maybe we could better discuss special teams, as it is as lonely as the chaff that innundates offense and defense...is deep. Stats aside, i suggest our ST returners and blockers/tacklers have performed consistently poorly compared to two basic factors: player talent; and, coaching statements about how important special teams are...are. >possible factors in consistently poor special teams: ****a merry go round of who's in charge of ST: from a coach for every aspect to a committee of coaches, we've illustrated that 'having the ingredients' of motivated, sound, hard working staff does not = 'having' good special team performance...let alone the 'excellence' that's the MINIMUM performance goal of every part of JT's program. ****lack of ST identity and cohesion. Neither buzz nor mantras nor insider reports nor media have provided info that suggests this group, or parts thereof...has formed its own 'identity'. No ID = no 'buy in' to something greater than...every man for himself. "Doing time" or "taking one for the team" on ST is a world apart...from 'excellence' and 'making a vital contribution'. ****are return [and other] ST positions more a reward to for backups and seniority...than playing the best guy? One could make that case. Interestingly, in 2005 when we tried PT players e.g. AJ Hawk and Bobby Carpenter, at ST coverage...did we do 'better'? Dunno...but i didn't see it. ****ST returns & coverage are ST subareas played in the greatest space, in space. Traditionally, tosu O & D mindsets value strength and size over speed and agility. In terms of the science of phyiscs in general and resultant force in particular...the greater the contested space, the geometrically greater the potential advantage to agility over strength. This suggests that both psychologically and preferentially, 'in space' football is not our strongest coach or player suit. ****an ironic and recurring 'trend': 'big hits' on coverage...do the kids get 'em more than the vets? [bellisari...carpenter the younger...rolle...] ****attitude picture: compare the zest and test of the "Hoot 'n Holler" drill...to any 'in-space' tackle or TD drill. [ouch?] ****coaching: it appears our coaches tend to equate "trust" with age, age with reliability, reliability with PT. This is not uncommon at all; however, it is a risk-avoidance rather than risk-taking approach. Kinda like saying, "don't think or relate outside the box because the unknown is risky". ****follow up on advantaging: remember the recent year the coaches tried 2 PR's? This simple change...dynamically changed the blocking options v the 'gunners' as well as the PR's vulnerability and initial move options. Yet did we maintain that initiative as coverages adapted? Nope. So, even when we show ourselves a way...we don't stick with THE PROCESS the created that temporary relative advantage. ****do we leave return results [and responsibility] to the 'gotoguy'? I.E. Ted is great, let Ted do it? Hmmm. Then, another irony: how did Ted start at his performance top, and work his statistical way down the next 2 years? How did our HyperWorldClassTerror...do less and less with more and more experience? Why did JT say Ted DIDN'T play early his frosh year due to 'inexperience'...then...shall we say, "suddenly appeared" vs MSU late in the game and once, twice, thrice RIP EM A NEW ONE? ---hypothesis: if one studies 'relationships' in the sense Coach T uses the term...where does that process suggest we go in ST?
