All coaches can teach are fundamentals and keys and communicate and help with adjustments.
Whether Bly or Pleasant. These guys lack fundamentals because their talent is lacking. None of our CBs have the size, speed combination to just lock in on fundamentals. They have to be savvy, they have to bait and set traps. And they did. But when the ball is in the air, or they get caught cheating. By that, I mean peeking at the QB or focusing on their hands rather than their feet: They don’t have the TALENT to capitalize.
Well it is a bit shitty to just jump to a conclusion about someone or something when there’s nothing solid to go on. I’d hate for Bly’s reputation with the fans to suffer unjustifiably.
“Shitty?” I posed a question. You know what I find “shitty”? Someone being called out as being “shitty” for merely posing a question as to how much of a positional groups underwhelming performance might have had to do with the positional coach working with them.
Apologies. Didn’t mean it to be directed at or insulting to you personally, more of a general observation that making judgements on individual performance when we don’t know the whole story is unfair. I should have just left it with my original post and not replied again.
Weren’t we just one half a game away from the Superbowl with a CB that was plucked off a practice squad 2 months ago?
And so am I understanding this correctly…we think that Bly coached-down Sutton?
And Bly isn’t a good teacher and the UNC alumni don’t like Bly but Dan and AG do?!?!
This is a good example of people wanting chicken salad out of chicken shit. How about we give Bly some decent CB’s and a little bit of pass rush.
Bly was one of my favorite players (My tag was Blyfan). But I can admit, he wasn’t the most fundamentally sound player. He had very good instincts and hands. He was either in position to intercept or he was 1-2yds behind his man. I don’t know what he was coaching those talented UNC CBs to do. But they played alot like he did. Plus, UNC’s Defense, as a whole, was trash. Bly brought in legit D1 talent. But, none of the other coaches really did. Maybe that’s why he and other guys were let go.
Well maybe not. They are keeping it hush hush but the whispers are they are not happy w how little the secondary progressed. They pride themselves on coaching up the talent and this year no one really improved on the DL or the secondary with the exception of IFFY (and AG took personal focus and time w him apparently). Now we have hired two coaches for those position groups and they are known for being amazing teachers and several players have had career years under their tutelege.
I’m not sure how you can blame Bly, we had a $11M #2 CB in Sutton, a rookie Nickel that the coaches got ready to play this year . . . and a bunch of min salary guys/UDFA’s. Let’s see what he can do if the GM gives him some talent to work with.
I’m by no means placing sole blame on him. But I think it’s a reasonable thought that given his coaching history, the lack of improvement, that a guy like Jacobs had fared better and this move for Townsend that he may have been part of the issue.
Clearly there was a talent deficiency. I was on a CB first island (or close to it) prior to the deadline when everyone wanted pass rushers.
But I also remember at the time of the hire that there was considerable skepticism about the move based off of how his work at UNC was perceived.
Is he coming back? According to Meinke Townsend is the CB coach in addition to being the passing game coordinator.
A the end of the day, the proof is in their actions. The outside CBs severely underperformed and were the weakest spot on this team. Bly was coaching that group. The talent in that room was subpar, especially after Moseley’s injury. The guy we paid in FA (Sutton) significantly underperformed compared to previous season.
Then, after all that, we hire a former player who played CB and gave him the title of defensive pass game coordinator and CB coach.
I have no idea what this coaching staff thinks of Bly and whether or not he will have a role on this staff moving forward, but reading the tea leaves suggest that they were not particularly happy with the year 1 results.
