When are you allowed to question the coach?
by Matt Daddy on Oct 7, 2011 2:01 PM PDT
in Oregon Ducks Football
Email
PrintSo when are you, as a fan, allowed to question the coach? Not like in a "fire Chip Kelly he's an idiot because he didn't run the ball more!" kind of way. But in the aspects of the team or the game? For myself, in the first two years it didn't feel right to question many things that he did. For one, there weren't a lot of losses or bad times that usually are a catalyst for going over how a coach handled the situation, and secondly he was so new as a head coach, a lot of the decisions he was making he was making for the first time, so he needed to be given the freedom to make those decisions without the media or fans second guessing everything he did. And for the most part, I think Kelly did an excellent job handling the Blount situation, the off season troubles, the big games, the game plans, the recruiting, and all the things that a new head coach had to endure.
But is it ok to start to question how he's handling things now?
First of all, I think there is reason to be concerned with Kelly's preparation of the team and the game plan when it comes to playing quality defensive lines. Now, there's no concern with that in the Pac 12 this year, because no team has one, and we probably won't see one until a bowl game. But you look at the game plan against Ohio St, Auburn, and LSU and you have to wonder if the team was prepared for their D-line. In the 3 seasons under Kelly, Oregon is averaging 42.9 points per game. In those three games Oregon is averaging 21 per game. In 3 seasons so far, Oregon is averaging 268.2 yards per game rushing. In those 3 games Oregon is averaging 116.33. There is a definite trend here, and I'm sure there will be plenty of Kelly supporters (I being one of them) that will explain away each of those games, or talk about X fluke play, or Y reason for the decrease in production.
But is it ok to question how the team has done in those games?
Lastly, on the discipline of players, I think there has been a shift in how Kelly has handled it. When the Blount incident happened Kelly took swift and decisive action. Later, after Blount proved he deserved a second chance, Kelly let him back. When asked about why he didn't just suspend Blount indefinitely, instead of the suspended for the full year like he was given, Kelly talked about how he thought indefinite suspensions didn't solve much, and didn't give the player a reason to work himself back onto the field. Plus, he didn't want the player coming into his office every week saying, "am I going to play this week coach?"
When the LaMicahel James situation happened, Kelly took a lot of grief from the media about not suspending LMJ during the off season. In a famous radio interview, he goes as far as to say, "What am I suspending him from? There's nothing to suspend him from now."
Fast forward to this off season. Kelly's already gone through one tumultuous off season, and this one starts with the uncovering of the Yahoo story and Will Lyles. Again the media is swirling around Kelly. Then you have the Kiko incident. Which by the accounts of the police, let's just say Kiko was lucky about which house he broke into. If that had been my house, with 2 daughters, the police would have likely been hearing only one side of the story at the end of the night. This was Kiko squandering his second chance, after a DUI last year. On a side note, I think the full year suspension for Kiko last year was completely out of character for Kelly too, and one of the first signs he was starting to change his discipline. Kelly reacted to Kiko's DUI. It was the same day as the press conference where Kelly talked about controlling his program. Normally, Kelly waited for the legal process to play out, and yes, Kiko did plead not guilty to the DUI. This time Kelly immediately suspended Kiko for he full year.
This year, after Kiko decides to play slumber party at a stranger's house, Kelly suspends Kiko indefinitely. Huh? It made no sense to me then and it still makes no sense. First of all, it was during the off season. In Kelly's own words, what was he suspending Kiko from? Second, this was Kiko's third chance. Why the leniency now?
Then the Cliff Harris situation happened. For some, this incident was almost trivial. At the time it was just a speeding ticket (we later learn that pot was involved, but no DUI or possession charges). Again, Kelly hands down an indefinite suspension, but he also throws in this time a minimum of 1 game sitting out against LSU. Now when you compare this to the Kiko incident, it appears that the discipline of Harris is more severe than Kiko's. And with what has transpired on the field this year, it is definitely worse.
Now, I don't want to get into a whose "transgression was greater" argument because we don't know the circumstances. My point is Kelly has changed course on his discipline, and I don't think it is for the better of the team. When he suspended a player, Kelly always talked about that person needing to get things off the field straight before worrying about what happens on the field. And I agree with that. Therefore, I knew that if a guy wasn't playing (Masoli, Kiko, LMJ, Harris) it was because they were going through whatever they needed to go through to be able to be on the team again. Once they were back on the field (Blount, James, Kiko) it was no longer an off the field issue thing, it was now a football thing. You didn't get back onto the field until you cleared your hurdles off, and then you didn't play until it was best for the team.
With Harris, that isn't the case. He's been allowed to play since the Missouri State game, where he saw special teams action and a couple of late game snaps once the game was already determined. In the Arizona game, Harris played significant minutes at corner, and it appeared that he was starting to work his way back into that starter and lead position at the corner. Then last night's game against Cal, saw Harris again returned to special team player and late game corner when the game was already in hand.
For me, this is not the best football move. Harris is Oregon's best defensive player, and most dynamic playmaker on that side of the ball. He should not be reduced to garbage time corner and cheerleader. If he's being made to sit because of off the field issues, then he should, as Kelly has said, take care of that first then worry about football. But, that doesn't appear to be the case because he's playing. So why make him sit for 55 minutes of an important conference game against an erratic QB, especially in the first half when the game was very much in doubt? Watching Talking Ducks on Comcast last night, some commentators hypothesized that Harris is having trouble with Aliotti's scheme. Huh? You're telling me freshman Terrance Mitchell is picking up Aliotti's scheme better than an All-American who had 6 interceptions last season?
Finally, Kelly's stance of not disclosing much to the media about injuries and off the field issues, doesn't allow insight as a fan into the process. There is good and bad in that. The good is he's protecting his players, and I'll defend Kelly's stance with the media until I die. The bad is we're only able to guess at why a player is or isn't playing. I'm trying to guess based on historical actions by Kelly, and this one seems to contradict, as does the Kiko situation. So why the change? Did the scrutiny of the media the last couple of years finally get to Kelly? Is he really still trying to implore some learned lesson into Harris (who by all accounts seems to have gotten the message)? I don't think this is the right football move, and by allowing Harris to play at all, he's made it a football thing again.
Am I allowed to question Kelly on these things yet?
157 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Also
Funny stat I found. Guess who leads the team this year in passes broken up? Here’s a hint, it’s the same guy that led the team last year.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
I think there is a method to this
Harris has to complete some steps within the program to earn his way back.
I am sure by next few games he will have more playing time.
It sends a clear message to the young kids. Don’t fuck around if you want to play.
ssshhh....
Was that message less clear before Harris?
And why all of a sudden is he needing to use Harris to make that point? Seems like that is out of character for Kelly as well. I think he’s tried to stay away from the “using players and their punishments” to make his points. As he’s said, he takes every situation individually.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
Someone posted last night that they had heard Cliff hadn't been practicing that well...
I don’t know if it was a joke, something completely made up, a seventeenth-hand-rumor or possible true, but I could see Cliff not being at his best until recently in practice, knowing that he wasn’t getting to run with the 1’s or 2’s.
I think starting this next week or two we will continue to see more and more of Cliff.
by NICKPAPAGEORGIOTHEDUCK on Oct 7, 2011 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions
As Matt Daddy said above, he still leads the teams in passes broken up despite barely playing
“Isn’t practicing well” doesn’t mean squat when he “is playing games well” and the freshman taking his place is promising but gets taken advantage of a lot
I don't think he is sending a message to other players.
I think he is sending a message to Harris and Harris alone. Each one of those atheletes needs to be dscisplined differently. Maybe, Harris needs a carrot to be dangled infront of his face for motivation. That carrot could be gargabe time.
"Last time I checked, there is no ‘Hall of Average.’ " Chip Kelly
On Harris
I think the punishment is more severe because he put his teammates in Jeopardy.
Kiko, I don’t know and I really don’t care how Chip does his suspension business.
We only know what we know. There is what you say, I say and what really happened and we don’t have the insight that CK does or anyone else closer to the players for that matter.
ssshhh....
Because if winning has to be all that matters, why not pay $200K for a national title?
It’s a real bargain if you think about it. Why not play a bowl game with players you know to be ineligible and lie about it? As far as Kiko’s suspension last year? He was out for the season anyway. As far as I know he didn’t miss a single thing he would have been part of if he hadn’t been injured..
