Sunday Morning QB ---

[Goapps15]

I do not doubt that there was some internal pressure from Beasley. Not that Satterfield was ever going to get fired. But some of his staff would have been let go.

People just need to be happy that we are winning and competing against some very quality teams. Both sides are being ridiculous.

The same ones who are bashing the negative "Nancies" right now are the ones who bashed Gonzo for starting a "Start Taylor Lamb" thread after Michigan. Haven't seen him week in and week out belittle you all about you being wrong on that subject.

[APPARJ]

I do not doubt that there was some internal pressure from Beasley. Not that Satterfield was ever going to get fired. But some of his staff would have been let go.

People just need to be happy that we are winning and competing against some very quality teams. Both sides are being ridiculous.

The same ones who are bashing the negative "Nancies" right now are the ones who bashed Gonzo for starting a "Start Taylor Lamb" thread after Michigan. Haven't seen him week in and week out belittle you all about you being wrong on that subject.

Based on what?

Also, can you please send me a spreadsheet of who was Pro-Lamb and who is Anti-Negative Nancy? I thought I agreed with Gonzo when he started that thread but based on your comment, I must've bashed him.

I didn't realize everyone fell so neatly into categories.

[Goapps15]

I do not doubt that there was some internal pressure from Beasley. Not that Satterfield was ever going to get fired. But some of his staff would have been let go.

People just need to be happy that we are winning and competing against some very quality teams. Both sides are being ridiculous.

The same ones who are bashing the negative "Nancies" right now are the ones who bashed Gonzo for starting a "Start Taylor Lamb" thread after Michigan. Haven't seen him week in and week out belittle you all about you being wrong on that subject.

Based on what?

Also, can you please send me a spreadsheet of who was Pro-Lamb and who is Anti-Negative Nancy? I thought I agreed with Gonzo when he started that thread but based on your comment, I must've bashed him.

I didn't realize everyone fell so neatly into categories.

Never said it was all of you. Said some of those are the same people ARJ. A lot of people bashed him for saying Start Lamb too early. Saying he was off his rocker and a lot of them were the people gloating about the wait and see approach and will admit nothing has changed since Liberty except W/Ls

[APPARJ]

I do not doubt that there was some internal pressure from Beasley. Not that Satterfield was ever going to get fired. But some of his staff would have been let go.

People just need to be happy that we are winning and competing against some very quality teams. Both sides are being ridiculous.

The same ones who are bashing the negative "Nancies" right now are the ones who bashed Gonzo for starting a "Start Taylor Lamb" thread after Michigan. Haven't seen him week in and week out belittle you all about you being wrong on that subject.

Based on what?

Also, can you please send me a spreadsheet of who was Pro-Lamb and who is Anti-Negative Nancy? I thought I agreed with Gonzo when he started that thread but based on your comment, I must've bashed him.

I didn't realize everyone fell so neatly into categories.

Never said it was all of you. Said some of those are the same people ARJ. A lot of people bashed him for saying Start Lamb too early. Saying he was off his rocker and a lot of them were the people gloating about the wait and see approach and will admit nothing has changed since Liberty except W/Ls

"The same ones who are bashing the negative "Nancies" right now are the ones who bashed Gonzo for starting a "Start Taylor Lamb" thread"

Where does this say "some"?

I don't know how some people keep track of who said what about X Y or Z. I was firmly in the Pro-Lamb camp but outside of the guy that started the thread (Gonzo) I can't recall who agreed or disagreed off the top of my head.

You never answered my original question though. How do you know there was heat from Beasley?

[AppSt94]

I do not doubt that there was some internal pressure from Beasley. Not that Satterfield was ever going to get fired. But some of his staff would have been let go.

People just need to be happy that we are winning and competing against some very quality teams. Both sides are being ridiculous.

The same ones who are bashing the negative "Nancies" right now are the ones who bashed Gonzo for starting a "Start Taylor Lamb" thread after Michigan. Haven't seen him week in and week out belittle you all about you being wrong on that subject.

Based on what?

Also, can you please send me a spreadsheet of who was Pro-Lamb and who is Anti-Negative Nancy? I thought I agreed with Gonzo when he started that thread but based on your comment, I must've bashed him.

