Michigan football team says fans, media don’t understand everything that happens on the field

[Catholicfan95]

Great read, and a topic that is very applicable to this message board.

https://www.mlive.com/wolverines/20...and-everything-that-happens-on-the-field.html

"It's just kind of funny because it's like, this is what we live, breathe, and do. I understand you guys follow it too so you do the same -- a lot of dedication. But sometimes fans don't see everything, they don't understand the schematics of everything and they don't understand what was happening there. They'll be on the total opposite side of the spectrum as to knowing what was going on. It's kind of funny but it can be annoying. It is what it is. I can understand -- not everyone is a football coach, a 15-year vet in the game that knows everything. It's understandable." -Josh Uche (Linebacker UM)

 

[nemeth#5]

I cant believe this...... there are so many qualified head coaches on this board.....

 

[SIhoosier26]

Sounds like more excuses from a mediocre football program.

 

[chaseball]

I take issue with the premise that you have to be a 15 year veteran football coach or player to understand the game. Most front offices in sports these days are full of ivy league mathematicians and economists and computer scientists.

 

[nemeth#5]

I take issue with the premise that you have to be a 15 year veteran football coach or player to understand the game. Most front offices in sports these days are full of ivy league mathematicians and economists and computer scientists.

and most coaches are former players...... There is obviously a balance but when it comes down to actually coaching.... experience matters... not FPBS+- or some algorithm that only shows what has already happened lol.

 

[Catholicfan95]

I take issue with the premise that you have to be a 15 year veteran football coach or player to understand the game. Most front offices in sports these days are full of ivy league mathematicians and economists and computer scientists.

No one is saying that you have to be a 15 year vet or coach to understand the game, but your understanding of the game is going to be drastically different when your experience is on the field as opposed to behind a computer, and that is the point. I have never played or coached football ( I did spend 1 year as an assistant media director for West Liberty University in Wheeling, West Virginia. I filmed practices, edited film, sat in on coaches meetings and learned a whole lot by doing so) , do I feel like I understand it, yes. I have taken it upon myself to read, watch film, listen to coaches and overall just become more educated on a game that has evolved more in the last decade than any other sport, IMO. Do I feel like I could hold an intelligent conversation about schematics on both sides of the football with anyone yes, however I tend to give the edge and respect to those who have played and have executed on the field. Point being, there is a lot more to this game than just analytics and what fans see on Saturdays and I know for a fact that there are plenty of people that post on this board with opinions and so called "evidence" to reflect the fact that they do not know how much goes on outside of game days.

Analytics provide a new, fresh and different perspective on the game than ever before and there is plenty to take from analytics to apply to on field situations. For instance, down and distance play calling has benefited 10 fold with analytics, it provides things like: Personnel package matchups against defenses on this down and distance, which way to run the ball, tendencies of defenses on down and distance and all with more accuracy than ever before.So, do not misconstrued I see what it brings to the game and could write even more about it if you would like, I am just trying to expand on my point that I do not discredit analytical data, nor do I think that it has no benefit to the game.

However, the people doing the analytical data are not the ones executing on their own research. They do not get to apply the things that they are suggesting they have to put their faith in the coaches and players to either prove them right, or prove them wrong. That is why, to me, analytics only goes so far. Are players suppose to turn to analytical data during the middle of the game when a defenses scheme is completely different than what they planned for? Coaching will always rule the day in this sport and normally experience not just by playing football, but being fully consumed by it, being around it day in and day out will, without argument will always make you more successful as a coach or player.

 

[irish4life888]

Great read, and a topic that is very applicable to this message board.

https://www.mlive.com/wolverines/20...and-everything-that-happens-on-the-field.html

"It's just kind of funny because it's like, this is what we live, breathe, and do. I understand you guys follow it too so you do the same -- a lot of dedication. But sometimes fans don't see everything, they don't understand the schematics of everything and they don't understand what was happening there. They'll be on the total opposite side of the spectrum as to knowing what was going on. It's kind of funny but it can be annoying. It is what it is. I can understand -- not everyone is a football coach, a 15-year vet in the game that knows everything. It's understandable." -Josh Uche (Linebacker UM)

I disagree, the coaches of these programs should be consulting these obscure internet message boards so they can right the ship and get it right!