Ducks GOOOOD. Fuskies BAAAAAD.
by BigGreenWreckingMachine on Oct 7, 2011 2:23 PM PDT reply actions
Does Kiko blow out his knee if he doesn't have to play on scout team?
And I’m not saying winning is all that matters. In fact we haven’t lost a game because of a single one of Kelly’s suspensions, IMO. What I’m saying is the way he’s treating Harris right now goes against the way Kelly has reacted in almost every other situation, and I don’t think it’s good for the team.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
What do you think will be the negative outcomes of his actions in relation to the team?
"Last time I checked, there is no ‘Hall of Average.’ " Chip Kelly
Because we've been torched all year?
"Forget it. If 21 gets behind you, you can play the fight song." --Scott Van Pelt
We’re worse without Cliff on the field. There’s no questioning that.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
I was asking more in line with the outcome on the team's psyche
My bad.
"Last time I checked, there is no ‘Hall of Average.’ " Chip Kelly
their nachos will taste a hell of a lot worse
Go Team! Score Six Goal Units!
by FromAutzenWithLove on Oct 7, 2011 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions
We don't know the facts.
I’ve seen little snippets about how Cliff hasn’t been practicing well. Are the true? Who knows. It’s possible Cliff has been a problem discipline-wise to a degree we know nothing about and CK is simply done with it. Who knows?
Ducks GOOOOD. Fuskies BAAAAAD.
by BigGreenWreckingMachine on Oct 7, 2011 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Then he should be suspended if he still has discipline issues, not given random minutes. He obviously can play regardless of how he practices
he is clearly our best secondary player when he gets out there.
Exactly Right
I completely agree: We don’t know all the facts. Who knows what’s going on in practice and otherwise off the field.
Questioning A Coach
There is more to it than the obvious of a player’s actions. Are they perpetually late to practice and to class? Are they straight A student? Or barely passing? (Guess what? the main reason they are at college is to STUDY).
Were there other incidents that simply didn’t get reported, except to the coach? (I can envision a cop taking a drunk player home on a Saturday night. No arrest made. But coaches were apprised).
To make your argument you need to address the entirety of a player’s actions off the field, before laying claim that the Coach is being unreasonable.
Big game question.
I would like to think there’s a way that we can out scheme or out prep those big games, but I think where we all know that we do amazing at finding those diamond 3 star in the rough players when it comes to the line I think that’s just where we just don’t get the recruits.
I know this is well played out conversation but everytime those teams have imposed there will, and for all our ability to out coach in the ned it comes down to just those same old fundamentals.
I tottally agree thaty CK owns some of this, but we just need the Ngata’s of the world to be once every 3 to 4 years vs once every..well ever!
Hoover: They confiscated everything, even the stuff we didn't steal!
I agree partially with this. I also think that Kelly's system has a fair amount to do with it
We can’t always get the 5* 330lb O Lineman, but Oregon doesn’t really try. Kelly likes more nimble linemen to block down field. This works fine until our nimble small line comes across a nimble giant line. This is why, especially at the line positions, recruiting size and strength (stars) is critical, and we either haven’t been able to or haven’t wanted to.
It's not just nimble giant lines
Good read here
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
Thanks, interesting. We'll see how that strategy works against Bama, if they try to bulk back up to face those monstrous lines
or if being lighter is harmful. I used to wrestle in HS and when I was a Sr I was often stronger in the weight room than the younger heavyweights who had some pork on them. If I ever had to wrestle up and face one of those 220lb guys when I was 165 they’d smash me even though I was agile and stronger
I think my point is it shouldn't be on or the other but both.
Ngata, who isn’t really the best example as he’s a freak, was that combination of athletic/strong, agile and huge. Those top stars have to have that, I think we have gotten close with the O Line, but our D Line hasn’t had that beast that can disrupt those power teams. It’s a small point in terms of what Matt’s saying, but I do think those losses are in part of domination at the line.
Hoover: They confiscated everything, even the stuff we didn't steal!
Yes, you can and should question how the lines have played in the big games.
But, last time I checked we where playing bigger and arguably more talented lines. Its ok to accept the fact that sometimes the line will not win all the battles, no matter how much you scheme for the game. Sometimes you are out skilled and subsequently loose. I don’t think Kelly should be blamed for not schemeing enough, sometimes you loos to a better team and thats just the game. We will never win all the battles.
"Last time I checked, there is no ‘Hall of Average.’ " Chip Kelly
Overall.
You are allowed to question the coach whenever the hell you want. For my own sanity I try to keep it to a minimum. We will never know what he knows, and trying to rationalize his actions through a clouded prism is impossible.
"Last time I checked, there is no ‘Hall of Average.’ " Chip Kelly
Would you feel differently if Oregon was 5-7 last season?
or 2-3 this year?
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
No because I'm comfertable with his actions thus far.
When it comes to punishment I will always refer to his judgment, there are too many variables involved to properly analyze the situation .
And Yes I would question him if we were losing. As an overall coach I’m more than satisfied with his leadership style, coaching calls and my overall impression of his team concept. I’ve questioned his play calling at times, but I haven’t seen enough to question anything else.
"Last time I checked, there is no ‘Hall of Average.’ " Chip Kelly
I certainly would
But I also think (to some degree) that this question answers itself in a logical manner. If we were 5-7 it is much more likely that your armchair QB analysis that, “Chip’s tactics aren’t working and should be questioned,” is legitimately warranted.
I’m not falling into the, “If we are winning I shall not question and shall merely believe the superficial level of information I am provided and told to unquestioningly believe.” But I do think it stands to reason that winning implies you are doing “something” right.
On a somewhat unrelated note, I think it speaks volumes that most all of our players have thoroughly bought into Chip’s system. Sure, we have had some players transfer (mostly because they were buried on the depth chart or some other very obvious reason) but all in all it seems that the players really stand behind coach Kelly. If the players are buying in, then so am I.
I think the bottom line here is that you are certainly bringing up valid points. We as fans DO have a right to question our coach and your analysis is (to the best of your abilities as a human) relatively objective. But in the end (whether we want to admit it or not) we know very little about the inner workings of the football program, and how coach Kelly actually goes about dealing with players who “get in trouble” to some degree or another
by NICKPAPAGEORGIOTHEDUCK on Oct 7, 2011 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions
you know...
my point was very clear last night.
2009: Blount punch. all on video and “live in person”. no police report or investigation to wait for. Just watch video, confirm first hand evidence and act accordingly. No “outside information” to consider
2010: Fratgate, hit-a-girl, drunk kiko 1. Police involvement and investigation. Must wait for completion of investigations to find out what happened and subsequent legal proceedings. Remember when we A) thought Masoli and Embry ere victims of a jealous frat boy and B) we thought LMJ was a felon? All information second hand. Legal proceedings come before team proceedings (similar to work proceedings. Are you fired just for being accused of theft?). Kiko got the punishment he did because he got hammered and tried to drunkenly get in cars that weren’t his HOURS after CK told the team to stop fucking up.
2011: vroom vroom and drunk kiko part 2. Police involvement and investigation. However, these weren’t “did they do something” investigations but more “specifics.” There wasn’t any question whether kiko went bed hopping or whether CH13 had a lead foot. Also take into account post proceedings and subsequent information.
Simply put, I don’t question someone unless I can do something better than they can. That’s why I think the Oregonian’s question-askers are really bad at their jobs, but I refuse to question a coach who deals with a lot of kids from all walks of life all around the country. Chip is a father figure to all of these guys, and for some, he’s the closest thing to a father that they’ve ever had in their lives. People are different, so he treats them differently. To say that he’s just fucking with Harris is irresponsible and blowhard-tastic in my opinion. I feel strongly that those who question CK do not have any recourse for doing so, because they don’t know what he knows, and they don’t see the ins and outs of these kids lives every day. If we had a set punishment for every incident ever, then chaos would reign. So sit down, be quiet, and let the man do his job. I will trust Chip Kelly 100% on these things until I have been given reason not to. I have not yet, and anyone who says otherwise is simply picking fights for the fight.
Good day to you, SIRS.
/slam.
"Forget it. If 21 gets behind you, you can play the fight song." --Scott Van Pelt
by axemen23 on Oct 7, 2011 2:54 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I also believe that there is still some consistency between the suspensions and the way the information was gathered.
