Bucknell

[RichH]

It's what's he doing this year? He is not 'entitled' to start based upon this year's performance (on the field and on the sideline). I would be willing to let him start the game, but if the wheels start falling off, then I say let's see what someone else can do.

Entitled vs Earned.....maybe a thin line but I think the problems run far deeper than QB. What about the secondary? Should all the 2s start? If we are basing it on performance, maybe so. If an evaluation of film dictates a personnel change, then make it....but experimenting with three games left is not the answer IMHO.

I would not call it experimenting but sending a message that no one's job is safe as well as getting real time experience to test the other players. They certainly don't get enough evaluation from practice since they rarely go "live" in practice or the Spring "game" (purposely in quotes). We are beyond being concerned about hurting someone's feelings. The team obviously does not respond to "talking things out", nor any other psychological ploys that have been attempted (if any have). No headless chickens running around campus that I'm aware of.

Groller's interview with Andy does highlight the disconnect between staff and players. Thr frustration on both sides is evident. Noone seems to have the right answer. One thing is clear to me. Doing the same things is not the answer. Perhaps shaking up the 2 deep may ignite this team.

[ngineer]

Entitled vs Earned.....maybe a thin line but I think the problems run far deeper than QB. What about the secondary? Should all the 2s start? If we are basing it on performance, maybe so. If an evaluation of film dictates a personnel change, then make it....but experimenting with three games left is not the answer IMHO.

I would not call it experimenting but sending a message that no one's job is safe as well as getting real time experience to test the other players. They certainly don't get enough evaluation from practice since they rarely go "live" in practice or the Spring "game" (purposely in quotes). We are beyond being concerned about hurting someone's feelings. The team obviously does not respond to "talking things out", nor any other psychological ploys that have been attempted (if any have). No headless chickens running around campus that I'm aware of.

Groller's interview with Andy does highlight the disconnect between staff and players. Thr frustration on both sides is evident. Noone seems to have the right answer. One thing is clear to me. Doing the same things is not the answer. Perhaps shaking up the 2 deep may ignite this team.

In the words of Tweety Bird, "What have you got to lose?!"

[LUFAN]

It's what's he doing this year? He is not 'entitled' to start based upon this year's performance (on the field and on the sideline). I would be willing to let him start the game, but if the wheels start falling off, then I say let's see what someone else can do.

Entitled vs Earned.....maybe a thin line but I think the problems run far deeper than QB. What about the secondary? Should all the 2s start? If we are basing it on performance, maybe so. If an evaluation of film dictates a personnel change, then make it....but experimenting with three games left is not the answer IMHO.

I would not call it experimenting but sending a message that no one's job is safe as well as getting real time experience to test the other players. They certainly don't get enough evaluation from practice since they rarely go "live" in practice or the Spring "game" (purposely in quotes). We are beyond being concerned about hurting someone's feelings. The team obviously does not respond to "talking things out", nor any other psychological ploys that have been attempted (if any have). No headless chickens running around campus that I'm aware of.

If playing all the 2s is a solution for you so be it, but to single out the QB or any other kid specifically is unfair. Problems run deep.

[RichH]

No player should be called out. I dont think tho that is the intent of this thread.. Getting frosh and sophs more playing time is a good idea. It is not a punishment. The team has had an epic bad year. I dont know the whys nor does the staff or the players. We all can see the results. Perhaps someone may figure it out. For now why not prepare for next year as much as possible while still trying to win our remaining games.

[ngineer]

Entitled vs Earned.....maybe a thin line but I think the problems run far deeper than QB. What about the secondary? Should all the 2s start? If we are basing it on performance, maybe so. If an evaluation of film dictates a personnel change, then make it....but experimenting with three games left is not the answer IMHO.

I would not call it experimenting but sending a message that no one's job is safe as well as getting real time experience to test the other players. They certainly don't get enough evaluation from practice since they rarely go "live" in practice or the Spring "game" (purposely in quotes). We are beyond being concerned about hurting someone's feelings. The team obviously does not respond to "talking things out", nor any other psychological ploys that have been attempted (if any have). No headless chickens running around campus that I'm aware of.

If playing all the 2s is a solution for you so be it, but to single out the QB or any other kid specifically is unfair. Problems run deep.

