A look at Coach Golden's 8 pillars: Football Scenario

[Jedi Master Cane]

In general, so far this season Golden has drifted to the conservative side a bit too much for liking.

Many will have their own theories. Part of me says this is who Golden is...but the other part of me remembers we WEREN'T like this on offense last year. Some will think I'm crazy but I honestly don't think Golden trusts Coley as much as he trusted Jedd. Say what you will....but the personnel is basically unchanged from last year and we are nowhere near as explosive as we were this time last year.

Before anyone says it I'm fully aware we struggled against good teams last year WITH Jedd. However I'd argue Jedd's offense lit up the above average to average defenses we faced last year. The biggest thing I point to here is Morris....homeboy had a 3:1 TD to INT ratio last year and has looked NOTHING like that this year. Clearly Jedd knew how to manage him better and had an offense that was much more diverse. Not one person here can argue the fact that we used the middle of the field a **** OF A LOT better last year than this year.

I'm cooling on Coley. His offense just seems too **** simplistic and in my opinion doesn't play to our strengths. The packages and route combinations he uses with our personnel drive me absolutely nuts.

 

[SBAMACANE]

In general, so far this season Golden has drifted to the conservative side a bit too much for liking.

Many will have their own theories. Part of me says this is who Golden is...but the other part of me remembers we WEREN'T like this on offense last year. Some will think I'm crazy but I honestly don't think Golden trusts Coley as much as he trusted Jedd. Say what you will....but the personnel is basically unchanged from last year and we are nowhere near as explosive as we were this time last year.

Before anyone says it I'm fully aware we struggled against good teams last year WITH Jedd. However I'd argue Jedd's offense lit up the above average to average defenses we faced last year. The biggest thing I point to here is Morris....homeboy had a 3:1 TD to INT ratio last year and has looked NOTHING like that this year. Clearly Jedd knew how to manage him better and had an offense that was much more diverse. Not one person here can argue the fact that we used the middle of the field a **** OF A LOT better last year than this year.

I'm cooling on Coley. His offense just seems too **** simplistic and in my opinion doesn't play to our strengths. The packages and route combinations he uses with our personnel drive me absolutely nuts.

Very true. The TE routes look bad at times. Walford has looked bad in the last few weeks, IMO! The middle of the field is in play, Coley.

 

[Jedi Master Cane]

In general, so far this season Golden has drifted to the conservative side a bit too much for liking.

Many will have their own theories. Part of me says this is who Golden is...but the other part of me remembers we WEREN'T like this on offense last year. Some will think I'm crazy but I honestly don't think Golden trusts Coley as much as he trusted Jedd. Say what you will....but the personnel is basically unchanged from last year and we are nowhere near as explosive as we were this time last year.

Before anyone says it I'm fully aware we struggled against good teams last year WITH Jedd. However I'd argue Jedd's offense lit up the above average to average defenses we faced last year. The biggest thing I point to here is Morris....homeboy had a 3:1 TD to INT ratio last year and has looked NOTHING like that this year. Clearly Jedd knew how to manage him better and had an offense that was much more diverse. Not one person here can argue the fact that we used the middle of the field a **** OF A LOT better last year than this year.

I'm cooling on Coley. His offense just seems too **** simplistic and in my opinion doesn't play to our strengths. The packages and route combinations he uses with our personnel drive me absolutely nuts.

Very true. The TE routes look bad at times. Walford has looked bad in the last few weeks, IMO! The middle of the field is in play, Coley.

It's more than that...but for the sake of not going all out geek mode and typing out every detail that has bothered the crap out of me I'll just cite one example.

Before Dorsett got hurt it was driving me absolutely CRAZY that we were throwing HIM short hitch routes, quick screens, and plays meant for him to use run after the catch skills to make something happen. All of this would be great except for the fact that any die hard, half intelligent Cane fan who has followed this team knows Dorsett strengths are DOWN THE FIELD. Either going deep or the THREAT of going deep which allowed him to get completely naked on 10 yard out routes and stops/comebacks. That's what Dorsett is and that's how he should have been utilized. he simply isn't great with the ball in his hands having to make guys miss or weave through traffic.

Conversely, Coley somehow identified him as a "run after the catch" guy and decided to use him differently. It's ironic he got injured on a reverse...a play that should have been called for a receiver with a better suited skill set...like...I don't know....say Waters or Coley?

I could go on all day about formations/packages like this that have bothered me this season....I'll cut it short and say I'm worried about Coley long term as a play caller.

 

[LuCane]

Its a great post Lu, and is definitely a topic worth discussing. However, one of those pillars is 'choices', and before i can really start to determine if we have the people on staff who can make the right choices on game day...i am still reserving judgement as to whether we have a CEO (golden) that can start making difficult choices OFF the field.

If he cant do that, the choices in game will be irrelevant. At this point, adapting the defense to their audience instead of force feeding the same **** would be a step in the right direction. Most off us want heads to roll (me included) but my god, year 3 and our (HIS) defense is still demonstrating the same ineptitude.

If he looks himself in the mirror (teaM(e)) and is willing to adapt (choices) maybe we can start to show a little on defense.

Brotha, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I believe it all comes together. I don't have an answer. I just have a ****load of questions.