Chip appears to have made a slight deviation, but it’s not anything so great that I would call it inconsistent. He’s probably grown and has a better idea of how to handle these things a bit, but he still deals with each one individually and in the same manner.
"It's not about style. It's about winning the game. That's it." - Chip Kelly
by Duckfanatic10 on Oct 7, 2011 11:06 PM PDT up reply actions
I WAS PROMISED PUTZDOM.
I think it’s fine to question the coach’s decision at any time. I think it’s insane for us to think it will actually change anything. I also think it’s silly to think we know better somehow, given the total amount of major college football program head coaching experience in all of AtQ (pretty certain the amount is: zero seconds).
Chip says it best when he’s asked about injuries. “I leave that to the medical staff. I’m a football coach.” Of course it’s partly smoke screen, but it’s the goddamn honest truth.
Now with mustache guarantee!
I'm fine with questioning coaching decisions, I.E. "why was that run called on 3rd and 12."
I’m fine with questioning player performances such as “why did he check down on 3rd and 15” because we know that it may have been the incorrect call.
thats different than my post above.
"Forget it. If 21 gets behind you, you can play the fight song." --Scott Van Pelt
And I'm fine questioning why is our best player sitting on the bench?
There are only one of two possible answer and neither is satisfying.
a) He’s still in the doghouse. Ok, then how come every other player who’s had transgressions had to take care of their stuff first before they saw ANY playing time. Is Cliff getting special treatment by being allowed to play while still working his way out of his troubles? Or is Cliff getting jerked with to teach him some further lesson and Chip has changed how he treats discipline and players thereby no longer being consistent with his punishments?
b) He’s not in the doghouse anymore, he’s just not our best option. And that answer is just dumb.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
Has nobody else noticed that Harris has done something each game he hasn't in previous ones?
LSU- N/A
Nevada-mop up duty
Missouri State-mop up duty and kick/punt teams
Arizona-Mop up duty, kick teams AND some rotation time
Cal-Mop up duty, kick teams, some rotation time, and returning punts.
"Forget it. If 21 gets behind you, you can play the fight song." --Scott Van Pelt
That's not accurate
Arizona – Played some in the first and extensively in the second half. Especially once Arizona mounted a comeback.
Cal – Didn’t play on defense until late, late in the 4th quarter. Zero rotation time and only returned punts
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
Aliotti talked about this
Was listening to 750 the Game and they played Aliotti clips where he was asked about Cliff. He didn’t want to get into specifics but he flat out said Cliff is having trouble conforming and Coach Neal and others were working with him on those issues and we will see more Cliff once he gets it together.
I suspect there may be some issues related to how he is practicing, or going to class, or whatever. And the coaches feel that while Cliff is doing enough to warrant playing time, he is not following the rules and thus he loses playing time to others who are following the rules even though they aren’t as talented.
I have zero problem with this approach. I don’t see why it has to be an all or nothing. I don’t agree with the notion that he should either start or not play at all. I’ll trust the coaches judgement in the nuanced approach they seem to be taking. Cliff is not the first young man with issues they have dealt with and we don’t know the whole story.
When was that?
I’d like to try and find the podcast of the interview.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
MSP with Chad Doing
It was a clip of comments Aliotti made to the media after the game. They played soundbites from it on the MSP this morning. They asked Aliotti if he heard the fans chanting that they want Cliff. He said I want Cliff too, but he has some issues conforming, but then shied away from specifics. It was interesting.
This is why I have a hard time using Cliff to point out inconsistencies (if they are there)
Perhaps he’s handled the issues he had with the driving and met the requirements to be reinstated. Then maybe he has different issues in practice and games with the coaches that are keeping him off the field, and Chip and staff are handling them differently and separately (because they are separate issues).
"It's not about style. It's about winning the game. That's it." - Chip Kelly
by Duckfanatic10 on Oct 7, 2011 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions
I don’t think it’s that black and white, Matt. I think there are degrees of the doghouse. As others have mentioned, Harris might not be practicing well. And as we’ve heard, there were other incidents prior to the speeding ticket. And constant talk about him “conforming.” The punishment from Kelly might look different because Harris’s transgressions are different than any of those he’s had to deal with.
I don’t know. I certainly don’t think you’re wrong for questioning Kelly. It does look strange. But I do think your “a” above leaves too little room for gray areas. Harris’s discipline may very well involve limited playing time and that’s part of the deal until he figures it out.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Ask the coaches???
Could mean many things, IMO.
"It's not about style. It's about winning the game. That's it." - Chip Kelly
by Duckfanatic10 on Oct 7, 2011 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions
And with Chip as coach we'll never know
secrecy is not a good thing in a high pressure multi-million dollar enterprise. Secrecy, power and cash corrupt anyone and this is being fostered at UO currently.
Can I answer your questions with a question?
Is it not possible the CK has changed his stance over time and evolved his procedures when it comes to off the field incidents?
Maybe the stance he had initially was one he brought from Hew Hampshire and now that is is in ‘big time’ college football his views have started to change. I am just throwing it out there.
But to answer your post best I can, I would say it’s okay to question anyone or anything as long as there is respect in your tone and a purpose to the questions.
If Duke ever built a Cameron Outdoor Stadium, it would be Autzen.
I do think it's possible that CK's approach to discipline
is evolving. He was a first time head coach 2 yrs ago – it’s not realistic to think that he’ll never change his approach as his experience grows. And it’s good to think he’ll learn from his experiences.
ATQ's #1 fan of ATQ Guys
I agree. Experience is the best teacher and maybe he is just changing with the new experiences he's had.
If Duke ever built a Cameron Outdoor Stadium, it would be Autzen.
I thought about that. Is this just a new or different approach by Kelly?
But then I wondered whether or not it was the best thing. I’ve always supported the way Kelly handled things in the past so I have a problem wondering why it needed to be changed.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
I also think the Cliff thing
and the DL thing are really different.
I have every expectation that the DL thing is something that Chip is really working on wrapping his head around and will do better at getting the team ready to go for an Ohio State or an LSU in the future. He’s really football smart and I’ve got to think he’s going to figure it out eventually.
The Cliff thing – my opinion is that it’s likely that Cliff has been a total bonehead in more ways than just the traffic ticket, and in ways we haven’t even seen in public, and that Chip is completely fed up with him. He’s deep in the doghouse and it is hard going to work your way off Chip’s shit list. I’m not sure how I feel about that either. I’m still thinking about it to tell you the truth.
ATQ's #1 fan of ATQ Guys
That shit list thing just baffles me
when I think about how much he played against Arizona and how little he played against Cal.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
My bet is he showed signs
of recovering from chronic boneheaditis during practice last week but suffered a relapse this week.
ATQ's #1 fan of ATQ Guys
I think he might have been suffering from a case of
HOLYSHITBOYETTJUSTTOOKMYHEADOFF-itis
Go Team! Score Six Goal Units!
by FromAutzenWithLove on Oct 7, 2011 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Just because I'm paranoid
doesn’t mean people aren’t really in the double secret doghouse.
ATQ's #1 fan of ATQ Guys
I think Kelly is more privy to information and details that we aren’t. Selfishly, I don’t like that. As a fan, I want to know as much as I can. I’m a fanatic after all.
So what do I know ? I know little about nothing.
I know there are behavioral and academic ladders everyone has had to climb. I have absolutely know idea what those ladders actually are.
Clearly, it isn’t Cliff’s lack of skill that is preventing him from seeing the field.
He’s also seeing the field, so I don’t think his “lesson” from the traffic and legal violations are what are keeping him back.
I would then surmise that he hasn’t reached the top of the ladders that have been put in place before him.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-W-O-O-Z-Y".
"YOU ARE THE KING OF THE AWESOME GUYS, JSHUFELT!!!" - daisyduck
by JShufelt on Oct 7, 2011 3:09 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Agreed.
His lack of playing doesn’t have to be connected to his suspension. We just assume that it is cause they are so close together, but that’s still an assumption and may very well be incorrect.
"It's not about style. It's about winning the game. That's it." - Chip Kelly
by Duckfanatic10 on Oct 7, 2011 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions
I think you can question the coach all you like
and I hope you will give him the opportunity to continue to learn and improve over time. He’s just been a head coach for 2 years, and while he’s a rising rock star and all that, it’s not like he arrived on the scene as a completed product with nothing to learn. I’m betting he keeps getting better over time.