 

[chaseball]

I disagree, the coaches of these programs should be consulting these obscure internet message boards so they can right the ship and get it right!

it is funny that you say that because for about two decades or so that was the truth in baseball. Major league baseball teams would have been ran far more efficiently had they been consulting with communities on the internet that were far ahead of the. in terms of advanced statistics

 

[echowaker]

it is funny that you say that because for about two decades or so that was the truth in baseball. Major league baseball teams would have been ran far more efficiently had they been consulting with communities on the internet that were far ahead of the. in terms of advanced statistics

apples and oranges.

 

[chaseball]

A lot of these institutions are really insulated and not very open to new information or new technologies or numetrics or just more generally speaking new ways of looking at the game.

As a result sometimes there are places online that know stuff that some organizations do not.

I know that this line of thinking irritates insiders and establishment folks who been involved in or apart of the game for a long time. But it's the truth.

 

[echowaker]

No one is saying that you have to be a 15 year vet or coach to understand the game, but your understanding of the game is going to be drastically different when your experience is on the field as opposed to behind a computer, and that is the point. I have never played or coached football, do I feel like I understand it, yes. I have taken it upon myself to read, watch film, listen to coaches and overall just become more educated on a game that has evolved more in the last decade than any other sport, IMO. Do I feel like I could hold an intelligent conversation about schematics on both sides of the football with anyone yes, however I tend to give the edge and respect to those who have played and have executed on the field. Point being, there is a lot more to this game than just analytics and what fans see on Saturdays and I know for a fact that there are plenty of people that post on this board with opinions and so called "evidence" to reflect the fact that they do not know how much goes on outside of game days.

Analytics provide a new, fresh and different perspective on the game than ever before and there is plenty to take from analytics to apply to on field situations. For instance, down and distance play calling has benefited 10 fold with analytics, it provides things like: Personnel package matchups against defenses on this down and distance, which way to run the ball, tendencies of defenses on down and distance and all with more accuracy than ever before.So, do not misconstrued I see what it brings to the game and could write even more about it if you would like, I am just trying to expand on my point that I do not discredit analytical data, nor do I think that it has no benefit to the game.

However, the people doing the analytical data are not the ones executing on their own research. They do not get to apply the things that they are suggesting they have to put their faith in the coaches and players to either prove them right, or prove them wrong. That is why, to me, analytics only goes so far. Are players suppose to turn to analytical data during the middle of the game when a defenses scheme is completely different than what they planned for? Coaching will always rule the day in this sport and normally experience not just by playing football, but being fully consumed by it, being around it day in and day out will, without argument will always make you more successful as a coach or player.

heaven forbid actual practical experience would matter. dissecting numbers is one thing, applying those findings and communicating them to a large group and tactically applying them is another. i'm not an analytics guy and don't claim to be able to do their job. as a coach i guarantee that analytics guy can't do mine. the analytics are just another tool for a coach to utilize. certainly not a be all end all. give me an experienced coach breaking down film with his own analysis any day.

 

[Catholicfan95]

heaven forbid actual practical experience would matter. dissecting numbers is one thing, applying those findings and communicating them to a large group and tactically applying them is another. i'm not an analytics guy and don't claim to be able to do their job. as a coach i guarantee that analytics guy can't do mine. the analytics are just another tool for a coach to utilize. certainly not a be all end all. give me an experienced coach breaking down film with his own analysis any day.

I could not agree more

 

[Catholicfan95]

A lot of these institutions are really insulated and not very open to new information or new technologies or numetrics or just more generally speaking new ways of looking at the game.

As a result sometimes there are places online that know stuff that some organizations do not.

I know that this line of thinking irritates insiders and establishment folks who been involved in or apart of the game for a long time. But it's the truth.