I agree with the premise of your post, I just don't think a lot of coaches make those tough choices. Do you have any good examples of coaches you think make great strategic in game decisions that are say "outside of the box".

I don't think they have to be "outside the box" to be good decisions. They just have to be sharp. And, no, I can't give you any specific examples b/c it's not something I list when I see it (next weekend I'll look out for it).

Chip Kelly when he was at Oregon is someone who came to mind in terms of strategic decisions. As much as I hate to admit it, Urban Meyer was solid in this area playing with the time, field and game scenarios. I like Kevin Sumlin's approach to the game. I was always a big Gary Patterson fan since the day MedleyCane (he went by a different username then) introduced him as an up-and-comer. I don't want to make him into a legend before he's even done anything, but Malzahn is ahead of the game. My favorite coach in the NFL is Sean Payton. He's always anticipating.

As you can probably tell, there are personal preferences and there's some bias listed above. And, I acknowledge that you're likely right: the vast majority of coaches put up a framework, recruit well, use their resources. That's their equation. They don't need to seek that "extra" for a competitive edge.

My opinion is that Miami needs more. We need more because we have to do more with less (resources). We were always on the edge of innovation when it came to game speed, then Erickson, then Butch's absolutely weird evaluation ability. Right now we're trying to be a leader in "culture." We say the right things. We jump around as a group. We need to win to validate that stuff, though. Like I said in your thread, Golden will have plenty of chances. Hope he puts it together.

Is Sumlin a benefactor of Johnny Football or is he himself the goods at the top level of College Football? At one time, I thought Meyer was a stud coach, but has he done it without elite players and/or assistants -- what happened at UF after tebow, harvin, the pouncey sisters and Hernandez? --- he brought in some top notch recruits, but could not achieve the greatness even with a top recruit at QB. Again he finds himself with a great QB and a talent plus against every conference team. Point is - is he good, or just as good as his elite players?

In a case of do the players make the coach or the coach make the players, let's entertain our rivals from FSU and their longtime defensive coordinator Mickey Andrews --- great, legendary, creative......with Deion, Buckley, Jones, Brooks, etc, etc...running over the ACC in a time when the 4th string at FSU could start at most ACC programs and before the change in scholarship limits. A great run he had -- against most teams, but not always against Miami, Florida, Notre Dame (ie the good teams) and he was impressive. But then the scholarship limits came in and adjustments needed to be made. He could not adjust when the playing field was leveling off. Did he forget how to coach football in the ACC or was he merely made great by the greatness of his elite players?

chicken or the egg

I don't know. Done "what" exactly? I go back to what I mentioned yesterday. I think there's a way to objectively measure coaches: do they or do they not get the "whole to equal more than the sum of its parts?" I think it's the test for any leader - business, war, etc. It's why I'm not doing a 180 on Golden because of the result of the VTech game. I think he's done a decent job with the hand he's been dealt. Frankly, I still have the same questions whether we win or lose that game. Certainly, it's a data point on the wrong side, but I wouldn't be "sold" or "certain" he's the guy who'll bring us back to dominance had he won, so I'm not "sold" or "certain" he's worthless in the alternative.

All that to address your notion that plain results (wins or losses) are the determining factor. As for your last question, I've addressed how "fit" is as important as concept. A lot of things have to line up to get great results: excellent players, good fit, decent enough decision-making. There are instances where absolute greatness (mostly from the jimmies and joes) carries mediocrity or even deficiencies in other facets.

 

[CANE4LIFE]

Personally I think this is a total exercise in futility here. We cannot sit here and discern anything about tendancies or mindset because many of these decisions are guided by what has actually been going on. Its easy to say "A coach with guys goes for it on 4th", but its just as easy to say "a coach with Morris and his inconsitency, NO Duke Johnson, playing in that weather, going for a long 4th down on his 37 is an idiot". Same thing goes for kicking the long FG. Lets think back to a FEW games this season, when we DIDNT take the 3, and went on 4th, only to get stuffed. THAT has certainly factored into Golden's decision making. Our "vaunted" OL, has on SEVERAL occasions this season, failed to convert on 4th and short, and we passed up points and came away with nothing.

So while we can sit here and say "well that shows Golden's lack of killer instinct", its nothing but speculation. ANY coach worth spit, makes decisions based on what he KNOWS of his team and how they are performing. If you have a QB who can barely convert a 3rd down, and a team that has consistently failed to convert 4th downs all season, why would you suddenly think they are going to do it now? Your defense has fallen apart and cannot find a way to contain the opposing team, so why hand them the ball on your 37 again? There have been 7 or more fumbles already in the game, why not hope that maybe that pattern continues and THEY make a mistake, and we finally catch a break.

Personally, I would have done what AG did. Its funny you brought this up, because I had the debate with myself also when he did it. I at first thought, What is the point of punting now?. Then after weighing all the factors, I agreed with it.