ATQ's #1 fan of ATQ Guys
Playing devil’s advocate here, but there’s also a chance he gets worse over time, at least in this regard. How many times do you see new guys come in with these grand ideals, and he implements those for awhile, but then he settles into the same type of routine everyone else does. He becomes enamored of his own position, he takes the easy way out instead of standing on principles, he becomes set in his ways rather than adapting with changing circumstances.
Now you could say, “But Chip Kelly doesn’t seem like a guy who would do any of that.” And I completely agree. He doesn’t. But he’s a human being in a position of authority over other human beings – a position that comes with a lot of stress and a lot of tough decisions. He’s not immune to falling into bad habits.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
That's a great point Gorby
and the question I was asking was When are you allowed, not Are you allowed. I don’t see the way he’s handling Cliff as a development to the good side of things as a coach, strictly going off of the precedence that Kelly has established himself. I’d much rather Cliff be sitting on the sidelines like every other player that’s had to go through the ladder process than watch him play meaningful minutes one week and think, “good we’re starting to get our team back” and watch him get no real minutes the next and think “what the hell is going on?”
Could I be wrong about Kelly? Absolutely. That doesn’t mean I’m not allowed to question his tactics now. A lot of the responses I’m seeing are:
-I’ll question when he gives me reason to
-I don’t have enough information to question yet
-I don’t question someone unless I can do something better than they can
My response to all of those are 1) maybe when he gives you blatant reason to, it’s too late, and for me he’s giving me reason to question now; 2) you’ll never have enough information, we’re getting less and less on the inner workings of the program every year and; 3) if you’re waiting to be a better coach than Kelly to question how he coaches, you’ll be waiting forever.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
Meh.
It’s all pretty much moot anyway, right? If Neweasel was our coach and we sucked, that’s one thing. 25-5 means “pbbbbt!”
Ducks GOOOOD. Fuskies BAAAAAD.
by BigGreenWreckingMachine on Oct 7, 2011 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions
As I said above, I think there very well could be more to Cliff’s particular situation than we know. His off-field problems led to the suspension, and now that he’s back, he’s having problems “conforming,” which is in turn leading to limited playing time rather than a straight suspension. I sure as heck don’t know because I’m not at practice.
But I don’t think it’s too early to question him, despite his record. I think it’s good that we balance our praise and love for the man (which is deserved) with legitimate questions when he may act in a way that doesn’t make sense. If you get caught up in the shiny 25-5 record, you may miss something that could lead to problems down the road.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
When Blount had finally worked his way through his suspension, he wasn’t a starter either, he played sparingly. Although that was because LMJ had supplanted him as a legit starting RB.
I wonder – they say a lot of times that someone “shouldn’t lose their starting role because of injury.” Could Chip be working from the position that you do lose the role because of suspension… although that doesn’t explain LMJ starting last year over KJB after the NM game. This is why I’m not a fan of the secrecy around the program. We have no actual way of knowing Chip’s thoughts and no one has access to practice to witness anything either.
But to answer your question: When are we allowed to question our coach? Day 1. We have the right to question even the coach’s hiring, we have the right to question the coach. But that doesn’t mean that we are right or wrong or the coach is right or wrong. No one is right 100% of time.
by INducktrination on Oct 7, 2011 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions
I wholeheartedly agree with the concerns around secrecy in the program. Actually, it is very concerning to me
Oregon football is not the CIA, these are public employees and students of a public university. Secrecy breeds corruption, not success. Although I can’t argue with Kelly’s production on the field for the most part I will always be uncomfortable with the reduced access to practice, players, team info, asst coaches etc etc etc.
I believe Kelly is a moral and upright guy, but I don’t think anyone stays upright and moral when they have huge pressures, millions of dollars at stake and no checks and balances. We are letting the program become more secretive and the program is generating more and more money. This is not a good thing to allow to continue and, unfortunately, I see Kelly as accelerating the secrecy and control he has
Seems reasonable to question these things
I think the most valid questioning is how Oregon performs against strong defenses. Kelly’s had issues with this for 4 years now in various forms (lest we forget, Dixon’s offense which was so good lost to Cal at home in 2007) and it’s clear that it’s an issue.
I said this to a friend of mine, but Oregon’s offense feels sometimes like a ‘win more’ kind of offense. If we’re ahead, we’ll go massively ahead. If we get behind with a team that can cause us to become one-dimensional we’re even worse than we started with and we spiral down further. It means we look amazingly impressive stomping folks but less so when going against quality opposition. Relying on speed and misdirection when you’re playing teams at least as fast as you and more disciplined than you is going to lose.
Oregon might have hit the pinnacle of what they can accomplish without flat out better recruits. Oregon maximizes its value at speed and at execution but at some point that can’t accomplish everything. Kelly is clearly a smart football coach and is willing to take smart risks – I love his playcalling for the most part. But how does a team with a recruiting ranking of 20 deal with the LSUs and Alabamas of the world? Might be they just can’t, especially on neutral fields.
When the best cover corner in the league is completely healthy and has served his suspension
You have to bench him.
by Cliff Harrising on Oct 7, 2011 3:28 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I don't actually believe this
Clearly Chip is keeping Cliff out of games so that he doesn’t go to the NFL after this year (he just fell off of Kiper’s Big Board) … with Cliff on next year’s more experienced defense, we could be really, really good
Apparently Cliff has been practicing like crap
And we all know that Chip only likes to play those that practice well.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
Are there links to that?
That seems like more speculation and conjecture than anything else considering practices are closed.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
I've seen the same thing but it'
Ducks GOOOOD. Fuskies BAAAAAD.
by BigGreenWreckingMachine on Oct 7, 2011 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Criminy
…but nobody is willing to even “quote an unnamed source” at this point.
Ducks GOOOOD. Fuskies BAAAAAD.
by BigGreenWreckingMachine on Oct 7, 2011 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions
The evil one doesn't need to quote sourced for a newspaper he writes for
why can’t we just make shit up? Or post what we remember seeing? All’s fair in love and war. ;P
Come along now, Cabot!
This is what Jorgenson reported in the post game analysis (paraphrased, obviously):
Cliff isn’t starting for a reason, and he believes its because the way he practices. Kelly demands max effort during practice, and he’s not going to let Cliff start until he gets it because it’s not fair to everyone else who is busting their ass.
Cliff is a “gamer” and probably doesn’t need to work hard in practice but until he conforms and gives the coach what he wants in practice he’s not a starter.
Just like last year.
My parents believed in me.
My thoughts
First let me start with fbsu. Im watching that right now and I hate them.
I feel you have the right to question a coach or coaches at any time. It is a fan privilege.
Our defense is not as good as it was last year so rightly you are wondering why our best defensive player isn’t on the field to help out a defense that quite frankly struggles at times. It’s understandable. But, there isn’t going to be an answer to this with Oregon’s communication policies, so we just have to live with it and wonder.
Boom goes the dynamite
Matt, you have the absolute right to question the decisions of CK and the staff
as confirmed by your entire post and the many responses to comments herein.
Likewise, the coaching staff has the right to ignore/dismiss your opinion. But you aren’t really asking if you have the right to question Chip, are you? You’re just looking for a way to call out the coach without looking so much like a dick.
You could have written this as a straight-up opinion post: “I think Chip is fucking up by not playing Cliff Harris.” But that wouldn’t allow you to feel self-righteously indignant. And yet, you would have received essentially the same responses.
Kind of a putzy move. I will defend to the death your right to make it.
The "Beano Cook" of ATQ.
by benzduck on Oct 7, 2011 7:39 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Well, ok.
What did you want me to say? I think Chip is fucking up by not playing Cliff Harris? Ok, I think Chip is fucking up by not playing Cliff Harris. I really think he’s fucking up by playing him one game and then not playing him at all the next. My stance on that has been pretty clear. I didn’t know I needed to make an entire post explaining that. Sorry you were left in the dark.
But that’s not the point of the post. The point is, when is it ok to start to question (as fans) the coach? I know he’s 25-5, and I know the majority of people will respond with “in Chip I trust” “he’s given me no reason to not trust him” “blah blah blah.” So when he starts to make mistakes by messing with the playing time with one of our best players, are fans receptive to hearing that? So far I’d say a majority of the responses are, not really. Sure it’s ok if I say it, I guess I’m just the putzy dick, but they sure as hell aren’t going to. Even if there is evidence to the contrary.