You just do not understand how the whole process of preparation works. You also do not at all understand where to apply your analytics or which analytical data would be beneficial during preparation for a game, because if you did you would have used/cited that to show that you do have an understanding. Your arguments are unrefined with a lack of knowledge on the topic that you are arguing for, they are shallow in depth and therefor are seen as underdeveloped at best. Your broad statements claiming that analytical data is not used is not only false but interpreted in a way to make it seem as if a majority of college football programs around the country are years behind the technological advancements that are offered to them. You have never sat in on a coaches meeting and discussed the in depth breakdowns of how to attack a team, you have never applied analytics to a game plan nor have you seen the direct benefits that analytics have had on D&D play calling. I have directly experienced these things and I can assure that analytics are used daily. Now, the degree in which they are used varies from program to program and you, certainly do not have the knowledge base nor the connections to accurately depict how analytics are used nationally. You preach as if you are ahead of the curve on this topic, as if you are shinning a light on something that few are seeing, but I will give you credit to the fact that some programs do not utilize this, yes, yes I will. However, for you to apply this on a broad scale is dead wrong. You are a basic fan with limited knowledge that is not applicable to how things operate on the next level, your assumptions are incorrect on several core levels and it shows. If you were to have had any experience resembling football credibility I would listen, but quite frankly I have had enough of what you keep trying to say. You are simply wrong due to the fact that you are deeply misinformed and vastly under-experienced on these topics. I think there are several points that you make that hold water, but even you do not fully understand why they do so, and it becomes more clear with each post that you do not. Your words are not your own as they seem to be taken from cheap podcast and irrelevant media postings on the matter. Everything you say, specifically your broad statement are cherry picked from years and years of people who are also, like you misinformed. I challenge you to do more research, applicable research to gain knowledge about analytics and how they are used in football. This will help you to develop a more concise argumentative stance backed by factual evidence, and will in turn help you understand exactly what it is you are trying to convey. When people know what they are talking about, you will notice, they are calm, state facts, are not rude or crass, do not get angry and listen to others. The opposite is true for people who do not know what they are talking about, they get angry and extremely defensive. My advice, dont be that guy. Do your research, listen to people who have experience on the topic and you will learn a whole lot more.

 

[Bumpdaddy]

Great read, and a topic that is very applicable to this message board.

https://www.mlive.com/wolverines/20...and-everything-that-happens-on-the-field.html

"It's just kind of funny because it's like, this is what we live, breathe, and do. I understand you guys follow it too so you do the same -- a lot of dedication. But sometimes fans don't see everything, they don't understand the schematics of everything and they don't understand what was happening there. They'll be on the total opposite side of the spectrum as to knowing what was going on. It's kind of funny but it can be annoying. It is what it is. I can understand -- not everyone is a football coach, a 15-year vet in the game that knows everything. It's understandable." -Josh Uche (Linebacker UM)

Josh Uche misses the point and so do other posters who are agreeing with Josh's sentiment. If the question is "who knows more about football: a vet football coach with 15 years experience or some rando on an internet message board?", then the answer is obviously the vet 15-year coach. But that's not normally what's actually being discussed on message boards. The real-world question, as it applies to coaches who are struggling, is: "who is more objectively inclined to assess the poor performance of a football team: a vet football coach with 15 years experience or some rando on an internet message board?" I would say the answer to that question is, more often than not, the rando is more likely going to be more objective and the reason is simple:

I don't have to be a chef to know when a meal was prepared poorly.
I don't have to be a singer to know when someone is singing off pitch
I don't have to be a movie director to know Rian Johnson doesn't know how to direct a Star Wars movie​

All of these situations are common (there are many, many more examples), and yet in each situation the chef, the singer, and the director are much less likely to candidly admit their own faults. By the same token, A football coach whose team is consistently struggling is much more likely to be biased about his own performance and more stubborn to objectively consider the actual problems with his team and coaching and effectively implement solutions to those problems.

Some coaches can eventually objectively address their deficiencies. BK certainly did after the 2016 season, and he definitely deserves to be commended for that, but look at his comments leading up to the 2016 season. He defended keeping BVG and vowed the defense would be improved in 2016 despite losing a lot of veteran talent and BVG's obvious deficiencies. At the same time, a lot of message board randos were calling for BVG's head by the middle of the 2015 season. Which of those 2 groups was being more objective in their assessment?

​

 

[Catholicfan95]

Josh Uche misses the point and so do other posters who are agreeing with Josh's sentiment. If the question is "who knows more about football: a vet football coach with 15 years experience or some rando on an internet message?", then the answer is obviously the vet 15-year coach. But that's not normally what's actually being discussed on message boards. The real-world question, as it applies to coaches who are struggling, is: "who is more objectively inclined to assess the poor performance of a football team: a vet football coach with 15 years experience or some rando on an internet message board?" I would say the answer to that question is, more often than not, the rando is more likely going to be more objective and the reason is simple:

I don't have to be a chef to know when a meal was prepared poorly.
I don't have to be a singer to know when someone is singing off pitch
I don't have to be a movie director to know Rian Johnson doesn't know how to direct a Star Wars movie​

All of these situations are common (there are many, many more examples), and yet in each situation the chef, the singer, and the director are much less likely to candidly admit their own faults. By the same token, A football coach whose team is consistently struggling is much more likely to be biased about his own performance and more stubborn to objectively consider the actual problems with his team and coaching and effectively implement solutions to those problems.

