Greg Newsome just owned Purdue‘s receivers today. Best job I think I’ve ever seen by an NU DB.
Newsome was AWESOME!
- Thread starter Catfanincolo
- Start date
Hampton and Ruiz also played very well. Heard had some plays too.
He does, but he was lined up against a guy who pushes off a ton. Fortunately for the most part they let them play.
Holding? No. That’s how CB is played in college football. Unlike the NFL, contact is allowed beyond 5 yards.
Last edited:
Bell’s status seems to grant him leeway with calls. A couple of those were really borderline on Newsome. Bell yanked Pace to the ground to go for a ball and PACE gets called for PI?! I’m glad the refs were not so picky and let them play in the 4th because there were just a ton of hard fought plays where our guys were going for the ball and there was mutual contact; I’m glad they didn’t get flag happy.
This quote from Bell!
"I just try to run hard and play with physicality," said Bell. "Greg Newsome had my number tonight. He obviously watched film of me. He knew every move I was gonna make ... "
purdue.rivals.com
"I just try to run hard and play with physicality," said Bell. "Greg Newsome had my number tonight. He obviously watched film of me. He knew every move I was gonna make ... "
BoilerUpload - Wanted: Playmakers for the Purdue offense
The absence of Rondale Moore was amplified in a home loss to Northwestern, when the Purdue offense bogged down
purdue.rivals.com
The swagger with which our dbs played with vs Purdu made me feel like I had a massive testosterone shot in my derrierre! They were trash talking with the purdue players/coaches on the sidelines all game. Talk about cool! I haven't seen or heard stuff like that from Nu players since rex walters 32 yrs ago. Our dbs play confident and kick some serious ass vs the other teams!
All our defensive backs were amazing!
Yes, he does. Just simply re-watch the last few games. Lots of jersey being pulled.
Newsome has the looks of the next lockdown NU corner, but he grabs more than he needs to.
I’m sure the staff will get him to trust his technique a little more and get it cleaned up going forward. He’s very physical, usually in great position to make a play on the ball, and gave Bell (who is also very physical and handsy) all he could handle yesterday.
Exciting young player; love the way he plays.
Last edited:
Purely from a physical talent perspective he may be the most talented cover corner I've seen at NU in the past 25 yrs. He is long, strong, physical, aggressive, athletic and fast. The kind of talent you see routinely at OSU. Yes he could clean things up a little, but from what I am reading, it sounds like Hank would rather get a PI call then give up a big play--you can't score a TD due to a penalty as they have said.
I see little to no praise for DB coach Matt MacPherson. I know that Jerry Brown caught holy hell when it was felt the DB's weren't playing up to potential. Shouldn't coach Mac get some kudos?
Yeah, he should. I gotta say, I wasn't sold on MacPherson as a RB coach, nor was I particularly excited that he was moved to DBs. Seemed like a random move after Bates moved on, and McGarigle moved to his natural position group. But, he's really done a hell of a job so far with the unit. I'd like to see Hank-like consistency and some big recruiting wins in the secondary before anointing him as the answer, but so far so good. Better than expected for sure, and really can't complain at all.
Handsy jersey pulling and in general a lot of handsy gamesmanship between receivers and DBs is the rage in college football. I see it as the rule, not the exception. You can bet it's being coached.
Bell is the most polished young college WR I have seen in memory. His handsy hold on Pace on a ball he wasn't going to catch ... the one that drew the defensive PI call ... was advanced WR play at its best. The doofus official bought it hook, line and sinker.
On the other hand, I never expected NU to put anyone on an island with Bell. Newsome was more than up to the task. What a great game within a game! All 19 times Bell was targeted in the passing game. Future Purdue opponents will be zeroing in on Newsome's film for a lesson plan on how to play the AA Bell.
If only Newsome had made a better tackling effort on Horvath when the Alstott clone ripped through several Wildcat defenders for the 4th down conversion that lead to a TD. He was the first to arrive. No way Chris Martin would have let that bulldozer by him.
So Newsome gets a "needs work" grade to achieve his full potential. Which is very exciting.