Lastly, this whole thought that I’d like the coaching staff to listen to me is asinine. When did anyone on this blog ever think the coaches are going to give one rat’s ass what I, you or anyone else thinks. They’re going to do what they feel like is best for the team. We as fans are going to scrutinize, analyze and digest what that is. Even if we hold an OCCUPY CASANOVA rally, it’s not going to change damn thing.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
It isn't that this blog questions him that matters a bit
it is the boosters and alumni networks. Chip is playing a dangerous game here with his lack of attention to the boosters, his dismissive attitude to the media and his handling of situations like Cliff (no info to the fans, seemingly erratic discipline). He can do almost whatever he wants as long as he wins the conference but every team has down years and scandals.
If we go 5-7 (and we will some season) will things like not showing up for booster dinners, dismissing the media, culture of secrecy, Will Lyles etc actually cost him something significant?
That's not what benz was trying to say
He was basically trying to say my opinion doesn’t matter, without looking so much like a dick.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
No I wasn't, and stop being a dick.
You did make an entire post saying you think Chip is fucking up by not playing Cliff Harris.
But I find your comment interesting:
this whole thought that I’d like the coaching staff to listen to me is asinine.
What’s the point in “questioning the coach” if you already (correctly) assume they don’t give two armpit farts what you think? Have some balls and state your opinion directly. Don’t couch it in this pseudo-intellectual shitstorm of a discussion over “oh, WHEN is it considered APPROPRIATE to BRING into QUESTION the OPERATIONAL DECISIONS of those ENTRUSTED with the GREAT RESPONSIBILITY of MANAGING our beloved TEAM?? WHEN, I ASK WHEN??”
You’re smarter than this. This is the angle I’d expect from C*nz*no.
And, for the record, I sort of agree with you. At least I’d like to hear something more of an explanation from CK, because it’s pretty frustrating seeing one of the nation’s best defenders standing on the sideline.
The "Beano Cook" of ATQ.
by benzduck on Oct 7, 2011 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
Yeah, you were. Your original post added nothing
The point in questioning the coach is to get others opinions. Unlike Canzano, I don’t feel like I know it all so I’m willing to put my opinion out there and be wrong. And yeah I wonder if it is right for me to start it now especially given how many people are so loyal to Kelly right now.
And I have more questions about Kelly than just how he is treating Harris. Like is his hurry up offense the best for our program, can he really win the big games with that style, can he get the big time recruits he needs with that system, etc. Most of those don’t ned to be brought up yet. Yet.
Are you really going to tell me you read that entire post and didn’t understand I was calling out the coach on something? Come on, you’re smarter than that. I don’t need to use foul language or be an ass to make my point. I think I said pretty clearly I don’t think the way he is handling it is best for the team. So don’t pretend that you read my post and came away confused on whether our not I supported Kelly in this decision our that I was hoping he might read this and suddenly have some epiphany.
The only thing you’ve added to this conversation so far is your last statement.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
by Matt Daddy on Oct 7, 2011 8:52 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
FRIDAY NIGHT FIGHTS ARE FUN
For the record, I agree with benz that it’s a bit strange to veil your opinion in this manner. The point of your post is obvious, that you are questioning CK. You don’t need to hide behind the question of whether it’s ok to do so. At best, it’s awkward. At worst, it’s disingenouous.
Also for the record, you bring up excellent points about CK’s program. The fact that he is 25-5 does mask the fact that he might not, in fact, be Duck Jesus. I don’t understand why Cliff isn’t playing full time right now. CK teaching him a lesson? Really ‘not practicing well’? The fact that he looks good against the third string mean he’ll look good against the first string? Broken finger hampering him? Does he really even have a broken finger?
For better or for worse, CK does keep a veil of secrecy over the program. Like it or not, I don’t blame him, because his head coaching career has been a media shitstorm from game one.
Now with mustache guarantee!
by HoodRiverDuck on Oct 7, 2011 9:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh for the love of Pete.
Where did you get the opinion that I was confused about your opinion? It’s abundantly made clear. OF COURSE you were calling out the coach. I’m questioning your angle.
If you want to call out the coach, call him out. You’re not the first or the only one. You’re going to get Chipolytes raining shit on you either way.
Now, if you’re having some self-doubt about this viewpoint, that’s fine. if the “When is it OK” was directed inward, that’s to your credit. That wasn’t the impression I got. Maybe I’m just a bad reader.
The "Beano Cook" of ATQ.
Maybe some of it was directed inward. Obviously I'm not a professional writer or it would have come across better
This wasn’t meant to be a post of I KNOW EVERYTHING, HEAR ME SPEAK! This was a is it the ok to question a very successful coach who has a ton of support when clearly there are things I don’t agree with?
I tried to lay those points out that I don’t agree with, and then wonder, is it ok that I question these things. Obviously some are going to agree and many will not. Your first response was to call me names and dismiss the message. Took you almost 2 whole posts before you actually joined the conversation. So I’m sorry if I got a little defensive or if this post seemed “veiled.”
Again, I only put stuff on here that I think would be interesting to discuss. Feel free to disagree or challenge the message. I’ve never really tried to take any angle in anything I’ve written.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
Begging for a sig
I KNOW EVERYTHING, HEAR ME SPEAK!
Now with mustache guarantee!
by HoodRiverDuck on Oct 7, 2011 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions
You know me
Always trying to use those angles
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
by Matt Daddy on Oct 7, 2011 9:39 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I would also like to take full credit for any and all future references to CK as Duck Jesus.
Now with mustache guarantee!
by HoodRiverDuck on Oct 7, 2011 9:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Seriously?
You can have my spot on the blog, you just have to ask. I’ll give you every dime I’ve ever made too. #FIREMATTDADDY #HIREBENZDUCK
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
One thing you guys have in spades
BUSINESS SAVVY
Now with mustache guarantee!
by HoodRiverDuck on Oct 8, 2011 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions
I'll take that spot
"Forget it. If 21 gets behind you, you can play the fight song." --Scott Van Pelt
Why can't
he call out the coach? Why does that make him a putz because he chose to not take the easy way out and say “Chip is fucking up”? He has an opinion, he supported it, he used examples, he kept it civil.
Too much groupthink going on here. If he doesn’t think Chip’s the greatest, what the hell does it matter to you that he thinks that? Why does he have to have your opinion or the majority of people’s opinion? Why does he have to be called names and dismissed?
There’s much more vitriol towards this post then is necessary. Just my opinion.
Like others have said...
of course you have the right to question. Above you asked:
Would you feel differently if Oregon went 5-7 last year? Or 2-3 this year?
And I guess I wonder if you would written this had we beat LSU?
Now, there was another poster who mentioned Aliotti’s quotes about not conforming. I remember hearing this a lot last year, too. Yes, Cliff will always make plays, and he’ll more than likely lead the team in passes broken up and INTs; however, is he doing that at the expense of the gameplan. I know that sounds weird to be concerned when a great player like Cliff is making plays, but I would guess that great play or not, coaches don’t like it when players deviate from the gameplan.
I think that’s the kind of “conformity” Aliotti was talking about.
Again, it’s all speculation, but that’s my guess as to why Cliff still isn’t starting. So, if Cliff wants to deviate and just try to make big plays, they’re going to let him do it in garbage time. Also, in garbage time, I think you can tell a lot about a player by hard their playing and how much they’re following the gameplan.
I’ll quit rambling for now. Even though, for the most part, I always trust the coaches, your post raised some interesting questions.
"Don't let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do" -- John Wooden
And I guess I wonder if you would written this had we beat LSU?
Probably, but that first part would have been removed.
So, if Cliff wants to deviate and just try to make big plays, they’re going to let him do it in garbage time. Also, in garbage time, I think you can tell a lot about a player by hard their playing and how much they’re following the gameplan.
Then why did he play so many meaningful minutes in the Arizona game?
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
Honestly
I don’t remember him playing during the first half. I will defer to you on that. I only remembered seeing him in the second half when the game was pretty much in doubt.
"Don't let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do" -- John Wooden
I'm actively working to remove Matt's rights of questioning the coach.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-W-O-O-Z-Y".
"YOU ARE THE KING OF THE AWESOME GUYS, JSHUFELT!!!" - daisyduck
I just walked by the mirror and realized I’m not actively doing anything.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-W-O-O-Z-Y".
"YOU ARE THE KING OF THE AWESOME GUYS, JSHUFELT!!!" - daisyduck
Not a thing, Mr. Nosferatu.