Some coaches can eventually objectively address their deficiencies. BK certainly did after the 2016 season, and he definitely deserves to be commended for that, but look at his comments leading up to the 2016 season. He defended keeping BVG and vowed the defense would be improved in 2016 despite losing a lot of veteran talent and BVG's obvious deficiencies. At the same time, a lot of message board randos were calling for BVG's head by the middle of the 2015 season. Which of those 2 groups was being more objective in their assessment?

​

You are not wrong, and your points are valid, in turn I will answer your question with a question. In all of the examples that you gave from chef to movie director, who are they directly benefiting from? Their audiences.

Football is different and the audiences credibility is far less relevant than that of a movie goers. The movie is successful based on tickets sold, so in turn the director is going to more open and receptive to that audiences' opinion because they directly control the success of the movie, same with media. Same with chef and singer.

Point being, fans do not have a direct impact on the success of the program. Sure they show up, support, are loud and impactful that way but when it comes to what matters in the case of success they are simply not.Sports fans are the most up and down group of supporters we know. When it is good it is good and when it is bad, buddy watch out you are going to hear about it.

My thing is fans speak on things they have limited knowledge on and it does get so annoying. You lose 2 games to start the year, the season is over. Well wait a minute here we have 10 more games to play and make an impact, our season is not over, not by any means.

All I can tell you is this, being involved with football team is much different and the success is measurable by wins and losses that your team plays, not by the fans. Fan is short for fanatic and there is a reason for that.

 

[d1042]

From watching UM games it is apparent that the same is true of the UM players!

 

[Bumpdaddy]

You are not wrong, and your points are valid, in turn I will answer your question with a question. In all of the examples that you gave from chef to movie director, who are they directly benefiting from? Their audiences.

Football is different and the audiences credibility is far less relevant than that of a movie goers. The movie is successful based on tickets sold, so in turn the director is going to more open and receptive to that audiences' opinion because they directly control the success of the movie, same with media. Same with chef and singer.

Point being, fans do not have a direct impact on the success of the program. Sure they show up, support, are loud and impactful that way but when it comes to what matters in the case of success they are simply not.Sports fans are the most up and down group of supporters we know. When it is good it is good and when it is bad, buddy watch out you are going to hear about it.

My thing is fans speak on things they have limited knowledge on and it does get so annoying. You lose 2 games to start the, the season is over. Well wait a minute here we have 9 more games to play and make an impact, our season is not over, not by any means.

All I can tell you is this, being involved with football team is much different and the success is measurable by wins and losses that your team plays, not by the fans. Fan is short for fanatic and there is a reason for that.

I agree with this but I think we may be arguing different points. I wasn't trying to imply that crowd, in and of itself, is generally wise. I agree, there are a lot of painfully dumb armchair quarterbacks out there. I also agree that a good coach should never give a crap what the crowd has to say when it comes to coaching his football team. My point was, generally speaking, who is more likely to be objective when assessing a struggling football team - the crowd or the coach?

With that in mind, I'd like to make a finer point to illustrate what I'm talking about.

Bill Belichick is likely the smartest football coach in the history of the game, but even he makes mistakes. In 2009, he decided to try to convert a 4th and 2 from NE's own 29-yard line with a 6-pt. lead and a little over 2 min to go in a game against the Colts. Before the play even started, I knew that was the wrong decision as did many other fans. As it turned out, NE failed to convert, Peyton Manning and the Colts got the ball back on a short field and won the game. In that moment, all of us fans, even the dumb ones, were smarter than the greatest coach ever - but only in that moment. After that moment, the fans remained more objective. The fans maintained that is was the wrong call - even if NE had converted, there was still a decent chance the Colts would have gotten the ball back after the 2-minute warning and using a time out, so the risk was much greater than the reward - but Belichick was less objective saying the only problem was the play didn't work.

That's just one example. BK's had his bad moments too - the Tulsa game, going for 2 against NWU, throwing the ball over and over in a hurricane. None of us fans are generally smarter about football than BK. Not even close. But we were smarter in those moments.

The point is, when a coach makes a bad decision, or when a team consistently struggles, more often than not the fans are more likely to be more objective than the coach. If behind the scenes the coaches and players are putting in a lot of effort to get prepared, great for them but, often, that has nothing to do with why a particular bad decision was made or why a team is generally struggling and too often coaches are too close to the situation to objectively assess what might going wrong.

 

[Catholicfan95]

I agree with this but I think we may be arguing different points. I wasn't trying to imply that crowd, in and of itself, is generally wise. I agree, there are a lot of painfully dumb armchair quarterbacks out there. I also agree that a good coach should never give a crap what the crowd has to say when it comes to coaching his football team. My point was, generally speaking, who is more likely to be objective when assessing a struggling football team - the crowd or the coach?