GOUNUII
One of the sillier notions I've read here are folks who think a coach has to have played the position they coach to be any good. The criticism of MacPherson as a RB's coach was baseless and embarrassing to read here. Now, he's doing as good a job with our DB's as he did with our RB's.
Maybe MacPherson is just a very good football coach.
On the Pace PI, the ball was under thrown and Bell smartly played into the oncoming Pace, with some steering too. Really heady play, IMO.
Newsome really is a superior athlete. I have a distinct memory of him chasing down JK Dobbins last year after Dobbins broke one.
Try not to act like it's insane to believe that having played a position would actually be beneficial to understanding what it takes to be successful playing it. Generally, people who teach other people how to be better at something generally have some knowledge and experience doing it themselves.
Football is not rocket science. There are zillions of detailed books and videos on every position.
There once was a DUDE named Newsome
On an island with the receiver a twosome
When the balls came his way
He batted them away
And made their offense look gruesome
On an island with the receiver a twosome
When the balls came his way
He batted them away
And made their offense look gruesome
I don’t know the answer but I’ll defer to Glades who played and Fitz and other coaches who don’t seem at all reticent to have guys coach positions they didn’t play. So it must not matter much if at all. One counter-hypothesis would be that guys who played a position may bias their coaching too much toward their individual experience of the position whereas an out of position coach will look at things more objectively.
The objective evidence shows that McPherson couldn't possibly coach a great secondary.
Does the comment about Mcpherson not coaching DBs apply to Fitz not overseeing offensive decisions? Or maybe why he gives his OC lots of leeway
I'm guessing you never played an organized team sport of any consequence. Let alone coached one. All the Xs and Os of DB technique can be learned by anybody you would want coaching in less than a day. Once you have that down, the real coaching begins. And the same qualities that make for a great position coach are transferable to other positions. As we have seen with MacPherson.
OL coaching may be different. For reasons beyond my knowledge, OL coaches tend to be former OLM. Or former players with a good amount of OL coaching experience.
GOUNUII
Anyone can learn a skill. I could sit down watch tape and read and learn proper technique and strategy pretty quickly. A good coach is able to get others to understand it, have a critical eye for improvement/talent, and motivate players. Those are far more valuable than prior knowledge of the position.
That kinda stuff is kinda universal regardless of sport. Also holds true to the business world in a way.
Yes, there is an increasing percentage of college football teams are taking their cue from Seattle’s former “legion of boom”. It makes sense given the state of the offensive game and how the rules are now, more or less, stacked against the defense.
I felt that a few of the PI’s called on Newsome the last two weeks were of the “borderline” variety. He did get away with significant and extended jersey pulling though, which goes beyond physical contact and falls under the category of defensive holding. I do think the calls/lack thereof pretty much evened out.
I think it’s safe to assume NU is (as always?) encouraging physicality in their corners, especially in certain coverages, but I doubt they are teaching them to blatantly hold unless in position to give up a huge play. What we are looking for here is subtlety...the same way a top end offensive lineman can disguise jersey tugs.
As good as Newsome is now (and he is excellent), I can’t wait to see him add some more craftiness to his game as he continues to gain experience.
His ceiling is enormous.
Last edited:
Thank you for the snarky dumbass comment. I'm not talking about just Xs and Os. I'm talking about real experience. Credibility. You think Tim McGarigle doesn't have an edge on other LB coaches in being able to talk about the tricks and tips he used to become college football's #1 tackler at the position? Probably not as helpful if he was the QB coach. Experience counts for something, not just in football but in any job. Is it a pre-requisite to do a good job as a football coach? Of course not, but let's try not be dumbasses for a moment and pretend that it has no relevance and doesn't help.
Most good basketball coaches have played the game of basketball. Most good football coaches have played the game of football. Most DC's at one time played defense (Hank). Most OC's at one time played offense (Bajakian). Mike Kafka happens to be an OC, not a DC. I wonder why?
This isn't hard. Having actually played a position and doing it well usually lends a bunch of experience and credibility for a coach. It's not the only asset and again not a pre-requisite, but it certainly is relevant and helps. I suppose it's just random that Tim McGarigle is coaching our LB's and Lou Ayeni is coaching our RBs. Steve Spurrier, the QB whisperer happened to play QB! Jeff Brohm present day QB whisperer played QB. Mike Bajakian, who coaches our QBs, played QB. What a coincidence!