I didn't realize everyone fell so neatly into categories.

I believe that those that "bashed" Gonzo for the thread were not saying he was wrong in his opinion but the timing of said thread. At the time Lamb had played exactly two series of college football in mop up duty. Gonzo has taken a few subtle jabs but not too many. Their is plenty of bashing going on from both sides of this argument. Those that were preaching patience in the process are happy that the original plan has worked. Those that were calling for heads and placing "For Sale" signs in yards are still of thee opinion that changes occurred because the original plan wasn't working. We are all in agreement that we are all happy for the turnaround. We just disagree with how it happened. That is what message boards are for. Along the same lines, how a thread about another schools woes has gone on for 12 pages and 200 + posts with everyone on the same side of the argument has gone on defies logic.

[Budman2154]

Does anyone know the particulars about Satt's revised contract? I was told by a faithful older mountaineer (fairly well connected) that when Satt got the adjustment in his salary this year that he had two choices. One to take the adjustment which dropped a year off his contract or keep it as it was and continue with the four year deal. I really have no idea, but I do know the salary announcement coincided with the shirt being pulled off of Meadors and if I am not mistaken some of the changes in the OL being made. I do know that I am Happy for Satt and the staff, Happy for the players (especially the seniors that only had their honor and App to play for these past two years) and Happy for all of App Nation who has had to persevere the poor start, but has had the pleasure of this amazing turn around from our boys in Black and Gold. So I guess that makes me Happy, Happy, HAppy! Go Apps and Happy Thanksgiving to you all!

[Goapps15]

I do not doubt that there was some internal pressure from Beasley. Not that Satterfield was ever going to get fired. But some of his staff would have been let go.

People just need to be happy that we are winning and competing against some very quality teams. Both sides are being ridiculous.

The same ones who are bashing the negative "Nancies" right now are the ones who bashed Gonzo for starting a "Start Taylor Lamb" thread after Michigan. Haven't seen him week in and week out belittle you all about you being wrong on that subject.

Based on what?

Also, can you please send me a spreadsheet of who was Pro-Lamb and who is Anti-Negative Nancy? I thought I agreed with Gonzo when he started that thread but based on your comment, I must've bashed him.

I didn't realize everyone fell so neatly into categories.

Never said it was all of you. Said some of those are the same people ARJ. A lot of people bashed him for saying Start Lamb too early. Saying he was off his rocker and a lot of them were the people gloating about the wait and see approach and will admit nothing has changed since Liberty except W/Ls

"The same ones who are bashing the negative "Nancies" right now are the ones who bashed Gonzo for starting a "Start Taylor Lamb" thread"

Where does this say "some"?

I don't know how some people keep track of who said what about X Y or Z. I was firmly in the Pro-Lamb camp but outside of the guy that started the thread (Gonzo) I can't recall who agreed or disagreed off the top of my head.

You never answered my original question though. How do you know there was heat from Beasley?

I have my sources. Had they not cleaned up their act they weren't keeping all coaches in a 2-10 or 3-9 year. That does not happen anywhere. Much less at a winning program after a 4-8 year.

I am glad as hell we turned this around, just stating a fact.

[AppSt94]

I do not doubt that there was some internal pressure from Beasley. Not that Satterfield was ever going to get fired. But some of his staff would have been let go.

People just need to be happy that we are winning and competing against some very quality teams. Both sides are being ridiculous.

The same ones who are bashing the negative "Nancies" right now are the ones who bashed Gonzo for starting a "Start Taylor Lamb" thread after Michigan. Haven't seen him week in and week out belittle you all about you being wrong on that subject.

Based on what?

Also, can you please send me a spreadsheet of who was Pro-Lamb and who is Anti-Negative Nancy? I thought I agreed with Gonzo when he started that thread but based on your comment, I must've bashed him.

I didn't realize everyone fell so neatly into categories.

