(12-01-2016 11:11 PM)Middle Ages Wrote: I don't have the answers, but you said--
"his teams play hard, but they are sloppy and undisciplined, they execute poorly, and they make far too many unforced errors"
Why do YOU think this is? As I said I don't have the answers but I'm curious why you think this is the case
There are two different ways to interpret this question--are you asking why I believe the statement I made to be correct, or are you asking why do I believe that it happens? Are you trying to determine whether the statement is true, or are you trying to determine what are the underlying reasons why it is true?
I will attempt to answer both.
First, as to why I believe it to be true, it's probably an eyeball test as much as anything. If you don't think his teams make an inordinate amount of silly mistakes, then you're probably not going to agree. But I look at the number of times that Rice beats Rice, the number of plays that fail because of poor execution, the number of blown coverages in the secondary, the number of costly kicking game meltdowns, the many clock management issues, the number of times we commit the silly penalty at exactly the worst possible time, and the like, and I see what I described. I can only add that I don't seem to be alone, or even in the minority, with this observation, so I think it holds up.
http://osgsports.sportsblog.com/posts/27...sible.html
The fact that the author considers this "the most Rice way possible" speaks volumes.
Second, as to what causes these things to happen, I kind of think of David Bailiff as COL Keith Davenport in the movie, Twelve O'Clock High. I think he places being liked above instilling the proper discipline and leadership. Like Davenport's pilots, his players love him, but they get chewed up when they go into battle. I don't think we practice as intensely as we should, and I don't think there are negative consequences for making mistakes in practice, and this team plays like a team that doesn't practice very hard. I think part of it may be that thee doesn't seem to be a lot of underlying philosophy beyond we're just going to recruit better and plug better and better people into the same slots until we can beat you. If that's the extent of your philosophy, then being liked may be how you think you get better people to come play for you.
I thought Mensa said a couple of interesting things in his press conference when being introduced at UT. One, he was asked what he learned from David and he said he learned how to love players and the importance of loving your players. Later, he was asked how he planned to deal with the fact that so many players loved Charlie and were unhappy to see him replaced. He said that he and his staff were going to love the players, and not only tell them they loved them but also show that they loved them through spending time with them. But he also said he was going to show that love by working them harder that they have ever been worked before, because winning is hard work and he wanted them to experience and enjoy winning. The first part of that answer is pure David Bailiff. The second part is that hard edge that Mensa has but Bailiff doesn't.
I think you need something of a good cop/bad cop arrangement at the top of a coaching staff, just like a military organization. I think Bailiff was more effective when Mensa was around because Mensa had that hard edge to play bad cop to Bailiff's good cop. I don't think he has had anyone in that role since Mensa left.
Playing for Bailiff is kind of like playing youth soccer in one of those leagues where everybody gets a participation trophy. Players love him, but you don't win football games by handing out participation trophies.
