carl_spackler wrote:
The point I was trying to make with that was about on-field issues, though. Things like our PTB speed, our passing accuracy and speed, our attacking structure/organisation, our lack of option/dummy runners. Defensive line speed was another, but that has improved a lot towards the back end of the season, so I will openly acknowledge that Radford does seem to be addressing that now, for which he deserves credit. All of these things will most likely improve with better players, but I personally think that we could and should have seen some improvement in at least some of these areas even with the existing players if the coach is supposed to be better and the players more responsive to him (which is what we have been led to believe).
The thing is that these shortcomings have persisted through various changes in coaching personnel. Does anyone actually believe that ANY coach tells his players to not support the ball carrier, play the ball slowly, and not bother with defensive line speed? If you remember, even Gentle referred to us having players that 'couldn't be coached'.
Also, what we were told about the players being more responsive to the coach was right at the start when Radford was appointed. More recently the mood music has changed. In fact it's pretty clear from things that both Pearson and Radford have said that they've found the squad far less responsive to change than they thought.
It's never only the players or only the coach. Radford has shortcomings that are plain to see, and I for one never wanted him appointed in the first place. But I have no difficulty in believing that the majority of the issue is with the playing staff as I had concerns about them before Gentle got the push. What AP has come out with since only confirms suspicions that I already had.
