Great article about Buck Pierce

[Logan007]

 

 

The article was about Buck Pierce the "man" not the football player.  It demonstrates his big heart and compassion for others.  Regardless of what he did on the field, you can't help but admire the man he is and how he treats others.  

 

On the reverse we hold high so many professional athletes that had hall of fame careers but off the field they were real a$$holes.  Slagging Buck because his football career didn't meet your expectations.  Just shows the kind of person you are.  

Yes, because slagging one person shows exactly what kind of person any of us is.  And if you were talking about me, I didn't slag him, I said I couldn't stand him as a Bomber.  I never said he was crap.  Just like myself and others wouldn't like Hank or Tate as a Bomber.

 

 

Did I quote you?  Did I mention you by name?   All I was trying to do is to refocus the thread and remind people that this is about the man and not the football player and that to equate the two.   Is wrong.  

 

Get over yourself. 

 

Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson are great football players but are both scum of the earth.     That's the difference.

 

In case you can't read, I said "If you were talking about me", I never said you were.  I'm so sorry no one is allowed to discuss their opinions about Buck Pierce unless they're positive opinions of the guy.  I mistook this for a message board.  And good luck refocusing the thread when almost all of our threads get derailed in one way or another.

[iso_55]

You feel the same way about Buck as I do about Etch. We should compare notes.

[Mr Dee]

You feel the same way about Buck as I do about Etch. We should compare notes.

 

Let me get this straight, you want to write up a Bucketch list?

[iso_55]

 

You feel the same way about Buck as I do about Etch. We should compare notes.

 

Let me get this straight, you want to write up a Bucketch list?

 

Yeah. I like that.

[SPuDS]

Here we go again. I don't know why everyone thinks Buck is some kind of natural coach. I'm sure he's a nice guy and invests in the community, but none of us has really seen how he's done as a coach. You all say look what he did with Cotton...BS, I think Cotton was already that good. What I want to say is, wtf did he do with Grigsby with all the time he had with him? All I saw with Grigsby was him going down hill as far as his RB duties. But again, was that all on Grigsby, or crappy coaching? That's up to the HC to decide. If he's a good coach, then fine, keep him around, if he's not, I don't care how many people love him, give him the boot.

Sorry, I don't have a man-crush on Buck like a lot of you do. I couldn't stand him as a Bomber, not that we had any other option with the crappy GMing we had at the time and not having a proper QBC. I have a man-crush on Khari, so I know how most of you feel, but I don't want him here if he's not ready to be an OC.

Some of you need to take off your rose colored glasses.

How is buck supposed to teach a guy to not trip on defenders finger tips or pick the right gap at full speed? Trick question, he can't. Both of those key failures are on the RB.. He either has the power to run thru pinky fingers or he has the vision to see the holes made by oline..

 

Not sure if serious ... what do you think a running back coach does if he doesn't go over game film with them and point out snaps where the runner missed going through the right gap, etc?

 

There are literally dozens of things Buck could do with a guy to teach him to not get tripped up by a defender. Evaluate his running style ... everything from his hip stance to his pad level or body lean to make sure he's driving at defenders with force to break through a tackle as opposed to just running at them. Get him to work on keeping his eyes up to spot those arm tackle defenders.

 

A lot of what they'll teach running backs at lower levels in the fundamental stages is the basic principle of see it - prepare for it. Locate the first potential tackler, prepare for him. That's where Grigsby sucked. The fundamental stuff. Pierce could have worked with him to improve that in so many ways - and I'm not suggesting he didn't - I'm just suggesting that you're incorrect when you say you can't teach that stuff. A lot of it is instinct, but a lot of it isn't.

 

To Pierce's credit ... I thought he did a lot to improve Grigsby's game. Pass pro and commitment to a north-south style with no hesitation especially. Grigsby's issue was he just wasn't born to be a running back.

And this is what I was getting at mike.. Stuff that grigsby sucked at was taught at like peewee level.. He SHOULD have known how to keep his pads level, keep his centre of gravity low and keep churning the legs.. He should have also picked up field vision and seeing the gaps form and develop long before he landed here.. Bucks job isn't to redevelop fundamental skills or if it was, grigsby wasn't exactly a star pupil.. Obviously, his job would have been to improve the RBs game play and I thought he did so with both grigsby and cotton.. I also believe his role was more to prepare the RBs to work in the offence while trying to fix their issues. I thought he did that well too as grigsbys blocking did get better as well..