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

[Big Sky Cane]

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.

and look at the quarterbacks he's had to work with. Just saying. Bradford, Keenum, Manziel. Not too bad. Again....not saying he isn't good, but players make you look a heck of a lot better.

 

[D.L.I.N.K.D.A.GR8]

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.

and look at the quarterbacks he's had to work with. Just saying. Bradford, Keenum, Manziel. Not too bad. Again....not saying he isn't good, but players make you look a heck of a lot better.

Besides Bradford i think its the opposite way around... He coached up Keenum & Manziel... The thing about him is he adapts to their strength and uses plays that eliminates their weakness... You can look at the Houston offense with Keenum compared to A&M offense with Manziel

 

[LuCane]

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.

and look at the quarterbacks he's had to work with. Just saying. Bradford, Keenum, Manziel. Not too bad. Again....not saying he isn't good, but players make you look a heck of a lot better.

They work in unison. Someone like Keenum, and to an extent Bradford, actually owe a lot to Sumlin. It's not "only" the other way around. Bradford was made to look like a #1 overall pick when he may have really been a good, but not great NFL QB. Everyone can stipulate that good coaching and players who can execute go hand in hand.

 

[Canesfan1899]

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.

and look at the quarterbacks he's had to work with. Just saying. Bradford, Keenum, Manziel. Not too bad. Again....not saying he isn't good, but players make you look a heck of a lot better.

They work in unison. Someone like Keenum, and to an extent Bradford, actually owe a lot to Sumlin. It's not "only" the other way around. Bradford was made to look like a #1 overall pick when he may have really been a good, but not great NFL QB. Everyone can stipulate that good coaching and players who can execute go hand in hand.

It's also being able to evaluate the position and know you have a QB that can execute your system.

 

[Big Sky Cane]

This article adds to the discussion:

Grantland Channel: The Coach Who Never Punts

[video=youtube;AGDaOJAYHfo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGDaOJAYHfo[/video]

The numbers are on Kevin Kelley's side. So why aren't more teams following his lead?
By Grantland Channel on November 13, 2013PRINT


You might not know Kevin Kelley's name, but you know who Kevin Kelley is. You've read about him in Sports Illustrated, The New Yorker, the New York Times, and on ESPN. If Grantland had existed in 2005 — when Kelley first implemented his bold new strategy at Pulaski Academy in Little Rock, Arkansas — we undoubtedly would have toasted his budding cult celebrity status in our "Who's That Guy?" annals.

Kelley is the coach who never punts and almost always onside kicks. And while he hasn't converted his high school success into a college gig like fellow prep sensations Gus Malzahn and Hugh Freeze, Kelley has managed something arguably more revolutionary: He's caused us to question the way the game is played.

The numbers support Kelley's football philosophy, but even if you're not a stathead, you'll probably watch our Grantland Channel video and think, Why isn't my team doing that? The numbers Kelley cites are that eye-popping. And he isn't cooking the books: Cal professor David Romer concluded that teams should not punt when facing fourth-and-4 or less; NFL stats analyst Brian Burke has detailed the need to rethink fourth-down decision-making; Football Outsiders has conflated punts with turnovers. You've even read about it on this site. Most fans and analysts who are willing to accept that change is a fundamental part of life have embraced the idea that automatically punting on fourth down doesn't make sense.

So why do teams at all levels remain so rote? Chris Kluwe may have turned the Internet into his personal pulpit, but he can't be that persuasive. Romer got it right way back in 2005: Coaches are afraid. No one wants to be the guy who gets fired because he stopped punting. And the same fans and analysts who clamor for innovation are actually fueling that fear. The mob nearly tarred and feathered Falcons coach Mike Smith when he went for it on fourth-and-inches in overtime against the Saints in 2011. Bill Belichick almost lost his hoodie-wearing privileges after going for it on fourth-and-2 from his own 28 against the Colts in 2009. San Diego State coach Rocky Long announced before the 2012 season that he might stop punting, then had to field so many questions about it on a weekly basis that he began refusing to discuss his fourth-down plays with the media.

Kelley has turned his approach into state-championship winning success because he understands that never punting and almost always onside kicking works best in high school when a team never punts and almost always onside kicks. It's not a sometime strategy. The percentages would dictate more nuanced tactics at the higher levels, but the larger point holds: We can't expect college and NFL coaches to adopt this approach consistently if they're lambasted whenever they give it a go.

Think about this: No. 5 Baylor is averaging 8.6 yards per play. The Bears are undefeated and in the thick of the national championship race. They don't need to stop punting, but can you imagine if they did? Conversely, can you imagine if Art Briles had been 0-for-3 on his fourth-down attempts against no. 10 Oklahoma last week instead of 2-for-3? The results dictate the level of admiration or outrage.