Not calling any one player out. You stated that we shouldn't change QB's at this stage, and I responded that I would be willing to let him start and see if he can get things going, but if not, to then make a change and see what we have for next year. There is plenty of 'blame' to go around for this year's fiasco, but the QB is always a position that sticks out and every person who accepts the challenge of that position knows that going in. These aren't "kids" anymore, either. They are young men and should be treated as such; and maybe that's part of the problem with a lot of our players. A lot of 21 year old men have a lot more on their plates than playing football at a prestigious college. The molly-coddling needs to stop at some point. This team has not shown any toughness, and I think the HC has basically acknowledged that in interviews. Some of that falls on him....not for not making them tough, but for not recognizing the lack of toughness when recruited. Identifying that 17 year old that will turn into a tough-nosed 20 year old is not easy and some people are better at getting those players than others. I've always felt that adversity does not build character, it reveals it.

[RichH]

I would not call it experimenting but sending a message that no one's job is safe as well as getting real time experience to test the other players. They certainly don't get enough evaluation from practice since they rarely go "live" in practice or the Spring "game" (purposely in quotes). We are beyond being concerned about hurting someone's feelings. The team obviously does not respond to "talking things out", nor any other psychological ploys that have been attempted (if any have). No headless chickens running around campus that I'm aware of.

If playing all the 2s is a solution for you so be it, but to single out the QB or any other kid specifically is unfair. Problems run deep.

Not calling any one player out. You stated that we shouldn't change QB's at this stage, and I responded that I would be willing to let him start and see if he can get things going, but if not, to then make a change and see what we have for next year. There is plenty of 'blame' to go around for this year's fiasco, but the QB is always a position that sticks out and every person who accepts the challenge of that position knows that going in. These aren't "kids" anymore, either. They are young men and should be treated as such; and maybe that's part of the problem with a lot of our players. A lot of 21 year old men have a lot more on their plates than playing football at a prestigious college. The molly-coddling needs to stop at some point. This team has not shown any toughness, and I think the HC has basically acknowledged that in interviews. Some of that falls on him....not for not making them tough, but for not recognizing the lack of toughness when recruited. Identifying that 17 year old that will turn into a tough-nosed 20 year old is not easy and some people are better at getting those players than others. I've always felt that adversity does not build character, it reveals it.

Hard times always does ngineer. A 17 year old's character can however be toughened up at least to some extent. Most of that falls on teammates as well as on coaches.

[News]

Bucknell at Lehigh Game Breakdown and Fearless Prediction:

https://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.c ... n-and.html

Prediction: The sun will come up in the morning and the game of football will not be broken by the display at Murray Goodman this weekend

[mookie]

I dont know the whys nor does the staff or the players.

- Pretty simply explanation. Bad athletes + bad coaches = 1-7

[LUFAN]

I would not call it experimenting but sending a message that no one's job is safe as well as getting real time experience to test the other players. They certainly don't get enough evaluation from practice since they rarely go "live" in practice or the Spring "game" (purposely in quotes). We are beyond being concerned about hurting someone's feelings. The team obviously does not respond to "talking things out", nor any other psychological ploys that have been attempted (if any have). No headless chickens running around campus that I'm aware of.

If playing all the 2s is a solution for you so be it, but to single out the QB or any other kid specifically is unfair. Problems run deep.

Not calling any one player out. You stated that we shouldn't change QB's at this stage, and I responded that I would be willing to let him start and see if he can get things going, but if not, to then make a change and see what we have for next year. There is plenty of 'blame' to go around for this year's fiasco, but the QB is always a position that sticks out and every person who accepts the challenge of that position knows that going in. These aren't "kids" anymore, either. They are young men and should be treated as such; and maybe that's part of the problem with a lot of our players. A lot of 21 year old men have a lot more on their plates than playing football at a prestigious college. The molly-coddling needs to stop at some point. This team has not shown any toughness, and I think the HC has basically acknowledged that in interviews. Some of that falls on him....not for not making them tough, but for not recognizing the lack of toughness when recruited. Identifying that 17 year old that will turn into a tough-nosed 20 year old is not easy and some people are better at getting those players than others. I've always felt that adversity does not build character, it reveals it.

This was your original post:

"Good reason to let Monaco show what he can do at the controls. Get ready for next year and see what we have."

Clearly you have altered that to "let the senior start and see if he can get things going, if not, make a change".

Those are very different statements. My final point is simple, your altered point of view is spot on and should be the case at EVERY position, EVERY game.

[RichH]

The team I expected this year is now here. Hope it sticks around for a while .