And on a side note, I saw at least one other poster allude to this. I have played FB. Not in college, but in HS. There are sometimes games when EVERYTHING just goes wrong for you. And momentum absolutely can derail an entire team. It takes you out of your game plan. Players and coaches start to panic, guys start trying to "make something happen", and they miss tackles, they over pursue, and then it becomes like a snowball rolling downhill. We are NOT as bad as we looked on Saturday night. Yes, there are issues on defense with the scheme and coaching, but what happened on Saturday night was deeper than that. It was a total breakdown, players and coaches. And a lot of that was brought on by the CATASTROPHIC early mistakes which just killed us mentally. We went from being fired up and probably being TIGHT from the sense of urgency in this game, to sheer panic. And that is where the LACK of Senior leadership on this team is really hurting us. There comes a point in games, when players tune out the coaches to some extent. It becomes about the guys on the field and doing what they need to do. You NEED someone out there grabbing facemasks in the huddle saying "hey, calm the F*CK down, get in that dude's face and DONT let him get behind you again", or "yo homie, everytime we call blitz xyz, you are lining up wrong and hitting the wrong hole, remember to hit THIS gap". We just dont have that.

This board is totally overreacting. Im not saying there arent major issues that need to be addressed, but those problems were ALWAYS there. They have been there, and we are still a work in progress. Too many people developed unrealistic expecations from the good early start.

 

[LuCane]

#1 You just wrote 45,000 words on something you think is irrelevant?

#2 It was a legitimate scenario that happened on Saturday. We're not guessing about some hypothetical situation. It wasn't 4th and 37 or any of the other hyperbolic statements you made?

#3 You just ended that long rant by telling other people, who were previously reasonably and rationally discussing something, that they were overreacting?

Bruh, let people talk about the game as people let you rant. That's what the board is here to provide.

 

[CANE4LIFE]

#1 You just wrote 45,000 words on something you think is irrelevant?

#2 It was a legitimate scenario that happened on Saturday. We're not guessing about some hypothetical situation. It wasn't 4th and 37 or any of the other hyperbolic statements you made?

#3 You just ended that long rant by telling other people, who were previously reasonably and rationally discussing something, that they were overreacting?

Bruh, let people talk about the game as people let you rant. That's what the board is here to provide.

1. I dont think it was irrelevant to point out that trying to determine the man's "coaching DNA" based on one play, which can obviously be influenced by SO many other factors, is somewhat futile. I think I gave a good number of reasons why that decision could have been very reasonably made, which had nothing to do with "having a killer instinct" or not. Any good coach should weigh ALL the factors he is dealing with, when making a decision like that. Its a little more than just "f8ck it man, I want to win".

2. I know it was a real situation. Did you even bother to read my post? I even said it was funny that you brought this up as I had the same debate with myself when it happened during the game. And what 4th and 37 are you talking about? I never gave any such statement or hypothetical, perhaps a more careful rereading of what I actually wrote would help you out.

3. My final statements had nothing to do with people's discussion in this thread, it was directed more broadly at some of the absurd hysteria that is being posted on some of these boards, including SEVERAL posts now where different individuals have flat out said recruits would be stupid to come play for this staff and in this system. On boards where we know recruits, players and their families read, we have "fans" basically telling our recruits to go elsewhere. And you dont think that is "overreacting"?

 

[LuCane]

#1 You just wrote 45,000 words on something you think is irrelevant?

#2 It was a legitimate scenario that happened on Saturday. We're not guessing about some hypothetical situation. It wasn't 4th and 37 or any of the other hyperbolic statements you made?

#3 You just ended that long rant by telling other people, who were previously reasonably and rationally discussing something, that they were overreacting?

Bruh, let people talk about the game as people let you rant. That's what the board is here to provide.

1. I dont think it was irrelevant to point out that trying to determine the man's "coaching DNA" based on one play, which can obviously be influenced by SO many other factors, is somewhat futile. I think I gave a good number of reasons why that decision could have been very reasonably made, which had nothing to do with "having a killer instinct" or not. Any good coach should weigh ALL the factors he is dealing with, when making a decision like that. Its a little more than just "f8ck it man, I want to win".

2. I know it was a real situation. Did you even bother to read my post? I even said it was funny that you brought this up as I had the same debate with myself when it happened during the game. And what 4th and 37 are you talking about? I never gave any such statement or hypothetical, perhaps a more careful rereading of what I actually wrote would help you out.

3. My final statements had nothing to do with people's discussion in this thread, it was directed more broadly at some of the absurd hysteria that is being posted on some of these boards, including SEVERAL posts now where different individuals have flat out said recruits would be stupid to come play for this staff and in this system. On boards where we know recruits, players and their families read, we have "fans" basically telling our recruits to go elsewhere. And you dont think that is "overreacting"?

1. It's not based on one play. It's one data point out of hundreds.

2. Yes, I read your post. I appreciate that you take the time and push forward the discussion. I also felt like it was contradictory on some points, so I asked those questions.

3. Yes, in that sense, there is overreacting, but I hadn't it read it narrowed to that subject and the comment was made in this thread.

 

[MiamiVice7]

Lu, of those 8 pillars I would say Attitude, Passion, Preparation and Empowerment are missing from this team.

