WFLA News Channel 8 The Tampa Tribune CentroTampa.com

TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online

USF Football:
USF Basketball:
USF Baseball:

Most Recent Entries
More
Monthly Archives

Wednesday’s practice report

Posted Mar 17, 2010 by Gregg Becnel

Updated Mar 17, 2010 at 07:12 PM

Day 2 of practice under new coach Skip Holtz was pretty uneventful. The team worked out in shorts and Holtz said the players and coaches are feeling each other out and getting a sense of how things will be done.

“There’s a lot of learning and a lot of teaching going on,” Holtz said.

Holtz said there will not be an official depth chart until after the first scrimmage (March 27).

“Everybody’s getting the same number of reps,” he said. “There are no ones or twos.”

WELCOME BACK: Holtz said he was grateful RB Mo Plancher was granted a sixth year of eligibility.

“When you look at that position there aren’t a lot of guys who have played a lot,” Holtz said. “Plancher is the one stable piece that’s played a lot of football for us. … He’s a phenomenal young man. I think he brings some leadership, maturity and experience to the table. I’m glad we have him. I think it was huge to have him out here for his sixth year.”

SPIKE: Holtz brought a technique he has used for 10 years to USF when the team used volleyballs during its punt-block drills.

“In blocking punts, the volleyballs are a lot easier,” Holtz said. “I’ve had people chip teeth and break fingers when you’re blocking that many punts. … Doing this a long time, we’ve experienced about everything; that’s why we do the volleyballs instead of the footballs.”

ODDS AND ENDS: RB Jamar Taylor and DE David Bedford missed their second consecutive practice because of academic issues. Holtz did say, however, the two could return this spring once the academic stuff is resolved. … Holtz said he wants to give Evan Landi an opportunity to win a starting spot at receiver, but did say there is a possibility Landi could get some reps at quarterback at some point during the spring

Reader Comments

Por (Dan Alatorre) on March 18, 2010 (Suggest removal)

I wonder, when the season is under way and the Leavitt story is behind us, would the players and coaches ever speak about what they saw in the locker room that day? I wonder if the truth will ever really come out. I thought Leavitt was innocent until the report was published, then I thought he did it. Then I read that several credible witnesses like a police officer, said they were there and that he didn’t do it. So it makes me think the school overreached when they gave him the big contract, and overreacted when they fired him. I bet they settle for about half the $$$ and sign a nondisclosure agreement. Just curious.

Suggest removal

Por (usfalum71) on March 18, 2010 (Suggest removal)

Dan, do you think the Leavitt saga will be over that soon?  We can only hope so!  Like every other fan, all I ever wanted was the TRUTH.  Although not admissable in a court of law, why weren’t any of the individuals involved, CJL as well as all the “witnesses”, ever given polygraph tests?  Yes, they may not be fool-proof, but with so much at stake, at least they would have been another tool in the investigation.  And they would have been a lot cheaper than a contract buy-out.

Suggest removal

Por (Dan Alatorre) on March 18, 2010 (Suggest removal)

I think so. I think that when the new season starts, the Leavitt saga will be forgotten by most fans. I certainly don’t want to dwell on it. There was always going to come a day when he would no longer be coach, whether through retirement, getting fired, or leaving for a better job; it’s just that the day came sooner and in a manner that I did not expect. But I know the lawyers will muddy things up enough so that we never feel like we got all of the truth. It’s a shame, too. I could have seen the day where USF had its own stadium and football was played on Leavitt Field. Now that will never happen. Let Holtz win the Big East and people will say “Leavitt who?” Heck, Holtz may only needs to have a solid winning season for that.

Suggest removal

Por (Jon McKee) on March 18, 2010 (Suggest removal)

When interviewing witnesses you give a little more credibility to the witness who says it happened and they witnessed it, over those who did not see it.  You do this for several reasons.
1) Saying you didn’t see it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, it just means they did not see it.
2) In that situation, a lot of folks will always take the easy way out “I didn’t see nuthin” to avoid taking a stand or later being “blackballed” if it goes the other way.  I can see where most would say this, its easy to defend “not seeing”.  Remember the three monkies and what we use to tell our kids about being “finks”?

Suggest removal
Page 1 of 1 pages

Post a comment

Members:

(Requires free registration.)




Auto-login on future visits

Show my name in the online users list

Forgot your password?


Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

IYP and SEO vendors: SEO by eLocalListing | Advertiser profiles