"You do not see what we see in practice" When asked about the quarterbacks Garbers must be stinking it up and Forrest must have looked worse.
Go Bears!
oskidunker said:
"You do not see what we see in practice" When asked about the quarterbacks Garbers must be stinking it up and Forrest must have looked worse.
Yeah, too bad for us, we only see what we see on game day.oskidunker said:
"You do not see what we see in practice" When asked about the quarterbacks Garbers must be stinking it up and Forrest must have looked worse.
oskidunker said:
"You do not see what we see in practice" When asked about the quarterbacks Garbers must be stinking it up and Forrest must have looked worse.
Really? ***?oskirules said:
Meanwhile, Robo has a fake cast around his hand...
Dduster said:
Practice is practice. It's the real games where the score is kept. Who cares how a player looks in practice if they are awful in games. This is football not an audition for 'best dancer in class'. I'm sure every team has 'practice' players who can't perform when the whistle blows so to speak. Flimsy excuse.
I don't think he has suddenly become Tedford. I think Baldwin has been manufacturing a scenario where only McIlwain can win the starting job because the other quarterbacks are punished for poor performance and McIlwain is not. Baldwin wants McIlwain in.calumnus said:oskidunker said:
"You do not see what we see in practice" When asked about the quarterbacks Garbers must be stinking it up and Forrest must have looked worse.
I don't think there is any problem with starting the player who is showing the most in practice. I just think that if that player struggles in the actual game you should be willing to bring in the "relief pitcher" even if just for a series to settle down the starter and coach them up. Baldwin was switching Garbers and McIlwain within sets of downs earlier in the season and they seemed to be fine with it. It is a team game. Suddenly he has become Jeff Tedford. .
+1. Some players are simply better on game day than in practice. For others, the reverse is true. I don' t care how good someone is in practice, if he is stinking it up on game day, give him the hook!calumnus said:oskidunker said:
"You do not see what we see in practice" When asked about the quarterbacks Garbers must be stinking it up and Forrest must have looked worse.
I don't think there is any problem with starting the player who is showing the most in practice. I just think that if that player struggles in the actual game you should be willing to bring in the "relief pitcher" even if just for a series to settle down the starter and coach them up. Baldwin was switching Garbers and McIlwain within sets of downs earlier in the season and they seemed to be fine with it. It is a team game. Suddenly he has become Jeff Tedford. .
But, you have to start in practice, otherwise a starting decision becomes a political campaign. Evvvvvvrybody's gonna insist that they are "gamers" and if you listen to that you'll lose the team - they'll get into cliques.Dduster said:
Practice is practice. It's the real games where the score is kept. Who cares how a player looks in practice if they are awful in games. This is football not an audition for 'best dancer in class'. I'm sure every team has 'practice' players who can't perform when the whistle blows so to speak. Flimsy excuse.
If a player is not performing well during practice, it is highly unlikely that he will perform well during a game.Dduster said:
Practice is practice. It's the real games where the score is kept. Who cares how a player looks in practice if they are awful in games. This is football not an audition for 'best dancer in class'. I'm sure every team has 'practice' players who can't perform when the whistle blows so to speak. Flimsy excuse.
What happens when player A, who practices like a champ, but commits a dozen turnovers in 3 games?tequila4kapp said:
Anyone who has coached at any level knows this is one of the hardest things to deal with. You see Player A kicking ass in practice every day and Player B sucking ass in practice every day. The only way you can convince yourself to go with Player B in a competitive game is to effectively give up on Player A.
The thing that baffles me the most is why Boldwin plays McIlwain against 8 or 9 guys in the box.dajo9 said:
I don't buy any of it. People saw them in fall camp. McIlwain was consistently rated as our 3rd best quarterback.
It was really bizarre, wasn't it, when Baldwin cited that as the REASON he was going with McIlvain. If anybody doesn't believe this, or wants to check my accuracy, go back and listen to his interview this week.FremontBear said:The thing that baffles me the most is why Boldwin plays McIlwain against 8 or 9 guys in the box.dajo9 said:
I don't buy any of it. People saw them in fall camp. McIlwain was consistently rated as our 3rd best quarterback.
We don't matchup well with athleticism and speed. UCLA is not a good team, but they have some of that (and will get more).FremontBear said:
I have a sinking feeling we'll lose, but Oregon State doesn't have the kind of talent UCLA does, so I don't see a blow-out in Cornvalley.
I think it was his coaching staff that help him win, he as just an administrator to the whole staff.chazzed said:
It sucks that he's clueless, but the continuation of such decisions will hasten his departure. Hard to believe this is the same guy that led the EWU program to much success.
What happens in practice, from a fan perspective, is totally 100% irrelevant.oskidunker said:
"You do not see what we see in practice" When asked about the quarterbacks Garbers must be stinking it up and Forrest must have looked worse.
oskidunker said:
"You do not see what we see in practice" When asked about the quarterbacks Garbers must be stinking it up and Forrest must have looked worse.
fatmoon said:I think it was his coaching staff that help him win, he as just an administrator to the whole staff.chazzed said:
It sucks that he's clueless, but the continuation of such decisions will hasten his departure. Hard to believe this is the same guy that led the EWU program to much success.