Never said it was all of you. Said some of those are the same people ARJ. A lot of people bashed him for saying Start Lamb too early. Saying he was off his rocker and a lot of them were the people gloating about the wait and see approach and will admit nothing has changed since Liberty except W/Ls

Where can you show me where those preaching patience are being obstinate in not abmitting things changed? Please show me. The wait and see people were allowing the process to play out as we have young men learning how to play the game of football at the college level. It took them awhile. As I stated before, one can argue that the change occurred when coaches stopped playing conservative and opened the playbook but what changed to allow them to do that? IMO, it is due to the fact that the players developed through a PROCESS that allowed the coaches to open the playbook. I do concede that the coaches went with more of a power running game versus the spread on offense but the defensive philosophy did not change. It just got better through the process.

[APPARJ]

I do not doubt that there was some internal pressure from Beasley. Not that Satterfield was ever going to get fired. But some of his staff would have been let go.

People just need to be happy that we are winning and competing against some very quality teams. Both sides are being ridiculous.

The same ones who are bashing the negative "Nancies" right now are the ones who bashed Gonzo for starting a "Start Taylor Lamb" thread after Michigan. Haven't seen him week in and week out belittle you all about you being wrong on that subject.

Based on what?

Also, can you please send me a spreadsheet of who was Pro-Lamb and who is Anti-Negative Nancy? I thought I agreed with Gonzo when he started that thread but based on your comment, I must've bashed him.

I didn't realize everyone fell so neatly into categories.

I believe that those that "bashed" Gonzo for the thread were not saying he was wrong in his opinion but the timing of said thread. At the time Lamb had played exactly two series of college football in mop up duty. Gonzo has taken a few subtle jabs but not too many. Their is plenty of bashing going on from both sides of this argument. Those that were preaching patience in the process are happy that the original plan has worked. Those that were calling for heads and placing "For Sale" signs in yards are still of thee opinion that changes occurred because the original plan wasn't working. We are all in agreement that we are all happy for the turnaround. We just disagree with how it happened. That is what message boards are for. Along the same lines, how a thread about another schools woes has gone on for 12 pages and 200 + posts with everyone on the same side of the argument has gone on defies logic.

This is a great example of how individuals have opinions not based on groupthink. I remember now you were not in favor of starting Lamb over Kam after Michigan. However, we both agree that calling to fire coaches was extremely premature. Funny how individual thought and opinion work, huh?

[Goapps15]

I do not doubt that there was some internal pressure from Beasley. Not that Satterfield was ever going to get fired. But some of his staff would have been let go.

People just need to be happy that we are winning and competing against some very quality teams. Both sides are being ridiculous.

The same ones who are bashing the negative "Nancies" right now are the ones who bashed Gonzo for starting a "Start Taylor Lamb" thread after Michigan. Haven't seen him week in and week out belittle you all about you being wrong on that subject.

Based on what?

Also, can you please send me a spreadsheet of who was Pro-Lamb and who is Anti-Negative Nancy? I thought I agreed with Gonzo when he started that thread but based on your comment, I must've bashed him.

I didn't realize everyone fell so neatly into categories.

Never said it was all of you. Said some of those are the same people ARJ. A lot of people bashed him for saying Start Lamb too early. Saying he was off his rocker and a lot of them were the people gloating about the wait and see approach and will admit nothing has changed since Liberty except W/Ls

Where can you show me where those preaching patience are being obstinate in not abmitting things changed? Please show me. The wait and see people were allowing the process to play out as we have young men learning how to play the game of football at the college level. It took them awhile. As I stated before, one can argue that the change occurred when coaches stopped playing conservative and opened the playbook but what changed to allow them to do that? IMO, it is due to the fact that the players developed through a PROCESS that allowed the coaches to open the playbook. I do concede that the coaches went with more of a power running game versus the spread on offense but the defensive philosophy did not change. It just got better through the process.

The main change was installing more youth. Granted that was a highly delicate situation and one that I can't blame Satt for. He could not simply walk in and play all of his guys, because he would have lost the upperclassmen at that point. He had to let the process play out. Ever since we inserted Boggs, Stringer (OLB), Norwood & Dada, Gibbs, etc things have changed. However against Liberty dropping 8 all day did not work. Satterfield constantly has said we realized post-Liberty that we had to install a more aggressive defense.