Attitude - Team has none, they don't have that edge to them that makes them enjoyable to watch. They show up play and everything seems like its suppressed.
Passion - Don't see this either, seems to me like guys just go through the motions on the field very robotic like
Preparation - See GT, UNC and Wake game. I think for UF and FSU and VT we actually came out prepared but for the last two we just unraveled.
Empowerment - I think Golden and coach D do not empower their guys to bring the best out of them. I believe they micro manage and suppress the natural athleticism and instincts the players may have

All of the above is reflected on game day and some of the poor choices that are made such as punting the ball in the scenario you mentioned above.

I agree completely with your Attitude and Passion comments. This drives me nuts. I hate the way we generally look lifeless out there, especially on defense. I can appreciate focus and a business-like approach, and I'm not looking for backflips and dancing.....BUT there's something about having an energy to your game. There's something to being a little nasty and crazy out there. That can drive your team. You can create your own momentum and build off of that.

One example I remember from Saturday: I'm not sure when it happened, but I remember Denzel making a good play (maybe a sack?) that I believe resulted in a 3rd and long for VT (it actually may have been the play just before that ridiculous 3rd and 17 they converted for a TD). Anyways, Denzel gets up quietly and walks back to get ready for the next play. Nobody around him reacted. The whole thing just looked sad to me. I was expecting (or at least hoping) that our defense would be excited, rowdy, fired up, SOMETHING! They just made a big stop to put VT in a bad spot at an important point in the game, but.........nothing. Emotionless. The D looked tired, or apathetic, or something I can't explain. I just don't get it.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen F$U's defense (among many others), for example, make that kind of stop and they just get rowdy. Their guys look amped and it feels like they *know* they're coming for you...like they're confident, nasty, and they're gonna impose their will and there's nothing you can do about it. That's what it looks like. That's the energy they're playing with. Now that doesn't mean they'll necessarily dominate the next play, but it sure as **** seems that they feed off of that vibe and tend to make plays more often than not when they need em.

Now obviously schematic stuff (e.g. receivers running wide *** open on 3rd down) is a different issue, and a major one, but crap like this ****es me off because it seems like the "easier" part. Get fired up. Play with passion. This is a rival and the biggest game of the season with everything on the line. A chance to change the trajectory of the entire season and program.

Yet we make a big stop and it looks absolutely NO DIFFERENT than if we had just made that same play in the 4th quarter of a blowout where we're losing by 50. Makes no sense.

Someone recently made the comment that it feels like we're training away from that energy. A little too much levelheadedness. Going against the nature of our guys and football players (especially defense) in general.

Just makes me sad. Makes me feel like our guys don't believe, don't have confidence, *know* it's not gonna turn out well. I don't like it.

 

[canesstevealum08]

I'm with vice, canes in game approach is too methodical. that 1st and 5 why did it feel like we planned to use all 3 downs to get 5 yards? attack! they play like robots because theyre told how to think!I actually don't see empowerment.

 

[Loafers]

My belief is that 90% of coaches are HORRIBLE about game management. Miss use TO's make wrong decisions about when to go or not to go for it, when to go for 2 etc. Heck look at the UNC game. Fedora blew it. Richt in SEC championship game blew it. These guys have to many things going on and when the situation arises they have 10 seconds to make a decision. They arent at home drinking a beer. Golden did want 99% of coaches would do. Most of these guys are older or have come up under older coaches who are archaic in their thinking. Whether or not that is your approach to the game is something different. I am a jags fan(hold the laughs) and until sunday hadnt kept a game within 10pts and yet they would punt all game long. You would think what is the difference between losing by 20 or 30. Why not try double passes, faked punts, faked fgs anything to conjure up some hope of winning. This is not how coaches think though. Fans have nothing to lose. Coaches have the players mindset to think about it. It is a delicate balance. You bring up analytics and I am all about the statistical side of the game and their are many people much smarter than me who have devised schematics about every drive and position on the field. I used to have some files on an old HD. i will have to find them. Go search the MIT sloan conference. Yes its a bunch of nerds talking sports but the stuff they do is amazing. There are some guys in HS football who use some of these theories to great success.

 

[LuCane]

My belief is that 90% of coaches are HORRIBLE about game management. Miss use TO's make wrong decisions about when to go or not to go for it, when to go for 2 etc. Heck look at the UNC game. Fedora blew it. Richt in SEC championship game blew it. These guys have to many things going on and when the situation arises they have 10 seconds to make a decision. They arent at home drinking a beer. Golden did want 99% of coaches would do. Most of these guys are older or have come up under older coaches who are archaic in their thinking. Whether or not that is your approach to the game is something different. I am a jags fan(hold the laughs) and until sunday hadnt kept a game within 10pts and yet they would punt all game long. You would think what is the difference between losing by 20 or 30. Why not try double passes, faked punts, faked fgs anything to conjure up some hope of winning. This is not how coaches think though. Fans have nothing to lose. Coaches have the players mindset to think about it. It is a delicate balance. You bring up analytics and I am all about the statistical side of the game and their are many people much smarter than me who have devised schematics about every drive and position on the field. I used to have some files on an old HD. i will have to find them. Go search the MIT sloan conference. Yes its a bunch of nerds talking sports but the stuff they do is amazing. There are some guys in HS football who use some of these theories to great success.

Couple things:

1) All reasonable points. The scenario I outlined, however, wasn't this crazy thing where Golden needed to be in a "nothing to lose" mentality. He clearly wanted to either still win the game or show his team he was trying. He called the timeouts after that series anyway. I just think he made an error in analysis and it's something to look at as a *possible* indicator along with his good decisions.