With that in mind, I'd like to make a finer point to illustrate what I'm talking about.

Bill Belichick is likely the smartest football coach in the history of the game, but even he makes mistakes. In 2009, he decided to try to convert a 4th and 2 from NE's own 29-yard line with a 6-pt. lead and a little over 2 min to go in a game against the Colts. Before the play even started, I knew that was the wrong decision as did many other fans. As it turned out, NE failed to convert, Peyton Manning and the Colts got the ball back on a short field and won the game. In that moment, all of us fans, even the dumb ones, were smarter than the greatest coach ever - but only in that moment. After that moment, the fans remained more objective. The fans maintained that is was the wrong call - even if NE had converted, there was still a decent chance the Colts would have gotten the ball back after the 2-minute warning and using a time out, so the risk was much greater than the reward - but Belichick was less objective saying the only problem was the play didn't work.

That's just one example. BK's had his bad moments too - the Tulsa game, going for 2 against NWU, throwing the ball over and over in a hurricane. None of us fans are generally smarter about football than BK. Not even close. But we were smarter in those moments.

The point is, when a coach makes a bad decision, or when a team consistently struggles, more often than not the fans are more likely to be more objective than the coach. If behind the scenes the coaches and players are putting in a lot of effort to get prepared, great for them but, often, that has nothing to do with why a particular bad decision was made or why a team is generally struggling and too often coaches are too close to the situation to objectively assess what might going wrong.

You know that is a very interesting take, one I will give you props for, insightful and original. Thanks for clarifying too, did not mean to misinterpret your initial post.

Moving on, critical comments are born out of failures and criticism is something that everyone on earth should welcome, it makes you better. However, if a fan is being critical for the sake of "That was the wrong call" than I have to disagree, which comes back to the point. Let me elaborate in a theoretical way about your play.

So the Pats go for it when they should not, point blank. A very against the book strategy that did not pay off but, do people know why they went for it? Did they see that maybe there was an advantage against a personnel grouping that the Pats have seen the Colts use when it comes to this point in the game/situation? Or did people just disagree and not fully understand what was going on and felt they should have punted, and that is the point. The criticism is born from the failure but the critical comments do not have to answer the tough questions, they just get to be critical about something that, on the surface yeah it was stupid, but as you alluded too earlier, Bill is the smartest football guy out there, you think he just went for it because he had a gut feeling? Maybe? My money would be that it was very calculated and it is much deeper than what fans tend to make it, and I do not think a majority of people that hurl criticism left and right take those factors into consideration, so if I was in that locker room and I fully understood the call and what not I would get annoyed by fans.

Another great play to sight is the Seahawks choice to throw on the inch line. You know the story the Pats practiced all freaking week for that particular play, and do you know why? Because the Seahawks had a lot of success with that personnel grouping inside the 5 the entire year. Different variations of screen passes, slants QB draws, fades, HB Dives etc. can all be run out of that and you saw that all year with the Seahawks. But in this particular case it was a failure because the thing is, that is just football sometimes, its a chess match and the guy thinking 6 moves ahead always wins.

Back on it, I agree with your points and they are valid and again I thank you for your rational thinking and stance, its nice to see something presented with substance on here. I will always be on the side of the coaches and players because football is much deeper than the surface product you see on the field.

 

[Buguit]

heaven forbid actual practical experience would matter. dissecting numbers is one thing, applying those findings and communicating them to a large group and tactically applying them is another. i'm not an analytics guy and don't claim to be able to do their job. as a coach i guarantee that analytics guy can't do mine. the analytics are just another tool for a coach to utilize. certainly not a be all end all. give me an experienced coach breaking down film with his own analysis any day.

A lot of guys who played get offered coaching jobs soley because they played. Lots of players make terrible coaches and don't have a clue. Exhibit A. What does it say about a guy who is always giving out his resume. Sheesh.

 

[Bumpdaddy]

You know that is a very interesting take, one I will give you props for, insightful and original. Thanks for clarifying too, did not mean to misinterpret your initial post.

Moving on, critical comments are born out of failures and criticism is something that everyone on earth should welcome, it makes you better. However, if a fan is being critical for the sake of "That was the wrong call" than I have to disagree, which comes back to the point. Let me elaborate in a theoretical way about your play.