[AppSt94]

I do not doubt that there was some internal pressure from Beasley. Not that Satterfield was ever going to get fired. But some of his staff would have been let go.

People just need to be happy that we are winning and competing against some very quality teams. Both sides are being ridiculous.

The same ones who are bashing the negative "Nancies" right now are the ones who bashed Gonzo for starting a "Start Taylor Lamb" thread after Michigan. Haven't seen him week in and week out belittle you all about you being wrong on that subject.

Based on what?

Also, can you please send me a spreadsheet of who was Pro-Lamb and who is Anti-Negative Nancy? I thought I agreed with Gonzo when he started that thread but based on your comment, I must've bashed him.

I didn't realize everyone fell so neatly into categories.

I believe that those that "bashed" Gonzo for the thread were not saying he was wrong in his opinion but the timing of said thread. At the time Lamb had played exactly two series of college football in mop up duty. Gonzo has taken a few subtle jabs but not too many. Their is plenty of bashing going on from both sides of this argument. Those that were preaching patience in the process are happy that the original plan has worked. Those that were calling for heads and placing "For Sale" signs in yards are still of thee opinion that changes occurred because the original plan wasn't working. We are all in agreement that we are all happy for the turnaround. We just disagree with how it happened. That is what message boards are for. Along the same lines, how a thread about another schools woes has gone on for 12 pages and 200 + posts with everyone on the same side of the argument has gone on defies logic.

This is a great example of how individuals have opinions not based on groupthink. I remember now you were not in favor of starting Lamb over Kam after Michigan. However, we both agree that calling to fire coaches was extremely premature. Funny how individual thought and opinion work, huh?

Yes I was not in favor of Lamb starting over Bryant. The reason that I gave for that was because Kam had earned the job in camp and to remove him after one game was not justifiable given the opponent and circumstances. I also said that I had no problem with a change if Lamb takes the job away from him in practice. I just didn't think that two series were enough to see to make a change. I also said that if a change was made then I trusted Satt to do it the right way. Which he did considering that the change did not cause problems in the locker room. (That we know of)

[T-Dog]

For those asking why I feel like Ivey shouldn't be coaching special teams, it's because we're not good at it. Yes Bob had a punt return for TD this past weekend, but any competent player could have made the same play on a line drive punt from 35 yards out.

Bad decision making on kick returns, not following the blocks, lack of blocking, not sure how to use personnel, having two freshman kickers sit while Bentlee did everything which hurt his punting, the rugby-style kicks which rarely worked in games, the PAT misses, the blocking on PAT's, some of the kickoff decisions, etc.

Special teams have to get better and I don't think Ivey is the answer there. Not saying he shouldn't be a coach, but we're two kicks away from being 8-3 and there's been a lot more bad than good this year.

[AppSt94]

For those asking why I feel like Ivey shouldn't be coaching special teams, it's because we're not good at it. Yes Bob had a punt return for TD this past weekend, but any competent player could have made the same play on a line drive punt from 35 yards out.

Bad decision making on kick returns, not following the blocks, lack of blocking, not sure how to use personnel, having two freshman kickers sit while Bentlee did everything which hurt his punting, the rugby-style kicks which rarely worked in games, the PAT misses, the blocking on PAT's, some of the kickoff decisions, etc.

Special teams have to get better and I don't think Ivey is the answer there. Not saying he shouldn't be a coach, but we're two kicks away from being 8-3 and there's been a lot more bad than good this year.

I agree that the punt return wasn't enough to get excited about. I'm not sure what kind of experience any of the coaches have with Special Teams. I just don't know what the solution is.

[moonshine]

Appreciate the response T and I can understand your concerns. I just feel like Ivey can get better if given the chance and a full compliment of scholarship athletes without having to sacrifice all the first stringers. I'd say give him another year after sending him to another program this off-season to learn some new ideas. If App never kicks another rugby style punt again, that shows some improvement!

Which coach on this staff do you feel would be the best replacement?

[T-Dog]

The solutions to special teams aren't as easy. I don't know of any current coach we have that can successfully do it. Ivey was probably the best bet because he was a HS head coach for years so he had some experience coaching it.