2) Huge fan of the Sloan conference. I think there's a place for what they're doing in Sports in my current industry. I'm trying to marry my obsession with sports and my experience to get some cool results. We'll see. Outside of this football place, I take the same approach to other sports. I don't think statistics are the end-all, be-all like some are trying to do in basketball (and, obviously, baseball). I do think they play an immensely important role, though. I can tell you what lineup is likely to do best for my favorite basketball team (I'm a Bulls fan). I can tell you that something like stepping in 3 feet increases Luol Deng's FG% by like 8% points and that leads to +-3 total points in any game, given his FG attempts. **** like that may seem "nerdy," but it plays a role in the actual game and the final result. However "nerdy," there are guys - some former Hurricanes - who are into this stuff and apply it to their play. Ed Reed eats film for a reason.

When it comes to football, we're still somewhat behind, though. Football is billed as a "man's game" about brutality and execution. A ******* "seal here and seal there" and you can't stop what's coming. I get it. I still believe psychology, motivation, execution and all of that good stuff play crucial roles. I also think there's a data analytics part or even overall analytics part that is waiting to be taken advantage of in the game. I think some people are coming around. I think, even at the college level, it's important to use tendencies as a competitive advantage. At the very least, it shouldn't be a blatant disadvantage. The drunk guy behind me in the game shouldn't see 2 TEs and Malcolm Lewis and scream "it's a run play" before the snap. That's just outrageous.

 

[Loafers]

My belief is that 90% of coaches are HORRIBLE about game management. Miss use TO's make wrong decisions about when to go or not to go for it, when to go for 2 etc. Heck look at the UNC game. Fedora blew it. Richt in SEC championship game blew it. These guys have to many things going on and when the situation arises they have 10 seconds to make a decision. They arent at home drinking a beer. Golden did want 99% of coaches would do. Most of these guys are older or have come up under older coaches who are archaic in their thinking. Whether or not that is your approach to the game is something different. I am a jags fan(hold the laughs) and until sunday hadnt kept a game within 10pts and yet they would punt all game long. You would think what is the difference between losing by 20 or 30. Why not try double passes, faked punts, faked fgs anything to conjure up some hope of winning. This is not how coaches think though. Fans have nothing to lose. Coaches have the players mindset to think about it. It is a delicate balance. You bring up analytics and I am all about the statistical side of the game and their are many people much smarter than me who have devised schematics about every drive and position on the field. I used to have some files on an old HD. i will have to find them. Go search the MIT sloan conference. Yes its a bunch of nerds talking sports but the stuff they do is amazing. There are some guys in HS football who use some of these theories to great success.

Couple things:

1) All reasonable points. The scenario I outlined, however, wasn't this crazy thing where Golden needed to be in a "nothing to lose" mentality. He clearly wanted to either still win the game or show his team he was trying. He called the timeouts after that series anyway. I just think he made an error in analysis and it's something to look at as a *possible* indicator along with his good decisions.

2) Huge fan of the Sloan conference. I think there's a place for what they're doing in Sports in my current industry. I'm trying to marry my obsession with sports and my experience to get some cool results. We'll see. Outside of this football place, I take the same approach to other sports. I don't think statistics are the end-all, be-all like some are trying to do in basketball (and, obviously, baseball). I do think they play an immensely important role, though. I can tell you what lineup is likely to do best for my favorite basketball team (I'm a Bulls fan). I can tell you that something like stepping in 3 feet increases Luol Deng's FG% by like 8% points and that leads to +-3 total points in any game, given his FG attempts. **** like that may seem "nerdy," but it plays a role in the actual game and the final result. However "nerdy," there are guys - some former Hurricanes - who are into this stuff and apply it to their play. Ed Reed eats film for a reason.

When it comes to football, we're still somewhat behind, though. Football is billed as a "man's game" about brutality and execution. A ****ing "seal here and seal there" and you can't stop what's coming. I get it. I still believe psychology, motivation, execution and all of that good stuff play crucial roles. I also think there's a data analytics part or even overall analytics part that is waiting to be taken advantage of in the game. I think some people are coming around. I think, even at the college level, it's important to use tendencies as a competitive advantage. At the very least, it shouldn't be a blatant disadvantage. The drunk guy behind me in the game shouldn't see 2 TEs and Malcolm Lewis and scream "it's a run play" before the snap. That's just outrageous.

Good stuff. I was including myself in the nerd category although I have played sports my whole life. definitely agree that statistical analysis can only take you so far and stats in thw wrong hands can be manipulated to prove a point. For example, Tony Khan was hired by his dad as the analytics guru for the Jags. Good article in ESPN mag about it. Now they tried to tell everyone that when gabbert gets more than 4 seconds his passer rating ranks 10th. the problem was that they werent adjusting every qb's passer rating by the same criteria. Football is very hard to analyze in the same manner that baseball and basketball can be. Too many moving parts. KC Joyner has done some good things for ESPN although he was wrong this year about the canes, because he was pretty high analytically on the offense if i remember correctly.

But i think that analytics can be used a great deal in situational positions. When to go for it etc.