So the Pats go for it when they should not, point blank. A very against the book strategy that did not pay off but, do people know why they went for it? Did they see that maybe there was an advantage against a personnel grouping that the Pats have seen the Colts use when it comes to this point in the game/situation? Or did people just disagree and not fully understand what was going on and felt they should have punted, and that is the point. The criticism is born from the failure but the critical comments do not have to answer the tough questions, they just get to be critical about something that, on the surface yeah it was stupid, but as you alluded too earlier, Bill is the smartest football guy out there, you think he just went for it because he had a gut feeling? Maybe? My money would be that it was very calculated and it is much deeper than what fans tend to make it, and I do not think a majority of people that hurl criticism left and right take those factors into consideration, so if I was in that locker room and I fully understood the call and what not I would get annoyed by fans.

Another great play to sight is the Seahawks choice to throw on the inch line. You know the story the Pats practiced all freaking week for that particular play, and do you know why? Because the Seahawks had a lot of success with that personnel grouping inside the 5 the entire year. Different variations of screen passes, slants QB draws, fades, HB Dives etc. can all be run out of that and you saw that all year with the Seahawks. But in this particular case it was a failure because the thing is, that is just football sometimes, its a chess match and the guy thinking 6 moves ahead always wins.

Back on it, I agree with your points and they are valid and again I thank you for your rational thinking and stance, its nice to see something presented with substance on here. I will always be on the side of the coaches and players because football is much deeper than the surface product you see on the field.

Well, I guess we now belong to the mutual admiration club because I appreciate your perspective on this topic as well.

Still, I disagree. Going back to the 2 decisions - NE going for it on 4th and 2, and the Seahawks throwing on 2nd and goal from inside the 1 - the evidence points to these simply being poor decisions. Tedy Bruschi, who had retired at the beginning of 2009, said, "The decision to go for it would be enough to make my blood boil for weeks. ... I would look at this decision as a lack of confidence in our ability as a defensive unit to come up with a big play to win the game." He knew exactly what went on in NE's locker room and what may have gone into the decision and still thought it was the wrong call. Rodney Harrison said it was "the worst coaching decision I've ever seen Bill Belichick make."

Similar comments were made by Seahawks players after SB 49. NE's preparation for that last play had nothing to do with whether or not Pete Caroll made a good call. Most famously, MarshawnLynch disagreed with the call and held a grudge until he initially retired and then later signed with the Raiders. Other Seahawks players held a grudge until they were let go too.

Even if Seatle had been successful during the regular season with certain types of pass plays near the goal line, once you find yourself inside the one on 2nd down with a little over a minute left - especially after Lynch had just gained 4 yards on 1st and goal from the 5 - you should probably reassess what you want to do in that situation. If you do, you will likely figure out passing is too risky so it's best to go with a very safe and very high percentage play to win the Super Bowl and simply give Lynch one more crack at getting in from inside the one. You can always try a pass play on 3rd or 4th down if necessary.

A poor decision is a poor decision regardless of the outcome and regardless of the preparation that went into it. I think Belichick's decision was unnecessarily too risky. I think Carrol's decision was too. BK's decision to have a true freshman QB lob it up in the end zone when his kicker was perfect on the season and a FG wins it was an extremely poor decision. It was a bad decision even if Rees had connected with Floyd. There was only one way for BK to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and he found it.

I agree that it is generally best to side with players and coaches and that there is frequently more than what we see on the surface but I disagree that this is always true.

 

[Drinking The Green Koolaid]

I also agree that a good coach should never give a crap what the crowd has to say when it comes to coaching his football team.

This statement reminded me of Joe Kuharich's famous quote: "If you listen to the fans, pretty soon you'll find yourself sitting with them." An astute observation.

 

[NotreDame du Lac]

Most people have played sports and many many of us on this board played college sports. You don’t have to be a former college football player to understand the game. If you competed at a high level in something, you get it. The shot is hard, but so is life. Don’t be a puss. Problem is people in sports assuming others haven’t blazed that trail before, they have.

 

[echowaker]

Well, I guess we now belong to the mutual admiration club because I appreciate your perspective on this topic as well.

Still, I disagree. Going back to the 2 decisions - NE going for it on 4th and 2, and the Seahawks throwing on 2nd and goal from inside the 1 - the evidence points to these simply being poor decisions. Tedy Bruschi, who had retired at the beginning of 2009, said, "The decision to go for it would be enough to make my blood boil for weeks. ... I would look at this decision as a lack of confidence in our ability as a defensive unit to come up with a big play to win the game." He knew exactly what went on in NE's locker room and what may have gone into the decision and still thought it was the wrong call. Rodney Harrison said it was "the worst coaching decision I've ever seen Bill Belichick make."

