I wouldn't use Miami/FSU 2010 as a valid example of anything other than moronic scheduling. We figured to be flat as **** in that game. I posted it on several sites for months. There's no way anybody with a clue toward situational impact would ever allow a team to play a home game on September 2nd and not again until October 9th. You're just asking for the first home game off the long road trip to be a sleepwalk disaster. It's the type of thing that happens in the NBA all the time. I'm still in disbelief we were a 6.5 point favorite in that FSU game, and annoyed that I didn't take more advantage. Playing a top team and arch rival off the long road trip only compounded the idiocy. If you're going to schedule that way, make sure it's FAMU (or similar) upon return.
Not every game is created equal. I appreciate Xs and Os and strategy as much as anyone but all my years in Las Vegas taught me how critical the scheduling aspect is. There are ultra sharp guys in that town who can't name a handful of players and wouldn't know Cover 2 from Caddyshack 2 but they've spent decades studying situational trends and impact. It's the type of thing that's virtually non existent in the media, or general sports discussion outside the betting world. In fact, that's the greatest difference in spending a football season or basketball season in Las Vegas or elsewhere. When I'm there all I hear every day is that it's a "great spot" or "terrible spot" for Team X. You wouldn't believe how sophisticated and often obscure some of the situational angles are.
When it's a disastrous scheduling spot the plays evolve unlike at other points in the season. I'm not telling you how much to subtract percentage wise from the point you're trying to make, but if you subtract none you're way off.
Besides, if my primary concern is defending screen passes and delays, I'll take my chances over the long haul. Those are finesse plays, ones that a legitimately talented defense salivates to face. Miami's great upfield defenses altered and shortened and generally laughed at those plays. Those are the reference points I'd pay attention to, not 2010. When I see Marcus Forston in that screen shot, I lose attention immediately.
Screen passes are generally garbage. Fans somehow love them subjectively, obviously without charting any games. In the Fisch/Nix thread a week or so ago, it was pointed out that our scheme in the Boston College game didn't translate to success against a top defense. You can't throw the ball safe and short in front of the marker against a top defense. They routinely wipe out those plays. It's one of the reasons the Big 12 has struggled in title games against the SEC. Big 12 defenses routinely allow bubble screen type plays to waltz uncontested. Consequently every team relies on them to the point it's considered a given, particularly on 3rd down. I'm always in hysterics when the SEC team obliterates the cheap underneath stuff against the Big 12. Sam Bradford has his mouth wide open several times a few years ago after Florida dismantled key short yardage passes. Heck, just last weekend the SEC holdovers Florida and Georgia taught Texas A&M and Missouri a situational lesson. The defenses tightened the screws as the game went on, attacking the backfield and denying the default short passes. A&M and Missouri were outscored a combined 34-3 in the second half, thank you very much. And both newcomers were at home, no less.
What I'm saying is, if we're vulnerable against a screen pass then our defense is not worth much to begin with. In particular, third down screens are the most worthless play in football. The percentage of success is ridiculously low. For several years I worked with a sports stats office. The guys in that office literally would burst into hysterics every time somebody attempted a third down screen against a top defense. They didn't wait for the result. They knew the result as soon as the play unfolded. I remember one bowl game several years ago that went into overtime. Both teams insisted on calling third down screens, somehow oblivious that none of them were working. I think the final tally was 2 for 21. I screamed instantly when we threw the third down screen against Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl. McGahee screamed seconds later. His knee was blown out. There's no way anybody who has studied situational trends could call a play like that on 3rd and 10 against 2002 Ohio State, which had butchered screen passes all season.
Actually, based on how often they are abused, I'm convinced the coaching fraternity as a whole has no idea how worthless third down screens are. Coaches thrill to call cheap underneath stuff because there's little risk of intervention by an interceptor, and the fans or sports media don't ridicule them on it. When Fisch calls a third down screen against Bethune Cookman this week and it rambles successfully downfield, fans will applaud the design with no concept that the same play is ultra masochistic against a stalwart defense. Likewise, Fisch will have no clue toward situational impact, i.e. the ineptitude of Bethune Cookman. He'll be giddy his dainty third down screen worked, and pocket the idea down the road, even against giants.