I understand that he called the game differently later on with the TO's. I still chalk this up to the way coaches are. I wish that they called the game strategically but to many times they make a call in the moment without having time to think spatially about the impact later on in the game. These situations need to be looked at like chess. Your move doesnt always just impact the next play or series. It affects the rest of the game. I hate when coaches down 15 go for 2 after the first td. Its pointless and basically ends the game if you dont get it. Cut it to 8. Keep your teams spirits high and let them know they have something to play for. Put pressure on the opposing team,that if they ***** up we have a chance to tie. But without fail EVERY coach goes for the 2 to try and cut it to 7 dont get it are down 9 and then have to try onside kicks and all sorts of miracles to try to score twice.. Also, they go for 2 way to early when trailing early in games. They dont go for 4th and short enough. Again, they tend to think one way from my experience in listening to them. They always think about not getting it and the impact but rarely weigh this against the probability of converting and then their probability of scoring.

 

[Awsi Dooger]

I was at the game and screamed when we punted. "What difference does it make if we lose by three touchdowns or four touchdowns?

Of course, by that point there were only a few nearby fans to hear it. Within minutes I was literally the only fan remaining in the section.

I've noticed that many otherwise astute coaches make poor decisions in the late going when they conclude they are out of it. I've seen it in football and basketball. I think they mentally check out, and don't fully value the chance to raise your expectation from 2% to 3%, or similar.

Overall, Golden isn't bad. I was impressed when we called time out with roughly 1:20 remaining in the first half, after we held Virginia Tech on a second down play. The Hokies had called time out one play earlier. It's rare for each time to alternate time outs but I thought it was appropriate.

Coker was the all time worst. As a stats and probability guy he drove me nuts. One year we were playing at Georgia Tech and scored to trail by 7 with 2 minutes remaining. That was the season the NCAA changed the rules on the clock after a change of possession. The clock started after the kickoff return ended, instead of being stopped until the next play. So you had to be ultra aware of the altered terrain. For that year only, having 2 time outs in a scenario like that was the equivalent of having only 1 time out, and so forth. Naturally, Larry Coker was completely clueless. He kicked the ball deep instead of using an onside kick, and we had no chance. Georgia Tech kneeled and ran out the clock.

Coker also led the country year after year in punting from inside the opponents' 40. That was comically masochistic. We'd be playing an outmanned team and have something like 4th and 2 from their 36 and somehow he'd think the ideal strategy was a punt.

You always have to grasp 2 opportunities and not 1, etc. Some coaches fail to properly value the worth of that extra chance, to essentially put the game away. They put too much stock in fear and conventional wisdom. Every recent move Belichick has made in recent seasons has been correct, IMO, even if they went against the norm and he took some flak for it.

I'm amazed how many teams ***** up the end of game situations. Two Sundays ago the Jets had the game sewn up against the Saints, given the clock and time out realities, but instead of kneeling they needlessly ran the ball twice, risking a fumble. Tampa Bay did the same last night against the Dolphins. Glennon could have merely taken the snap and drifted back a few steps before kneeling. They figured that out on 3rd down, but not before risking handoffs on the first two plays after Revis' interception.

 

[Loafers]

I was at the game and screamed when we punted. "What difference does it make if we lose by three touchdowns or four touchdowns?

Of course, by that point there were only a few nearby fans to hear it. Within minutes I was literally the only fan remaining in the section.

I've noticed that many otherwise astute coaches make poor decisions in the late going when they conclude they are out of it. I've seen it in football and basketball. I think they mentally check out, and don't fully value the chance to raise your expectation from 2% to 3%, or similar.

Overall, Golden isn't bad. I was impressed when we called time out with roughly 1:20 remaining in the first half, after we held Virginia Tech on a second down play. The Hokies had called time out one play earlier. It's rare for each time to alternate time outs but I thought it was appropriate.

Coker was the all time worst. As a stats and probability guy he drove me nuts. One year we were playing at Georgia Tech and scored to trail by 7 with 2 minutes remaining. That was the season the NCAA changed the rules on the clock after a change of possession. The clock started after the kickoff return ended, instead of being stopped until the next play. So you had to be ultra aware of the altered terrain. For that year only, having 2 time outs in a scenario like that was the equivalent of having only 1 time out, and so forth. Naturally, Larry Coker was completely clueless. He kicked the ball deep instead of using an onside kick, and we had no chance. Georgia Tech kneeled and ran out the clock.

Coker also led the country year after year in punting from inside the opponents' 40. That was comically masochistic. We'd be playing an outmanned team and have something like 4th and 2 from their 36 and somehow he'd think the ideal strategy was a punt.

You always have to grasp 2 opportunities and not 1, etc. Some coaches fail to properly value the worth of that extra chance, to essentially put the game away. They put too much stock in fear and conventional wisdom. Every recent move Belichick has made in recent seasons has been correct, IMO, even if they went against the norm and he took some flak for it.

I'm amazed how many teams ***** up the end of game situations. Two Sundays ago the Jets had the game sewn up against the Saints, given the clock and time out realities, but instead of kneeling they needlessly ran the ball twice, risking a fumble. Tampa Bay did the same last night against the Dolphins. Glennon could have merely taken the snap and drifted back a few steps before kneeling. They figured that out on 3rd down, but not before risking handoffs on the first two plays after Revis' interception.