Now with mustache guarantee!
by HoodRiverDuck on Oct 7, 2011 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Honestly
My impression is that Chip is very hands off when it comes to defense and he lets Aliotti and the position coaches run that show pretty much on their own. So, I don’t think Cliff not playing is solely a Chip Kelly thing. I think that decision is coming from Aliotti and the defensive position coaches.
Confused
I’m a little confused. Matt daddy seems to be doing two things: 1. Asking about when he can question a coach, and 2. Questioning a coach.
It seems obvious to me the answer to the first is “whenever you want, but sometimes you’d be silly to do it.” A coach is not a pope.
In response to the second, there are a number of questions raised. (please correct me if I’m misinterpreting or missing anything)
1. Games against good defenses.
2. Kiko’s suspension.
3. Cliff Harris’s suspension.
In order,
1. Yeah we score less against top defenses. Not sure why this is a surprise. Good defense is good? I think we tend to score more against top defenses than other teams do. Against lsu, in particular, we shot ourselves in the foot. But I think this will get resolved in a few years as Kelly recruits more physically talented linemen.
2. There’s a touchy line around alcoholism. At least at work it’s not something for which you can generally fire someone if they’re trying to get help. So my guess is that’s the issue there.
3. I’m of two minds on Harris. On one hand, he’s a kid and man I still love driving fast but it’s really not a big deal. He was just being a bit of a jackass. On the other that’s incredibly dangerous and he had other people in the car and then his response to the cops was hilarious and just stupid. I thought for Blount Kelly made him work his way back into the rotation (remember the student section going nuts the first time he dressed and then he didn’t play? It seems to me that it would have been best for the team if he’d gotten a lot more pt earlier). Seems to me like something similar is happening here only Harris is doing a less good job of consistently working his way back. That’s pure conjecture though. I would personally rather see Harris on the field and (see 1 above) I think you’re welcome to question kelly but I don’t think you should be surprised when folks point out that your universe of information is limited to “he played more against zone than Cal.”
by builds character on Oct 7, 2011 8:30 PM PDT reply actions 8 recs
I'd rec it more than once if possible, but I can't so the rec goes for the answer to # 2.
In the original part of the post, the question of why Kiko’s situation was/is treated differently was posited. I remember trying to explain this back when Kiko was indefinitely suspended and it was like trying to fight a shit storm. I finally just quit because people did NOT want to know why it was being handled like it was being handled, IMO; what they wanted was for THEIR way to be right, the way that they had always thought about drunkenness/alcoholism. You did a much better job than I did, concise and clear. Thanx.
"What you are entrusted to do as a coach is to create an environment where your players have a chance to be successful." CHIP KELLY
Rec'd
More on Harris: I’ve had the distinct non-pleasure of having to discipline employees for something they did that would have gotten them in serious trouble had they met up with law enforcement officers of a different part of the country, or even a different attitude about things.
Chip has to know that if that traffic stop had happened on I-65 between Birmingham and Montgomery, all four of those gentlemen would have spent at least a night in an Alabama jail cell, the car would have been impounded, and Chip would have had to decide whether Harris et al would sit out the entire year. Harris is, in that sense, lucky to be seeing any playing time.
The other thing we forget about Harris: How many games did he start last year?
The "Beano Cook" of ATQ.
re: 2nd paragraph, unless they were Bama players
scrappy
by Honka Playboy on Oct 8, 2011 7:53 AM PDT up reply actions
In response
1.
I think we tend to score more against top defenses than other teams do.
No we don’t. Auburn gave up 24 pts per game in 2010. We scored 19. Ohio St gave up 12.5 in 2009 and we scored 17. I could add fBSU in 2009 which gave up 17.1 and we scored 8. So it’s not really that we tend to score more.
2. I’m not making an assumption that Kiko does or doesn’t have alcoholism. I looking at the fact that a number of other guys were given first and second chances and when they squandered the second, they were gone. I don’t get why Kiko gets a third.
3.
Seems to me like something similar is happening here only Harris is doing a less good job of consistently working his way back.
That’s a big assumption again and one people easily fall into. Yet I use hard evidence that he played more in one game than another, and that’s easily dismissed. Why are people so quick to think Harris is still having problems, and yet Kelly can do no wrong in handing out PT? Especially given the evidence we do have. I’m not saying Harris is a saint, and I’m more than willing to admit I might be far off base in my accusations of Kelly. But right now it doesn’t sit easy with me that our best defensive player isn’t seeing significant minutes after being reinstated to the team. One way or the other, that’s on Harris, or that’s on Kelly.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
This 'corrected' statement seems to me to be what you ARE saying.
I’mnotmaking an assumption that Kikodoes ordoesn’t have alcoholism.
In order to make an accurate diagnosis of alcoholism, more than one event must be considered. Drunkenness and alcoholism are not necessarily the same thing. Repeated drunkenness, especially in the face of adverse consequences, indicate that alcoholism may well be the contributing factor.
I don’t get why Kiko gets a third.
Kiko was in trouble with Chip twice; excessive alcohol consumption was in evidence both times indicating the probability of alcoholism, a disease state. In both cases, the events were immediately after a strong warning to the team. Who else went out and got fucked up? Only Kiko. We may then, with this evidence alone, presume a positive diagnosis of alcoholism which will be confirmed if treatment works (just like any other disease for which there is an effective treatment.)
That’s why he got another ‘chance,’ simply because it makes good sense if you think about it.
"What you are entrusted to do as a coach is to create an environment where your players have a chance to be successful." CHIP KELLY
Who else went out and got fucked up? Only Kiko.
You don’t know that. Kiko’s the only one that got caught. You’re making as many assumptions that Kiko does have alcoholism as you are accusing me of making that he doesn’t. I’m not saying he does or doesn’t. I’m saying other guys have had problems, they’ve been given a first chance, they’ve been given a second. Only Kiko’s been given a third. That’s all I’m saying. This is a change for Kelly. That is a fact. You may want to explain it away using assumptions and conjectures, but it doesn’t change the fact that this year, Kiko was given a third chance when Masoli, Holland, Embry, Simms didn’t.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
If we're dealing with evidence which we have, show me who else got drunk and in trouble.
I gave you the parameters of presumption, not assumption. And I explained why he got another chance. But, as I wrote in a post above, you don’t seem to want to KNOW, you just want your way to be right. You ask a question and want to reject a
plausible answer presented to you by someone who can speak to the subject with a sense of authority. When another contributor compared you to Cl*z*no above, I thought, “Wow, that’s stretching it.” Now I see what he was talking about. You are either trying to be obtuse or generate ‘conversation’ on this blog. Perhaps you are trying to take our minds off of the injury to LMJ/generouslyoffered.
In short, Kiko was given a third chance. I agree. I explained why. You said that I
explain it away using assumptions and conjectures.
Can anybody in the world be better informed than YOU? Don’t ask if you don’t want to know.
"What you are entrusted to do as a coach is to create an environment where your players have a chance to be successful." CHIP KELLY
Awesome another Canzano reference. Whatever.
Look, again I’m not saying it is or it isn’t alcoholism. Could it be? Sure. But it takes presumptions, assumptions, conjectures, or whatever else you want to call it to get there. Has this been documented? No. Therefore, you’re guessing. Could be a very educated guess. But it’s still a guess.
I explained why.
You explained one possible scenario. And personally, I don’t really care. It’s not the point I was making. My point was Kelly gave Kiko a third chance, and he hasn’t done that. Could he be right and righteous in doing so? Sure. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s a change from the way Kelly handled things in the past. That’s my point.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
Touché
1. Yeah, this is an issue. But, again, one that I think is the result of a disparity in physical talent. Still, as I said, you’re always welcome to question the coach. Results may vary.
2. Kiko’s problems look a lot like either kids binge drinking or alcoholism. Other folks problems less so. Given that alcoholism is generally treated as a disease the results may merit different treatment. You are welcome to think they don’t. Let’s be honest, almost everything we’re discussing involves a great deal of guesswork and conjecture. I try to own up to it when I am speculating as is the case here. I don’t know why the treatments are different, but I tend to fall into the camp that generally problems stemming from certain issues, like alcoholism, should be treated differently than problems stemming from other issues (like stealing a laptop and projector because hey free laptop!).
