Getting back to SUBuddha's original post, which I had hoped to reply to earlier, when a team loses or underperfoms, fans invariably blame the head coach and the starting quarterback. Many times, that blame is out of proportion, but that comes with the territory. It's actually kind of funny to read some of it, like the suggestion that Hogan be benched.
One thing I learned from the Nunes situation is that we as fans see very little of what's going on inside the team. Remember how we were all clamoring to see the highly-touted Nottingham? Well, he didn't turn out be much better, if at all, and none of us knew anything about this redshirt freshman from DC. This is not to say that the coaches are all knowing, just that we see only a small portion of what's going on.
First games are kind of funny. They can be aberrations, but they can also reveal trends that will play out during the season. One example that stands out in my mind is a game against Colorado in 1993, the second season of Walsh II. Colorado was not far removed from its national championship, and we beat them in a 41-37 shootout. Fans and media thought it was the sign of an excellent offense gunning down a national power, but it turned out that Colorado wasn't any good, and the high scoring game was, in fact the mark of a weak defense, which would become one of the hallmarks of that team. What I'm trying to say here is that first games can be indicators of the direction of season, but not necessarily the indicators that we think at the time.
I definitely agree with the poster who compared the divination of the press conference quotes to the post-debate analysis by the partisan groups. People read into them what they will.
David's a big boy, and he's been around football for a very long time. I'm sure he knows that the criticism is part of the job, and I hope he would, like my beloved track coach of blessed memory, just smile, shake his head, and say "Everyone knows more than me."
One thing I learned from the Nunes situation is that we as fans see very little of what's going on inside the team. Remember how we were all clamoring to see the highly-touted Nottingham? Well, he didn't turn out be much better, if at all, and none of us knew anything about this redshirt freshman from DC. This is not to say that the coaches are all knowing, just that we see only a small portion of what's going on.
First games are kind of funny. They can be aberrations, but they can also reveal trends that will play out during the season. One example that stands out in my mind is a game against Colorado in 1993, the second season of Walsh II. Colorado was not far removed from its national championship, and we beat them in a 41-37 shootout. Fans and media thought it was the sign of an excellent offense gunning down a national power, but it turned out that Colorado wasn't any good, and the high scoring game was, in fact the mark of a weak defense, which would become one of the hallmarks of that team. What I'm trying to say here is that first games can be indicators of the direction of season, but not necessarily the indicators that we think at the time.
I definitely agree with the poster who compared the divination of the press conference quotes to the post-debate analysis by the partisan groups. People read into them what they will.
David's a big boy, and he's been around football for a very long time. I'm sure he knows that the criticism is part of the job, and I hope he would, like my beloved track coach of blessed memory, just smile, shake his head, and say "Everyone knows more than me."