Offensive coordinator talks offense

NCHawker

Well-Known Member
Compare two OC. See Brian and Tim. Also see Tim’s interview today



Night and day… I can’t stand to watch Brian’s interviews. Makes it hard to even play along on the Fire Tim Lester thread anymore
 
It's refreshing to listen to Lester talk for minutes about Cade's footwork, or talk about what Kaleb Brown needs to do better on his pass routes, or what Kaleb Johnson is doing right in his preparation, and how the players are still learning.

It's also cool to Lester talk about whatever the plan or scheme is now, it needs to be constantly changed as everybody adapts.

It's so obvious Lester has been a QB, and has been a QB coach before, and an OC before, and even a head coach before.
 
I thought it was interesting how Lester talked about communicating with his QB's through the helmet radios. He also made it sound like Lester was calling audibles for the QB at the line but I thought the radios were only supposed to be turned on while the QB was is in the huddle. Maybe somebody else can explain what Lester was talking about.
 
I thought it was interesting how Lester talked about communicating with his QB's through the helmet radios. He also made it sound like Lester was calling audibles for the QB at the line but I thought the radios were only supposed to be turned on while the QB was is in the huddle. Maybe somebody else can explain what Lester was talking about.
Too lazy to look it up, but believe when play clock hits 15 seconds the communications go off.
 
I'm really starting to like Lester. I stated in the other thread that I was encouraged and seeing some light at the end of the tunnel. I read this article this morning, and feeling even more positive about him.

I like the way he views the game and how he analyzes performance. He doesn't sugarcoat things, but at the same time keeps a positive vibe that I'm sure the players gravitate to.

 
I'm really starting to like Lester. I stated in the other thread that I was encouraged and seeing some light at the end of the tunnel. I read this article this morning, and feeling even more positive about him.

I like the way he views the game and how he analyzes performance. He doesn't sugarcoat things, but at the same time keeps a positive vibe that I'm sure the players gravitate to.

Absolutely!
 
Lester reminds me of Fran. Like him or hate him, Fran answers the damn questions. Unlike KF or BF, who just offer platitudes and coach speak. Lester was specific, honest, and offers information such that he convinces you he knows what the hell he is talking about. Lester is outshining his predecessor in form and substance, and it aint close.
 
Lester reminds me of Fran. Like him or hate him, Fran answers the damn questions. Unlike KF or BF, who just offer platitudes and coach speak. Lester was specific, honest, and offers information such that he convinces you he knows what the hell he is talking about. Lester is outshining his predecessor in form and substance, and it aint close.
For sure. I listened to all three coordinators and came away very impressed. Sure did learn a lot about how they coach.
 
Hate to be that guy, but BF was never paid with any public money. Football expenses are paid from football revenue only, which comes from ticket sales, donations, and conference money.
Yes that has been hashed out. They are still public employees. They get paid a lot. They should be experts at the P4 level.
 
The touchdown early in the 3rd quarter that tied the game. The play design and how Todd Blackledge explained how/why it worked…I remember thinking to myself, at this point in Brian’s career, he isn’t capable of that.
 
Yes that has been hashed out. They are still public employees. They get paid a lot. They should be experts at the P4 level.
Sorry, but that’s pure pedantry. Way off base.

When one (such as yourself) uses the “public employee" argument about job expectations, the basis behind the argument is that public employees are paid with tax revenue to do a job that impacts and directly affects tax paying citizens. A truly valid argument when the person in question is a teacher, politician, government engineer, prosecutor, judge, etc. Those people are held to a higher standard because their duties directly affect the interests of taxpayers and society. In other words, you and I involuntarily give public employees part of our paychecks every two weeks to provide services that we depend on as a society, and we expect their jobs to be done in our best interest.

Iowa football coaches are not paid with tax money, and they are not performing a service that affects our lives materially in any way. If you get mad at a football team losing, that’s on you. No one is forcing you to spend your money on tickets, tv subscriptions, hoodies, or donations. Because of that, football and other coaches have no duty to you or me to meet any expectations you might put on them.

So no…they are not public employees. You can call them public employees all you want and make whatever semantic arguments you want, but they’re not beholden to you or any other member of the public.
 
Sorry, but that’s pure pedantry. Way off base.

When one (such as yourself) uses the “public employee" argument about job expectations, the basis behind the argument is that public employees are paid with tax revenue to do a job that impacts and directly affects tax paying citizens. A truly valid argument when the person in question is a teacher, politician, government engineer, prosecutor, judge, etc. Those people are held to a higher standard because their duties directly affect the interests of taxpayers and society. In other words, you and I involuntarily give public employees part of our paychecks every two weeks to provide services that we depend on as a society, and we expect their jobs to be done in our best interest.

Iowa football coaches are not paid with tax money, and they are not performing a service that affects our lives materially in any way. If you get mad at a football team losing, that’s on you. No one is forcing you to spend your money on tickets, tv subscriptions, hoodies, or donations. Because of that, football and other coaches have no duty to you or me to meet any expectations you might put on them.

So no…they are not public employees. You can call them public employees all you want and make whatever semantic arguments you want, but they’re not beholden to you or any other member of the public.
It is really annoying when you know precisely what you are talking about. My educator salary and benefits were front page news my entire career, 40 years. I said, ok, publish the data and thank you for your support, taxpayers. I meant it.
 
Sorry, but that’s pure pedantry. Way off base.

When one (such as yourself) uses the “public employee" argument about job expectations, the basis behind the argument is that public employees are paid with tax revenue to do a job that impacts and directly affects tax paying citizens. A truly valid argument when the person in question is a teacher, politician, government engineer, prosecutor, judge, etc. Those people are held to a higher standard because their duties directly affect the interests of taxpayers and society. In other words, you and I involuntarily give public employees part of our paychecks every two weeks to provide services that we depend on as a society, and we expect their jobs to be done in our best interest.

Iowa football coaches are not paid with tax money, and they are not performing a service that affects our lives materially in any way. If you get mad at a football team losing, that’s on you. No one is forcing you to spend your money on tickets, tv subscriptions, hoodies, or donations. Because of that, football and other coaches have no duty to you or me to meet any expectations you might put on them.

So no…they are not public employees. You can call them public employees all you want and make whatever semantic arguments you want, but they’re not beholden to you or any other member of the public.
Not at all. Brian was a public employee, fact. Brain got paid a lot of money, fact. Brian did not know what he was doing, fact.
That's all buddy, you do you.
 
Not at all. Brian was a public employee, fact. Brain got paid a lot of money, fact. Brian did not know what he was doing, fact.
That's all buddy, you do you.
If Brian was not a public employee, how is it that Beth, a public employee, was able to fire him?
 

Latest posts

Top