Statisticians say teams shouldn't automatically punt. Fans say they want to see a more exciting game. Recruits would surely love to play for a school pitching endless high-pressure offensive and defensive situations.

But maybe we're not ready for what we think we want.

—Mallory Rubin

 

[LuCane]

After some of the things that happened today, notably the 4th and 1 decision, but also the passive approach to defending Duke's offense, let's revisit this thread.

Keep the trolling to other threads. This thread is about philosophical issues and the "8 pillars."

 

[bbcane]

Choices, Attitude, Partnerships, Gratitude, TeaM(e), Passion, Preparation, Empowerment.

I understand choices
What is the attitude in this pillar? An attitude of Alonzo high smith or Jo paterno?
Partnership ? With teammates?
Gratitude? Ok
Team. Yes sir. Die for my brother
Passion. Yes sir. A must
Preparation- yes
Empowerment- . Ugh ok?

 

[guccinikes]

Golden would rather show the procees, win the right way than win at any cost, which is a horrible way to lead your team...the problem is football is not won by being predictable...in fact, being predictable equates to the easiest adjustments ever for the other side...gut matters, instincts matter, s fla kids dominate when they can trust themselves not hold your five feet...as for o, we have been dying to get our playmakers in space...you see what coley does, or waters, etc...stanford beats you up but we are not stanford and our kids dont want to be wisconsin either...i have seen zero creativity on either side of the ball because golden wants to play the percentages not win with our kids, or just win period..

 

[Loafers]

After some of the things that happened today, notably the 4th and 1 decision, but also the passive approach to defending Duke's offense, let's revisit this thread.

Keep the trolling to other threads. This thread is about philosophical issues and the "8 pillars."

I'm sure you can tell by my view on analytic that the no go call was horrendous, just on the surface. Add in context and it's an all time fail. It is inexcusable but a call that idiotically 99% of coaches would make. There was almost zero to lose in that situation except punt. I will commend him for not going for two early in the game that was absolutely the right call.

 

[Miami82]

After some of the things that happened today, notably the 4th and 1 decision, but also the passive approach to defending Duke's offense, let's revisit this thread.

Keep the trolling to other threads. This thread is about philosophical issues and the "8 pillars."

The 4th and 1 was pure pussification, kinda how we played D today.

 

[Biscuits]

SC just went for it on 4th and 2 from the opponent's 48 with 1:15 left in the game. Tie score.

They converted, and are in pole position to win. They may miss the kick, but they gave themselves a shot to win in regulation. I don't think Orgeron approached it from an analytical standpoint, but the results are the same.

Edit - They made the kick.

 

[NVA CANE]

Choices, Attitude, Partnerships, Gratitude, TeaM(e), Passion, Preparation, Empowerment.

I understand choices
What is the attitude in this pillar? An attitude of Alonzo high smith or Jo paterno?
Partnership ? With teammates?
Gratitude? Ok
Team. Yes sir. Die for my brother
Passion. Yes sir. A must
Preparation- yes
Empowerment- . Ugh ok?

Those pillars mean nothing when the coaches don't have faith in the players. They've historically coached scared but they also don't trust their players. Not a single one of those pillars do the coaching staff actually believe in.

Choices - poor choice to keep their football philosophy and to keep the DC
Attitude - seems to me this is a listen to the coaches and don't bring your own personality to the team.
Gratitude - For what for putting them in a position to fail? For not trusting in the players, what should the players be grateful for?
Partnerships - I don't even know what this has to do with football. Seems like mumbo jumbo from a coach that doesn't know how to motivate his players. In all honesty I think the whole pillars thing is a bunch of nonsense. These kids want to go out and fight and instead you have them watching "March of the Penguins" and playing a soft type of defense.

I've said this before Al Golden thinks he's the smartest guy in the room. And all of these corny things that he does like the pillars, 400 page binder, watch March of the Penguins, it's not football. It's not impressive it's not **** when the results on the field are as abysmal as they have been under his watch. It's all window dressing for a man that knows he is in over his head.

 

[LuCane]

After some of the things that happened today, notably the 4th and 1 decision, but also the passive approach to defending Duke's offense, let's revisit this thread.

Keep the trolling to other threads. This thread is about philosophical issues and the "8 pillars."

I'm sure you can tell by my view on analytic that the no go call was horrendous, just on the surface. Add in context and it's an all time fail. It is inexcusable but a call that idiotically 99% of coaches would make. There was almost zero to lose in that situation except punt. I will commend him for not going for two early in the game that was absolutely the right call.

The going for two seems obvious. It comes up so much that I'm sure it's a routine call now.