Similar comments were made by Seahawks players after SB 49. NE's preparation for that last play had nothing to do with whether or not Pete Caroll made a good call. Most famously, MarshawnLynch disagreed with the call and held a grudge until he initially retired and then later signed with the Raiders. Other Seahawks players held a grudge until they were let go too.

Even if Seatle had been successful during the regular season with certain types of pass plays near the goal line, once you find yourself inside the one on 2nd down with a little over a minute left - especially after Lynch had just gained 4 yards on 1st and goal from the 5 - you should probably reassess what you want to do in that situation. If you do, you will likely figure out passing is too risky so it's best to go with a very safe and very high percentage play to win the Super Bowl and simply give Lynch one more crack at getting in from inside the one. You can always try a pass play on 3rd or 4th down if necessary.

A poor decision is a poor decision regardless of the outcome and regardless of the preparation that went into it. I think Belichick's decision was unnecessarily too risky. I think Carrol's decision was too. BK's decision to have a true freshman QB lob it up in the end zone when his kicker was perfect on the season and a FG wins it was an extremely poor decision. It was a bad decision even if Rees had connected with Floyd. There was only one way for BK to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and he found it.

I agree that it is generally best to side with players and coaches and that there is frequently more than what we see on the surface but I disagree that this is always true.

good post. i will say though that had all those plays cited been successful no one would have been lamenting the decision to call them. i was never a fan of hindsighting. it's low hanging fruit. as a coach you make a decision and you own it and live with the outcome. it's what you get paid for. no one is right all the time. the best ever in every profession have made mistakes. it's how you get to be the best.

 

[hfhmilkman]

This is my take as a UM fan. I get most of my content from mgoblog. We can all agree that many of us are just interested readers who get their information from bloggers who have made a professional living doing so. Most of us do not cut film or analyze plays, but parrot what is prepared for us. That all said the reason is many big time programs including Michigan which is particularly opaque thwart all inquiry. If a beat reporter was allowed to ask a technical question like "How come Shea Patterson is not running this year" bloggers would not have to make their own conclusions.

It may be that Harbaugh feels it is a tactical advantage not to say. If so the cost of being a black box to all inquiry is it will filled. Conservative talk radio would not have happened if there was not a frustration that a venue was not being addressed by the main line networks. If you being the NCAA want football to be popular and make tons of money, passionate people are going to want information. That void is filled by perhaps people who do not know as much. But some of these people are pretty darn good.

I find the Harbaugh press conferences and the articles by the beat writers devoid of meaningful content. As a non football player I am infinitely entertained by the tactics & strategy of what I call "martial arts chess" There is a whole bunch of stuff I have learned about play sequencing be it offense or defense that I never knew about. I actually know what down G or Belly means. Or yell out "He just ran an inverted veer" But I still for the life of me can't seem to figure out 4-3 over verses under. I can quote the definition. Yet I will never yell it at the screen.

So if coaching staffs and football players want to complain about external criticism, say a little bit about what is going on. If it is a schematic advantage to say nothing and instruct the beat writers they can't ask real questions with the threat of being shunned, it is the cost of doing business.

 

[dagimpper1]

I take issue with the premise that you have to be a 15 year veteran football coach or player to understand the game. Most front offices in sports these days are full of ivy league mathematicians and economists and computer scientists.

Bama

 

[d1042]

Bama

BAMA football is run like a major corporation.

 

[Patrirish]

heaven forbid actual practical experience would matter. dissecting numbers is one thing, applying those findings and communicating them to a large group and tactically applying them is another. i'm not an analytics guy and don't claim to be able to do their job. as a coach i guarantee that analytics guy can't do mine. the analytics are just another tool for a coach to utilize. certainly not a be all end all. give me an experienced coach breaking down film with his own analysis any day.

You’re right ..... and you’re wrong.

You’re right in that analytics are a tool, a tool that provides the coaches with accurate data that allows them to craft offensive and defensive strategies.

You’re wrong in claiming that a coach, acting on his own, can breakdown film and perform his own analysis better than that of a team of analysts, dedicated solely to analytics, who break down the voluminous data and then work with the coaches to formulate strategies/game plans.

The game has gotten far too complex for a single individual to be the chief cook and bottle washer.

Another example of delegating would be the management of the salary cap in the NFL. A coach can’t perform that function by himself and must rely on an executive/team to perform that function..

