to “if you do not agree with me 100% then you are the “other.”

I asked you before, I will ask again. You label (another lazy tactic in today’s society) me an SFB – absolutist. Show me where. Show me how? Or perhaps we just disagree here and you are casting me (as you do others) with a blanket. I do not disagree that there are unwavering faithful. The number is few. Stop throwing people in camps – you are better than that.

So where do we stand? A kid didn't play much last year. When he did, he showed great potential. Countless have heard he was simply not ready. We also hear that he now is. As I have stated elsewhere, I suspect he will storm the scene next season. And when he does, you will again (or continue) to bellow how he should have played more last year. And I suppose that I, and others, will point to how he (according to his coaches AND teammates) needed time to ferment.

On this the Irons subject I will give the benefit of the doubt to the coaches – if for no other reason than that players appear to be in agreement and we have heard it from too many perspectives to disregard.

Now let's just let the kid play ball.

Let him have his fun this summer. Once the actual football starts, I expect that it's going to be a very long season for him.

Robert, lol. Actually, you missed the more obvious one. While there will be some 2 backs sets, there were some last year, too, but he didn't like them. I don't know what they will look like this fall, but I'm sure they won't be a conservative I-formation set, or something like that. Instead they will more likely be pistol set variations, with some new plays. Whatever they are, therefore, won't meet his expectations.

I love that you SFB are at back at it.

Keep buying hook line and sinker that there were running backs who were not ready when there was not a shred of evidence on the field (fouled up plays and such in greater volume than generally arise) to support same.

So, if hard evidence is totally lacking, then you must buy the rumor mill and/or believe that the coaches judgment is perfect.



Hey, would these be those same coaches then who can't recruit or coach up running backs such that after 1-2 years they know the playboook? That would be great coaching.

I don't know what the two back sets will look like in 2016, but I will be very surprised if they use a conservative set such as you are asking for. I'm hoping for something more advanced and versatile.