I'm not sure about what we can do with Special Teams. It would have to be a coach who has other duties due to staff limitations. There's no one else on the staff with experience coaching ST.

[AppStateNews]

I think the biggest reason for the turn around is confidence in the players to call the plays the coaches want.

Early in the season, on defense, our guys were not staying in the gaps at all. This caused minimal blitzes and stunts because we needed the LBs to make the plays at the second level. If we sent them on a blitz and the line did not stay in their gaps, the RB gets even more yards. Same thing with the secondary. We couldn't afford for them to be aggressive since we knew we weren't going to get much pressure on the QB. They had to sit back and wait to limit the big plays some what. Not sure what made it click, but the guys are staying in their gaps now and Woody has the confidence to call the blitzes, stunts, and different coverages.

Similar on offense. Until we changed up the o-line, the run game was not there. Once we had that confidence in the line, the confidence of the coaching staff to open up the play book grew.

I don't know what clicked with the players and coaches to start making the right gap reads, blocks, etc. Did the coaches make it easier in practice to understand? Did they simplify things across the board? I don't know. But I do know it is clear the play calling on both sides of the ball has changed tremendously during this streak and that is mainly due to having the confidence to call those plays.

[Gonzo]

The same ones who are bashing the negative "Nancies" right now are the ones who bashed Gonzo for starting a "Start Taylor Lamb" thread after Michigan. Haven't seen him week in and week out belittle you all about you being wrong on that subject.

When you're right as often as I, you don't have time to rub it in everyone's face. You're too busy being right about new things.

[bigdaddyg]

For crying out loud the suggestions for "fixing" ST's are really going overboard. If Rubino has a leg like we hear about he just has to kick the damn ball out of the endzone- kickoff coverage FIXED!. NO more rugby punts and with what will be a power, clock control running game there should be fewer punts. Just kick the ball 40-45 yards on average with hang time causing more fair catches- punt coverage fixed. Either let opponent kicks go through the endzone (25 yardline starting) or use what should be a fast redshirted kid to return- just block and don't screw up the return. All this will be implemented or corrected during Spring ball and in camp next summer. This ain't rocket science.

[Goapps15]

I think the biggest reason for the turn around is confidence in the players to call the plays the coaches want.

Early in the season, on defense, our guys were not staying in the gaps at all. This caused minimal blitzes and stunts because we needed the LBs to make the plays at the second level. If we sent them on a blitz and the line did not stay in their gaps, the RB gets even more yards. Same thing with the secondary. We couldn't afford for them to be aggressive since we knew we weren't going to get much pressure on the QB. They had to sit back and wait to limit the big plays some what. Not sure what made it click, but the guys are staying in their gaps now and Woody has the confidence to call the blitzes, stunts, and different coverages.

Similar on offense. Until we changed up the o-line, the run game was not there. Once we had that confidence in the line, the confidence of the coaching staff to open up the play book grew.

I don't know what clicked with the players and coaches to start making the right gap reads, blocks, etc. Did the coaches make it easier in practice to understand? Did they simplify things across the board? I don't know. But I do know it is clear the play calling on both sides of the ball has changed tremendously during this streak and that is mainly due to having the confidence to call those plays.

Agreed for the most part on all that. I think it also helped getting the confidence boosters vs Troy and Georgia State. The team needed those results to get some confidence.

Biggest difference now from then is we are dominating the LOS on both sides of the ball. First time since 2006.

[asutrnr81]

Bailey's blocking was special yesterday. How bout Devan Stringer?

Stringer was special. As the 3 guys kept saying the coaches had seen something on tape that they were able to take advantage ofm. ULL had to make adjustments so he was not as effective later in the game but I Am sure that opened up something else. I really feel like this team is peaking at the right time and coaching is a huge part of what is going on here.

The Stringer play improved exceptionally DURING the ULM game. Once he was not just able to out-athlete people and he unstood leverage....at the FBS level, we, the defense has been special. Pursuit has been better because they do not have to run as far, He has been un-blockable at times because people can't "reach" him. (can't seal him on the inside). The speed of the game has slowed down for him and he is special. His ability to force the run angles of the backs is crazy important in our 3-4.