Analytics can’t be ignored and are being employed more and more in planning for a season and individual games.

A Head Coach is similar to a CEO/COO
He can’t do it all by himself, he has to delegate, he has to rely on others to assist him in crafting strategies, and he has to exercise oversight of those under his direct supervision.

One man shows are a thing of the past and not very effective in the modern game.

 

[Catholicfan95]

A lot of these institutions are really insulated and not very open to new information or new technologies or numetrics or just more generally speaking new ways of looking at the game.

As a result sometimes there are places online that know stuff that some organizations do not.

I know that this line of thinking irritates insiders and establishment folks who been involved in or apart of the game for a long time. But it's the truth.

Hey man I just posted the Kelly presser for Michigan and he talks a little about how analytics are involved in the prep process. Its at about the 11 minute mark. You should give it a look.

 

[Patrirish]

Catholicfan95,

I’m sure that Echowaker, d1042, Golson5, nemeth#5 and others will continue to claim that analytics aren’t being used more and more by ND.

I guess ignorance is bliss !

 

[Catholicfan95]

Catholicfan95,

I’m sure that Echowaker, d1042, Golson5, nemeth#5 and others will continue to claim that analytics aren’t being used more and more by ND.

I guess ignorance is bliss !

There is plenty of analytics used in today's game and especially at ND. Ol chase was claiming analytics were not used by a vast majority of college teams which is just down right wrong to begin with. There's a whole lot of questions to be raised when it comes to the football IQ, reasoning and common sense or should I say lack there of, on this entire board.

 

[Patrirish]

There is plenty of analytics used in today's game and especially at ND. Ol chase was claiming analytics were not used by a vast majority of college teams which is just down right wrong to begin with. There's a whole lot of questions to be raised when it comes to the football IQ, reasoning and common sense or should I say lack there of, on this entire board.

Only a fool would ignore the abundance of data available to teams today.

 

[d1042]

Football is still about blocking and tackling. Sometimes teams get bogged down in the metadata and just get stuck in a quagmire of analytics. These are football coaches not research scientists.

Play Ball!

 

[zonairish]

Sometimes 15 year experience is 1 year times 15

 

[Patrirish]

Football is still about blocking and tackling. Sometimes teams get bogged down in the metadata and just get stuck in a quagmire of analytics. These are football coaches not research scientists.

Play Ball!

What teams got bogged down in the metadata ?

 

[d1042]

What teams got bogged down in the metadata ?

the ones with numbers on the jerseys

 

[L8115]

If everyone uses analytics to prep for an opponent, then the analytics will offset and there will be no net gain for either team.

Unless you are alabama, who has hoarded an insane amount of the best HS players, then there is no predicting what will happen in any given game.

Even osu isn't immune: getting blown out by purdue & iowa.

Wisconsin v illinois is the perfect example. Wisconsin looked at the analytics and stats, and the fact they were a 30 point favorite, and thought they could just line up and overwhelm Illinois. Problem is, Illinois is still a division 1 B1G team, and weren't there to rollover to the vegas odds. The result: a 24-23 win for the Illini. Shocking!!

 

[Patrirish]

the ones with numbers on the jerseys

I knew that you were a fraud and making reckless statements.

You don’t know a single team that gets bogged down in metadata.

 

[d1042]

I knew that you were a fraud and making reckless statements.

You don’t know a single team that gets bogged down in metadata.

apparently, you did not comprehend! shocker!

 

[Patrirish]

If everyone uses analytics to prep for an opponent, then the analytics will offset and there will be no net gain for either team.

Your conclusion Is not remotely true.

Your assumption assumes that everyone has the identical data and that everyone interprets that data exactly the same. Both are not true

Unless you are alabama, who has hoarded an insane amount of the best HS players, then there is no predicting what will happen in any given game.

Even osu isn't immune: getting blown out by purdue & iowa.

Wisconsin v illinois is the perfect example. Wisconsin looked at the analytics and stats, and the fact they were a 30 point favorite, and thought they could just line up and overwhelm Illinois. Problem is, Illinois is still a division 1 B1G team, and weren't there to rollover to the vegas odds. The result: a 24-23 win for the Illini. Shocking!!

Your conclusion is one unsupported by facts.
You don’t know what data was available, reviewed and incorporated into the game plans. And you don’t know what the mindset of the Wisconsin players, individually and collectively, was.

 

[Patrirish]

apparently, you did not comprehend! shocker!

You made a reckless statement and failed to identify a single team when challenged to do so.

You’re a fraud.