My thoughts exactly. That is why I likened to chess. Your move has a purpose and it can include sacrificing a piece for the greater good. I think every team should have some grad assistant for this very purpose. In game management as their sole responsibility. A coach is coaching, controlling very aspect then all of a sudden they are faced with a situation and they have seconds to decide. They fall back on what they know just like most people. Plus coaches have to face owners, presidents ads etc. if you do the conventional and fail its nob ideal. It's on the players. If u go outside the box and fail its on you. Belichek has immense job security so he can make those calls with confidence. Most coaches don't feel that comfortable.

 

[CANE4LIFE]

I was at the game and screamed when we punted. "What difference does it make if we lose by three touchdowns or four touchdowns?

Of course, by that point there were only a few nearby fans to hear it. Within minutes I was literally the only fan remaining in the section.

I've noticed that many otherwise astute coaches make poor decisions in the late going when they conclude they are out of it. I've seen it in football and basketball. I think they mentally check out, and don't fully value the chance to raise your expectation from 2% to 3%, or similar.

Overall, Golden isn't bad. I was impressed when we called time out with roughly 1:20 remaining in the first half, after we held Virginia Tech on a second down play. The Hokies had called time out one play earlier. It's rare for each time to alternate time outs but I thought it was appropriate.

Coker was the all time worst. As a stats and probability guy he drove me nuts. One year we were playing at Georgia Tech and scored to trail by 7 with 2 minutes remaining. That was the season the NCAA changed the rules on the clock after a change of possession. The clock started after the kickoff return ended, instead of being stopped until the next play. So you had to be ultra aware of the altered terrain. For that year only, having 2 time outs in a scenario like that was the equivalent of having only 1 time out, and so forth. Naturally, Larry Coker was completely clueless. He kicked the ball deep instead of using an onside kick, and we had no chance. Georgia Tech kneeled and ran out the clock.

Coker also led the country year after year in punting from inside the opponents' 40. That was comically masochistic. We'd be playing an outmanned team and have something like 4th and 2 from their 36 and somehow he'd think the ideal strategy was a punt.

You always have to grasp 2 opportunities and not 1, etc. Some coaches fail to properly value the worth of that extra chance, to essentially put the game away. They put too much stock in fear and conventional wisdom. Every recent move Belichick has made in recent seasons has been correct, IMO, even if they went against the norm and he took some flak for it.

I'm amazed how many teams ***** up the end of game situations. Two Sundays ago the Jets had the game sewn up against the Saints, given the clock and time out realities, but instead of kneeling they needlessly ran the ball twice, risking a fumble. Tampa Bay did the same last night against the Dolphins. Glennon could have merely taken the snap and drifted back a few steps before kneeling. They figured that out on 3rd down, but not before risking handoffs on the first two plays after Revis' interception.

That is a great point about Coker, and a perfect example of an ultra conservative coach that coaches scared. That's why Im not ready to buy into the "Golden coaches scared" or "Golden is passive" meme, not even close. There have been many times Golden has gone for it on 4th, several times we probably left 3 points on the table by doing it, and came up short. On offense he does take more chances, and while he did MORESO last year, I think the performance of the team and the play of key players are impacting the decisions he makes in those games. Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, I also had the debate with myself on wether he should punt or not, but in the end, I agreed with it. I mean sure, in the end you can view it as "what difference does it make if you lose by 3 or 4 touchdowns", one can also look at it as, why just give them another easy TD out of desperation? It would be one thing if you had ANY confidence that your team could convert it, but in your own territory, in pouring rain, when your team hasnt been converting jack sh*t, its the epitome of the "Longshot". There is gambling, and then there is throwing a Hail Mary.

 

[Gatorhater]

Great stuff here. I have one question, which one of these fancy little pillars says "don't knock the other guy down because you might hurt him." If our tackling is the result of some pillars, then we need to replace the pillars with some big hulking rocks. I am your basic corporate type with results outlook. I never micromanage anyone. They have things to accomplish. They succeed it is all good. They fail, they're fired. Simple. The same applies to me. Up until Saturday I thought Al was doing an outstanding job. Saturday I got some end of quarter results that could not be scrubbed to look better. He fail. Maybe it was DC and OC, but they are both his hires. One best friend, the other making more than any assistant ever at THE U, I think. If was the players, after three years, he owns them. If I am AD, Sunday morning, I am in Al's office asking for a revised chapter in his big 300 page book telling me why HE is failing? What decisions has he made wrong? How is he going to change? If he gives me the "we will get it fixed" stuff without telling me what his mistakes are that caused it, I start a quiet search committee and tell him he wins the rest of these games or I will decide what he did wrong and FIX it for him.