3. Yes and I think I acknowledge that, no? That said, I think it’s unlikely that Kelly is just messing with cliff for no reason. Harris is objectively our best defender and coaches generally want those on the field so I’ve made the assumption that there’s a reason he’s not seeing more playing time. I gave the rationale I think most likely but I acknowledge it’s just guesswork on my part. Again, you’re certainly free to question Kelly on this or any other point. If you get an answer please let me know because I’m curious myself.
It might well be on both. Kelly wouldn’t be the first “my way or the highway” coach and Harris has certainly had problems with authority in the past. But we don’t know anything more than that Harris had an issue, resolved it enough to get some pt and is now getting less than he did in the previous game. Maybe Kelly’s rationale is terrible, but I’m willing to bet he has one.
At the end of the day, Chip Kelly has taken the ducks to the rose bowl and to the national championship with sub-par physical talent. For me anyway that’s enough to make me think there is a pretty decent method to his madness. Everyone makes mistakes though and I think it’s always important to question authority in life so please fire away. Well, not literally. Unless teh urbz is coming to town (not even then).
Only a little related – I don’t love the general tone of this whole discussion. I think it’s good to talk about what’s going on and why and I’ve been reading ATQ for a number of years now so I clearly enjoy discussing Oregon. But no matter what happens I don’t think it’s ever the right answer to compare someone to Canzano.
by builds character on Oct 8, 2011 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions
I don’t think it’s ever the right answer to compare someone to Canzano.
Nor do I. I’d like to think we aspire to a higher standard here.
The "Beano Cook" of ATQ.
Yeah, I agree.
/whenididitionlymeantitinthenicestway
"What you are entrusted to do as a coach is to create an environment where your players have a chance to be successful." CHIP KELLY
It's never an easy conversation when someone openly questions a coach
Hell you should have seen the Bring Back Bellotti post after the LSU game. That being said, expect for a couple of comments, I think the conversation has gone rather well. I’m fully aware that people are going to give a successful popular coach the benefit of the doubt, and I went into this knowing that a) it’s better for Oregon long term if I’m wrong. It’s never good when coaches start to make mistakes with disciplinary issues. I hope I’m wrong and this is all on Cliff. Hence why I brought the topic up. I wanted to hear other’s opinions on the matter, and b) even if I am right, nobody wins. It’s not like I can come back and say SEE I TOLD YOU IT WAS A MISTAKE.
All in all, I’ve enjoyed hearing some of the opinions on things I might be missing, or people’s perception of the circumstances. Thanks for joining the conversation.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
Regarding Kiko.
The recent issue with the drunken apt breakin was an act of recidivism. Second strike (at least).
We don’t know what kind of agreement Chip had with Kiko after the DUI last season, but I think it’s safe to assume Kiko was on a very very short leash. Chip wanted him to understand that this was indeed his last chance, and to not suspend him indefinitely — even though "there was nothing to suspend him from — would send the wrong message to his player (and teammates).
There was to me a big difference between the Kiko suspension last spring and Chip’s refusal to immediately suspend LMJ after the girlfriend fight, because at that point — remember the C*nz*no interview? — he didn’t have all the facts.
As for CH13 getting more PT vs AZ than Cal? Puzzling to me too, although Chip has always said the guys who practice best are the ones who start. Maybe this is why he’s closed practices to the media?
Or is it as simple as “you don’t start yet, and I play you as needed.” Obviously Foles >>> Maynard, so Cliff was “needed” at AZ; not so much last night, considering Maynard was only capable of throwing to his left. Anyway, it would be very helpful if the coach would throw us a freakin bone here; we’re the boss; need the info.
(Hey, look at me, I’m questioning the coach without asking anyone if it’s OK!)
The "Beano Cook" of ATQ.
I don't think CH13 is at all football related
My take on Aliotti’s comments is that Cliff’s playing time being limited has everything to do with off the field issues, not whether he is freelancing too much or not practicing hard enough. He could (emphasize could) be skipping classes and/or meetings, or be regularly late to practice-that sort of thing. I’m not going to pretend to have any inkling, but it could be the sort of thing where if you don’t draw a line with a player, even a star, then the rest of the team starts grumbling about double standards and starts pushing boundaries themselves.
I personally found it refreshing that Nick basically said it was not football related so we weren’t treated so a bogus “we’re playing the guys who give us the best chance to win” statement when its so obvious that Cliff does more in 4 series of garbage time than our other corners did all game.
And then Chip Kelly arrived, and when he was done with you, all your pithy sayings were neatly reduced to soundless shrieks in Hell.
Regarding Game Preparation:
How do you adequately prepare for top flight D lines? It’s impossible. We certainly can’t simulate them in practice because we don’t have those guys ourselves. We don’t get experience playing against them because our conference doesn’t have any. So, I think its quite natural and predictable that our offense seems a little shell-shocked at first because, after all, it’s the first time they’ve ever seen that in a game.
Having said that, I think CK recognizes this and tries to find ways to counter it with speed, tempo, deception, etc. Sometimes it seems like he doesn’t do that enough, and he admitted himself that he wished he’d thrown more against Auburn and was too stubborn with the run.
If what Brian Jorgenson reported is true (as relayed above) and Cliff just doesn’t practice well I can support CK’s decision not to start him. That falls on Harris, and Harris alone. How hard is it to give max effort in practice and do the things off the field that are asked of you? I believe CK really likes Cliff and wants to help him mature. You don’t accomplish that by handing the starting job to someone who doesn’t earn it in off the field, even if they are the best choice come game day.
My parents believed in me.
by flyduckfly on Oct 7, 2011 10:20 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Could there be a double standard there?
You can’t tell me Blount was giving it 100% in every practice running up to game day against Boise in 2009. You think Masoli was practicing great in those first 3 games in 2009? What did Kelly say about that? “Masoli gives us the best chance of winning.”
Now let me stop it before it starts, this isn’t just about winning. But Harris has been cleared to play. Someone tell me that playing Mitchell or Hill or Gildon over Harris gives us the best chance of winning. Please someone tell me that. If Harris shouldn’t be allowed to play, then don’t clear him to play. If he’s cleared, then do what you said you would do and play the guy that gives us the best chance of winning.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
He's cleared to play.
He’s not cleared to start.
Remind me how many games CH started at corner last season?
The "Beano Cook" of ATQ.
Could it be that, even though it appeared (and as you’ve pointed out there were plenty of statements praising his maturation this off-season) he has fallen back into the same bad habits a bit (perhaps because he knew he couldn’t play against LSU and lost some motivation in fall practice) and the coaches are trying to help him fix those issues once and for all?
"It's not about style. It's about winning the game. That's it." - Chip Kelly
by Duckfanatic10 on Oct 7, 2011 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions
I'll take Cliff Harris' bad habits
over Terrance Mitchell’s and Troy Hill’s inexperience any day. Again either Cliff isn’t playing because of Cliff or because of Chip.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
I would too, as a fan.
And I definitely want to see him out there full time! Give me the player who’s gonna help me win everytime!
But as a coach looking out for a young man’s future (and I can speak to some experience there) I might not feel that way, especially if I knew things about him (character, habits, etc.) that caused me a little concern. Everyday in practice, Chip sees these guys and gets to know who they are beyond the football field. And they become more than just football players (which from our view, they often can be) and become like sons. If you truly care about the young man, which I hope and believe Chip does, helping them mature becomes more important than letting him start in a football game.
"It's not about style. It's about winning the game. That's it." - Chip Kelly
by Duckfanatic10 on Oct 7, 2011 11:42 PM PDT up reply actions
I totally agree with this.
And I don’t think Kelly is making a mistake because he thinks it will hurt Harris. I think he’s making a mistake in the process. I thought he did the right thing in keeping guys off the field till they had handled their business. Then when they were ready to play, they played.
I don’t think the “you’re playing now, ok now you’re not” is a good approach to the team. Again, I think Kelly is doing the right thing he thinks to help Cliff off the field. But once he reinstated him, it became a football issue. Not playing Cliff is not the right thing for the football team.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
As you said, this is a football issue and football issues have to be handled on the football field, I believe. If a player doesn’t conform to the way you want your team to practice, play, etc. you don’t let him play, otherwise there is no action to backup what you preach. If he doesn’t work within the scheme, you don’t play him. To punish what is a football issue on the football field, even if it hurts the team, is the right move, IMO.