So you don't like having coaches who didn't play the position, emphasizing the knowledge and cred that comes with that experience. You haven't played and you haven't coached any sport of any consequence, let alone football, but you would also have us believe that you know more than the people who have, including Fitz, about what it takes to be a good football coach.
That my friend is the very definition of being a foolish, self absorbed, no cred dumbass.
GOUNUII
I'll grant you I haven't coached anything except youth basketball.
Who said I didn't play sports? I've played organized basketball (and still do competitively in an over 35 league), football, baseball, lacrosse, and tennis will real coaches (all of them had experience playing) when I was younger.
And I wouldn't have you believe anything. I'm just making a point that having played a position probably provides some basis of credibility and experience vs. not having played - something that you're obviously finding impossible to refute (because it's kind of like arguing the earth is flat). You yourself are claiming that me not having played (though not true) is some sort of basis of not knowing what it takes to coach, so now you're just arguing against yourself and being nonsensical now, and resorting to petty insults, which is the telltale sign of losing an argument.
OK, nice twist.
This discussion reminds me of a Group Counseling training course I attended when I was still in college and working one summer as an assistant parole officer at a prison here in Alaska.
The instructor, who was a professor at USC during the academic year, contended that he did not have to have been an addict to counsel those who were addicts. Be that as it may there certainly seem to be a lot of ex addicts who do become addiction counselors.
When did I say he is a lousy coach and we should get rid of him? Talk about strawmen. I was saying I think he's done a fantastic job so far (though I'd like to see consistency over time). But, yeah, create a position that I'm not taking so you can argue against it, because you can't refute what I'm saying. That's like grabbing my jersey when I've got you beat and happens all the time on this board, but it's still 15 yards and a 1st down.
Sheesh.
I will have to do some research to find the reference, but I seem to remember that Coach Walker liked having his assistant coaches spend some time coaching position groups that were different than the one they themselves played. For example, Fitz spent a year as defensive backs coach before switching to linebackers coach.
If I recall correctly, the idea behind it was to diversify his assistant coaches' knowledge bases - in part to prepare them to take the next step as coordinators or head coaches, but also to provide some redundancy.
Another argument in favor of "coaching out of position" is to switch sides of the ball - I can see how a former WR or QB could be quite effective at coaching DBs. However, for some positions, I do see the benefit of having playing the position itself. It is hard to imagine a former LB being familiar with the nuances of good mechanics of a 3-step, 5-step, and 7-step drop for a QB, based on his playing experience. Not that the former LB couldn't learn, but I think in most cases, it wouldn't be as naturally effective as a former QB becoming a QB coach.
In summary, I see valid points on both sides of this debate. I don't think it is a prerequisite to have played the position to be an effective coach, but there are potential advantages that playing certain positions can provide. I think it is similar to the fact that one doesn't need to have been a winner or an All-American as a player to be a winning coach - there are certainly successful coaches who either never played or had less than impressive playing careers. There are also amazing players who became terrible coaches. And there are coaches who were successful as players and as coaches.
If I recall correctly, the idea behind it was to diversify his assistant coaches' knowledge bases - in part to prepare them to take the next step as coordinators or head coaches, but also to provide some redundancy.
Another argument in favor of "coaching out of position" is to switch sides of the ball - I can see how a former WR or QB could be quite effective at coaching DBs. However, for some positions, I do see the benefit of having playing the position itself. It is hard to imagine a former LB being familiar with the nuances of good mechanics of a 3-step, 5-step, and 7-step drop for a QB, based on his playing experience. Not that the former LB couldn't learn, but I think in most cases, it wouldn't be as naturally effective as a former QB becoming a QB coach.
In summary, I see valid points on both sides of this debate. I don't think it is a prerequisite to have played the position to be an effective coach, but there are potential advantages that playing certain positions can provide. I think it is similar to the fact that one doesn't need to have been a winner or an All-American as a player to be a winning coach - there are certainly successful coaches who either never played or had less than impressive playing careers. There are also amazing players who became terrible coaches. And there are coaches who were successful as players and as coaches.
Similar threads