 

[Big Sky Cane]

Great stuff here. I have one question, which one of these fancy little pillars says "don't knock the other guy down because you might hurt him." If our tackling is the result of some pillars, then we need to replace the pillars with some big hulking rocks. I am your basic corporate type with results outlook. I never micromanage anyone. They have things to accomplish. They succeed it is all good. They fail, they're fired. Simple. The same applies to me. Up until Saturday I thought Al was doing an outstanding job. Saturday I got some end of quarter results that could not be scrubbed to look better. He fail. Maybe it was DC and OC, but they are both his hires. One best friend, the other making more than any assistant ever at THE U, I think. If was the players, after three years, he owns them. If I am AD, Sunday morning, I am in Al's office asking for a revised chapter in his big 300 page book telling me why HE is failing? What decisions has he made wrong? How is he going to change? If he gives me the "we will get it fixed" stuff without telling me what his mistakes are that caused it, I start a quiet search committee and tell him he wins the rest of these games or I will decide what he did wrong and FIX it for him.

And there in lies the problem with the over-reaction. It was a bad game, that spun out of control. Al is building and unfortunately the team got punched in the nuts and took a small step back.

I've coached and played in games when things get out of control. Great teams like Bama can overcome those miscues. We're not there yet. Some will say the kids quit. I say they just kicked in the nuts repeatedly and got disheartened. It happens with a young team. We don't have the confidence and swagger of a championship level team, YET.

We've shown a ton of fight and resiliency this year but last weekend was too much to overcome. It was a perfect storm (in the wrong direction) and now people are using this game to define the Golden regime and it's extremely over-reactionary and premature.

 

[rsa coral gables]

a couple of thoughts.

golden has made some good on-the-fly decisions that take into account the state of the game and state of the team and evidence his analytical capacity. the punt in the florida game to flip the field and rely on the defense which prior to the game had been unproven and much maligned. there are others.

i believe the coaching staff is limited in its options because they do not trust the players. they recognize the lack of talent and depth we have at virtually every position. hence the soft zones and keeping everything in front of them. we take very few risks on both side of the ball.

i rewatched the VT game last night and morris' mechanics were as bad as ever. they dont trust him throwing the ball over the middle in short or intermediate passes.

 

[Pentagon Cane]

Its a great post Lu, and is definitely a topic worth discussing. However, one of those pillars is 'choices', and before i can really start to determine if we have the people on staff who can make the right choices on game day...i am still reserving judgement as to whether we have a CEO (golden) that can start making difficult choices OFF the field.

If he cant do that, the choices in game will be irrelevant. At this point, adapting the defense to their audience instead of force feeding the same **** would be a step in the right direction. Most off us want heads to roll (me included) but my god, year 3 and our (HIS) defense is still demonstrating the same ineptitude.

If he looks himself in the mirror (teaM(e)) and is willing to adapt (choices) maybe we can start to show a little on defense.

Brotha, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I believe it all comes together. I don't have an answer. I just have a ****load of questions.

I agree with the premise of your post, I just don't think a lot of coaches make those tough choices. Do you have any good examples of coaches you think make great strategic in game decisions that are say "outside of the box".

I don't think they have to be "outside the box" to be good decisions. They just have to be sharp. And, no, I can't give you any specific examples b/c it's not something I list when I see it (next weekend I'll look out for it).

Chip Kelly when he was at Oregon is someone who came to mind in terms of strategic decisions. As much as I hate to admit it, Urban Meyer was solid in this area playing with the time, field and game scenarios. I like Kevin Sumlin's approach to the game. I was always a big Gary Patterson fan since the day MedleyCane (he went by a different username then) introduced him as an up-and-comer. I don't want to make him into a legend before he's even done anything, but Malzahn is ahead of the game. My favorite coach in the NFL is Sean Payton. He's always anticipating.

As you can probably tell, there are personal preferences and there's some bias listed above. And, I acknowledge that you're likely right: the vast majority of coaches put up a framework, recruit well, use their resources. That's their equation. They don't need to seek that "extra" for a competitive edge.

My opinion is that Miami needs more. We need more because we have to do more with less (resources). We were always on the edge of innovation when it came to game speed, then Erickson, then Butch's absolutely weird evaluation ability. Right now we're trying to be a leader in "culture." We say the right things. We jump around as a group. We need to win to validate that stuff, though. Like I said in your thread, Golden will have plenty of chances. Hope he puts it together.

Is Sumlin a benefactor of Johnny Football or is he himself the goods at the top level of College Football? At one time, I thought Meyer was a stud coach, but has he done it without elite players and/or assistants -- what happened at UF after tebow, harvin, the pouncey sisters and Hernandez? --- he brought in some top notch recruits, but could not achieve the greatness even with a top recruit at QB. Again he finds himself with a great QB and a talent plus against every conference team. Point is - is he good, or just as good as his elite players?

In a case of do the players make the coach or the coach make the players, let's entertain our rivals from FSU and their longtime defensive coordinator Mickey Andrews --- great, legendary, creative......with Deion, Buckley, Jones, Brooks, etc, etc...running over the ACC in a time when the 4th string at FSU could start at most ACC programs and before the change in scholarship limits. A great run he had -- against most teams, but not always against Miami, Florida, Notre Dame (ie the good teams) and he was impressive. But then the scholarship limits came in and adjustments needed to be made. He could not adjust when the playing field was leveling off. Did he forget how to coach football in the ACC or was he merely made great by the greatness of his elite players?

chicken or the egg

Sumlin is the goods as an offensive mind. Look what he did as an OC at Oklahoma and as head coach at Houston.