And on another note, the coaches seem to be saying by their actions that they believe it would hurt the team worse if he did play…not to mention how it may affect the player. I have no idea what it is he did to earn this consequence, but I have to give them the benefit of the doubt at this time until I know more.
The difficulty of course in this is deciding what does hurt the football team and what doesn’t. Is he good enough to make plays even if he doesn’t practice right or play in the scheme? I think so. Does he make the team better? It seems so from our perspective. But the coaches must feel differently. Perhaps there are consequences we don’t see that the coaches are aware of.
It’s like a soccer player (sorry) scoring goals and making great plays all over the field that the fans love…but perhaps in doing that, he’s neglecting other less visible responsibilities (marking up, keeping possession, playing within the scheme) that negatively impact the whole team and may even cause other players to have to play out of their role to fill the void he leaves. Fans may love him, but the coaches realize he’s hurting the team. But the other side can easily say, “so what, he’s scoring goals and winning games!” And they have a valid point too.
"It's not about style. It's about winning the game. That's it." - Chip Kelly
by Duckfanatic10 on Oct 8, 2011 12:39 AM PDT up reply actions
I get your analogy
but I just don’t see it on the field. Harris is one of the best defensive players Oregon’s had in long time. Everyone loves to point to the time he got beat by Criner last year, but how many passes did he actually defend where that didn’t happen? He already (in playing less than 2 games) leads the team in passes broken up. We play very few really good rushing teams in the Pac. We play a ton of good passing teams. Having Harris on the field is a necessity.
As someone who loves to watch the D play, I can tell you Oregon is way better on pass defense with Harris. He takes away a guy’s first move. That makes QBs have to make secondary reads. That gives guys in the secondary as well as on the line extra time to make plays. We’re all worried about how our D isn’t getting as good of pressure on the QB, and doesn’t have as many turnovers this year. To me it’s no coincidence that those two things exist while Harris is sitting on the bench.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
On that, I can agree!
He is our best player on the field easily. So whether it’s cause he’s not “conforming” or not practicing right or because Chip is making an example of him or whatever it might be, we need him on the field. I hope whatever it is gets figured out by next week so Cliff can get back to locking shit down every play, not just in mop up duty.
"It's not about style. It's about winning the game. That's it." - Chip Kelly
by Duckfanatic10 on Oct 8, 2011 1:03 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It's parsing words but CK IS playing Cliff
he’s just not starting.
Cliff has earned back the right to play. Just not start. And, I’ve heard some suspect that Cliff could declare after this year anyways. Maybe CK wants to develop talent as well as make earn Cliff the starting position.
My parents believed in me.
Why did Chip play more in AZ than Cal?
Heck if I know, but perhaps it’s because we played more nickel and dime D against their four and five wide receiver sets. If he’s third string, his number might get called a lot more against a team that is 1) a spread passing offense and 2) was behind by a lot early and trying to throw their way back from the second qtr on. Against Cal, they were able to run more cause the game was close. I haven’t rewatched the games (and am no football smarty like some) so if you see something different in our D or their O than I just stated, Matt, then I will defer to you. But it’s a thought…
"It's not about style. It's about winning the game. That's it." - Chip Kelly
Discipline questions?
I try not to question a coach who is winning and winning in the right way (until proven different), and without being privy to all the information he has I refuse to judge his judgement.. I love what people like Natty, Kiko, Blount, and LaMike do on the football field, but that is only a piece of who they are. The rest of us, and most of the media, only know them from afar, and they are just numbers on a jersey running up and down a field of glory. Some times we think we know them, but we don’t. Chip knows them as football players and as people. He has far better insight as to what is in their hearts, what they are made of, and what their needs are. I don’t think any of us can say he was right or wrong. Let’s just enjoy our beloved Ducks for who they are, and leave all this other negitivity for the two or three followers of Canzano to dwell on.
been down so long, it looks like up to me.
The disciplinary actions/suspensions are too small a sample size...
to come up with a pattern, or punishment regime, and then note variations. We’re talking about a half-dozen instances over a couple years? I just assume the situations are being treated according to their individual circumstances (unless we know that Harris is being treated arbitrarily, which we don’t).
scrappy
Remember boys
The Ducks gave LSU that game. At least 21 points in careless mistakes. They play clean and they win that game.
Against Auburn the Ducks came real close. Had one or two plays gone differently they win that game. I realize that is the case with many football games, but the Ducks competed very well against a team that arguably had the best offensive and defensive players in the country and with a whisker of luck would have BEAT them.
I have faith in Chip and the system.
This is true. Too much is made of wins and losses in sports
when evenly matched teams play, like AU and UO in the NCG last year. It is often the way the ball bounces that determines the game. We haven’t been smoked in any of those games. We easily could have won the NC last year with literally 1-2 yards difference. It isn’t the production on the field that has me (lightly) questioning Chip.
FANBASE DESIRES, DREAMS, DUMBASSERY, DOUCHEBAGGERY IS IRRELEVANT
That is, we as fans, whatever our commentary, questioning, and drunken ranting might be, still are motivated by the bottom line — whether we win or lose. We are absolutely entitled to our opinions, the good, bad and the ugly.
The coach of the team has a job, and has a broader scope than merely the win-loss record on the field. He’s responsible for the development, the health, the growth and the lives of the players he’s recruited. He’s responsible to the University in how he conducts himself and the team. He’s responsible to his staff, the parents, the families, and the players themselves.
The criteria by which you judge what’s going on, regardless of what you say and how well-intentioned your motivation and well thought-out your reasoning, is still slightly different from what his criteria are.
I’m not sure why you would feel any defensiveness in questioning Chip Kelly, you are certainly entitled to think he’s doing something wrong, and express it. It’s what being a fan involves. I see no problem with that at all, regardless of whether I think you’re wrong or right.
I do think that Chip Kelly as coach of the Oregon Ducks football team has to make decisions as best he can for his needs. These may sometimes conflict with the best chance of winning on the field. Not only am I absolutely OK with that, I would expect nothing less from a good coach with integrity. That’s the standard I hold him to.
Oregon loves you, Chip Kelly!
Harris punishment is equal to LGB and Kiko
LGB did not get back to the top of the depth chart once he returned. Instead the two freshman who filled in kept their spots. You saying LGB wasn’t better then KJB as a freshman and based on talent didn’t deserve at least the #2 RB spot when suspension was removed?
Kiko is playing because no one capable took
his spot. Let’s wait until CK loses a game at Autzen or drops below 19-1 in PAC-10 games before we question if he is trying hard enough to win.
by Duckfreak on Oct 8, 2011 9:35 AM PDT via mobile reply actions 2 recs
Constantly looking for ways to improve
I think this applies to all of the football operations and not just performance on the field. Perceived inconsistencies in punishments seem to have two main causes.
The first is that Coach Kelly has made the best decision he could at the time but that doesn’t mean he won’t use that experience to make a more informed and hopefully better decision the next time he faces a similar situation.
The second cause is that when disciplining players, extenuating circumstances is everything. Coach’s office is not a courtroom. We don’t know what some of the guys might be going through in their lives when they make a poor decision, nor should we. But those sorts of things really need to be taken into account for the sake of the players and the program.
For the record, you are always free to criticize anyone, anywhere for any reason. If someone tells you different they are an asshole. Take care when voicing criticism and always be respectful of others but those are the only rules as I see it.
My critisims of the season so far
We want Cliff.
Overall I’m pretty happy with the play of our backfield and think we have some real gamers at corner and will be set for the next couple years. I think Cash’s slow introduction this season has a lot to do with trying to improve his focus and isn’t just about discipline. Every time I looked at the sideline during the Cal game, Cliff was right in front with his head in the game. I think it’s a great sign that he and the coaches are fixing what seems to be the only flaw in Cliff’s game. Even our best players can get better.
Darron needs to run it 3 times a game. I know the read might not be there but just a couple times a game. It applies a psychological pressure to the defense and keeps them honest. Even if the opposing coach won’t change his scheme the players will adjust their play even if they don’t mean too. The only thing worse than watching a running back break off a long run, is watching a quarterback break off a long run. Just that threat of that happening is enough to cause a slight hesitation which is really what option plays are all about.
by El Duckerino on Oct 8, 2011 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions
I prefer to question the coach...
…when his program is awarded a Notice of Inquiry from the NCAA due to potential major violations.
Other issues may spring up from time to time.
by Freeing Ray Schafer on Oct 9, 2011 5:24 PM PDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