Knowing the way the game was going, this was also an interesting scenario:

[TABLE="class: mod-data mod-pbp, width: 100%"]
[TR="class: odd, bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: #F1F1F1, colspan: 2"]2nd and 5 at MIA 39[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #F1F1F1"]Stephen Morris pass incomplete.[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #F1F1F1"] [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #F1F1F1"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: even, bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="colspan: 2"]3rd and 5 at MIA 39[/TD]
[TD]Timeout MIAMI FLORIDA, clock 10:28.[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: odd, bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: #F1F1F1, colspan: 2"]3rd and 5 at MIA 39[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #F1F1F1"]Stephen Morris rush for 3 yards to the MiaFl 42.[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #F1F1F1"] [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #F1F1F1"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: even, bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="colspan: 2"]4th and 2 at MIA 42[/TD]
[TD]Pat O'Donnell punt for 47 yards, returned by Jamison Crowder for 25 yards to the Duke 36.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

2nd and 5. Defense on its heels. 2 weird calls and then a decision to punt. Duke went down and scored.

 

[Canesfan1899]

Golden coaches not to lose. It's becoming clearer with every passing game and the defense plays the same ******* way. The offense played well enough for us to win easily, this was all on the defense.

 

[UMJer026]

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.

I was with you until Saturday. Now I'm not so sure.

And it's funny, last week (before the Duke game), you and I spoke and I specifically told you I wasn't sure whether a loss to Duke would change much in my mind. But the way we lost, that was just something I could not have envisioned. I am at a complete loss for trying to explain what that was impersonating a defense on Saturday. It's honestly thrown the entire thing into question for me.

 

[UMJer026]

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.

Not meaning to troll here, just curious as to whether what happened on Saturday changed your opinion.

This seems to be a much broader problem than what I originally thought (hoped).

 

[Consigliere]

After some of the things that happened today, notably the 4th and 1 decision, but also the passive approach to defending Duke's offense, let's revisit this thread.

Keep the trolling to other threads. This thread is about philosophical issues and the "8 pillars."

I'm sure you can tell by my view on analytic that the no go call was horrendous, just on the surface. Add in context and it's an all time fail. It is inexcusable but a call that idiotically 99% of coaches would make. There was almost zero to lose in that situation except punt. I will commend him for not going for two early in the game that was absolutely the right call.

The going for two seems obvious. It comes up so much that I'm sure it's a routine call now.

Knowing the way the game was going, this was also an interesting scenario:

[TABLE="class: mod-data mod-pbp, width: 100%"]
[TR="class: odd, bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: #F1F1F1, colspan: 2"]2nd and 5 at MIA 39[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #F1F1F1"]Stephen Morris pass incomplete.[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #F1F1F1"] [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #F1F1F1"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: even, bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="colspan: 2"]3rd and 5 at MIA 39[/TD]
[TD]Timeout MIAMI FLORIDA, clock 10:28.[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: odd, bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: #F1F1F1, colspan: 2"]3rd and 5 at MIA 39[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #F1F1F1"]Stephen Morris rush for 3 yards to the MiaFl 42.[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #F1F1F1"] [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #F1F1F1"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: even, bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="colspan: 2"]4th and 2 at MIA 42[/TD]
[TD]Pat O'Donnell punt for 47 yards, returned by Jamison Crowder for 25 yards to the Duke 36.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

2nd and 5. Defense on its heels. 2 weird calls and then a decision to punt. Duke went down and scored.

I touched on that in another thread. Do you remember the 2nd and 5 call? What happened and who was the intended target?

Not sure why we didn't run on 2nd and 5, not sure why Morris didn't at least attempt to get the first down by diving.

 

[LuCane]

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.

I was with you until Saturday. Now I'm not so sure.

And it's funny, last week (before the Duke game), you and I spoke and I specifically told you I wasn't sure whether a loss to Duke would change much in my mind. But the way we lost, that was just something I could not have envisioned. I am at a complete loss for trying to explain what that was impersonating a defense on Saturday. It's honestly thrown the entire thing into question for me.

Well, obviously Saturday was an enormous data point in the wrong direction. Maybe the biggest I've seen around here since, as you told me off the board, the USF game that got Shannon fired or the UVA game that got Tim Walton fired.

The problem is that I think we're sticking with Coach Golden for the long haul. What he wants to do with this philosophy is another question. I've maintained throughout that I don't think this is some random "scheme" issue or a broken scheme in the sense that they're not aware of the decision they're making. On the contrary, the style with which we play defense and our overall approach are conscious decisions.

I defended D'Onofrio last year because he was trying to implement a new scheme with baby DL. You can't ask young, underdeveloped guys to do that and expect to be successful. There are dozens of posts about the style of defense *I* prefer, but I accepted this was the decision our coaching staff made. Now, with each passing decision (game clock, defense, etc.), it's pretty obvious that the philosophy I questioned may be inherently flawed.

If that's the case, it's going to be really ******* interesting to see what Golden does: does he become a different type of coach? Can he change his spots?

 

[stat1124]

The pillars are crumbling.


Bump! Gotcha Lu!