History question re: 80s/90s UM results

[BigDikDaddyFromCincinnati]

This is for both you and @BigDikDaddyFromCincinnati ...all due respect, but please look at the stats and what really happened.

We were NOT great at running the ball that game. The numbers don't lie. And, sure, maybe our rushing numbers are slighly higher if you don't include QB sacks, but the same could be said of Pedo State.

And in case it needs to be pointed out again, ALL of our positive yardage on the final drive came from passing the ball. So even if you pull out THAT drive, Vinnie STILL had over 200 yards even before the final drive started (while Pedo State had 53 yards).

So, sorry, but we ran 43 times for 160 yards. That is NOT great, however you slice it. So if we converted ALL FIFTY of our passes to runs, I'm not seeing this "runaway game where we win by double digits". Pedo State, much though I have hated them since that day, had a good DL and a good LB corps. We were NOT gashing them for big runs. Perhaps we could have avoided the interceptions by running the ball all the time, but I'm still having a hard time seeing how a team that runs for under 4 yards per carry is suddenly going to run away with things by running FIFTY MORE TIMES.

I get that Vinnie gets heat for his 2 bowl games. Legit. Scored 17 points combined in 2 bowl games. Don't let me dissuade valid criticism.

But maybe, just maybe, this whole storyline dissipates if Vinnie doesn't get sacked on 2nd and goal at the end of the game. The same OL that we think may have been dominant if only we ran the ball 93 times.

Go back in time and analyze the game as it happened, not as it has been mythologized for nearly 40 years.

Because of the flow of the game - specifically the SEVEN turnovers we committed - comparing stats as you did is not valid. I'm not questioning your math skills, statistical crunching or anything along those lines. What I am saying is two-fold. 1. Your example about all the passing on the last drive while true, also omits the necessity of passing the ball given the situation of the game. That concept of game situation and flow can also be used when I mentioned running the ball "the whole game". 2. I need to see the play-by-play recap (or watch it again and take notes) so that I can really breakdown the run game stats relative to the turnovers and sack yardage loss.

Lastly, given the nature of this board and it's affinity for hyperbole, you know I wasn't insinuating we should've run the ball 100 % of the time or 93 times as you mentioned. Had we stuck with a ground and pound, the clock would've run all night and we likely would've run the ball in 55-60 range with like 10-15 passes littered in. Our defense was killing them all night. Yes, I realize I didn't say this in my last post. In order to prove that I'm right, I need to spend the time to watch the game in its entirety again and quite honestly, I don't have the time or energy. I also don't have the time or energy for a duel with TOC because either way, we aren't changing the outcome and I'll likely lose anyway, if for no other reason than exhaustion.

 

[Trav]

Because of the flow of the game - specifically the SEVEN turnovers we committed - comparing stats as you did is not valid. I'm not questioning your math skills, statistical crunching or anything along those lines. What I am saying is two-fold. 1. Your example about all the passing on the last drive while true, also omits the necessity of passing the ball given the situation of the game. That concept of game situation and flow can also be used when I mentioned running the ball "the whole game". 2. I need to see the play-by-play recap (or watch it again and take notes) so that I can really breakdown the run game stats relative to the turnovers and sack yardage loss.

Lastly, given the nature of this board and it's affinity for hyperbole, you know I wasn't insinuating we should've run the ball 100 % of the time or 93 times as you mentioned. Had we stuck with a ground and pound, the clock would've run all night and we likely would've run the ball in 55-60 range with like 10-15 passes littered in. Our defense was killing them all night. Yes, I realize I didn't say this in my last post. In order to prove that I'm right, I need to spend the time to watch the game in its entirety again and quite honestly, I don't have the time or energy. I also don't have the time or energy for a duel with TOC because either way, we aren't changing the outcome and I'll likely lose anyway, if for no other reason than exhaustion.

I forced myself to rewatch the game a few years back and yea, the play-calling was head-scratching. We'd run for 8 on first down then take a sack on 2nd and 2. We'd have 3 or 4 good run plays in a row then turf an incompletion. Jimmy himself said he learned from that game and later with the Dolphins he was not afraid to run the ball more even with Marino as his QB. It's not like we could have run it 60 times and Vinny is very much to blame but make a few of those play calls run instead of pass and we very well could have won.

 

[Trav]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, stop the clock.

JJ went 52-9. His last three years (when he had "Jimmy's players") he went 11-1, 12-0, and 11-1 (and arguably should not have lost the last Notre Dame game).

Dennis went 63-9 in one additional year (compared to JJ). In his first two years (when he presumably had "Jimmy's players") he went 11-1 and 10-2. So Dennis actually lost more games with JJ's players (in two years) than JJ did with his own players in three years.

I was there for both coaches, I knew a ton of football players since I was an Athletic Department tutor. I can definitely tell you there was more discipline under JJ than under Dennis, though Dennis was "no Barry Switzer" either. I realize this is just going to be pinpoint examples, but JJ created the Academic Support group that transformed Miami's athletic department and graduation rates. While Dennis is known (rightly or wrongly) for putting Warren Sapp's drug test in his desk drawer while he figured out a new policy. And Tony Russell.

Both JJ and Dennis were great coaches at UM. Particularly if you give JJ partial credit for being forced to keep most of Schnellenberger's coaches in 1984, you can understand the coaching mutiny that year, when we lost our last 3 games of the season. 1984 was JJ's only outlier at UM, and there are valid reasons.

As for the athletic staffs and the "coaching tree", JJ assembled some great talent too. One thing that separates JJ is that he had tremendous success in the NFL too, something that eluded Dennis, where he never had a season better than 8-8. And while Dennis (after his return to college football) had one good season at Oregon State (11 wins) and one good season at Arizona State (10 wins), he had 8 very mediocre seasons out of 10 in college after he was at UM. And please note, Dennis usually had his best seasons, at any job, in either his first or second year. The only exception was Miami, where he won his 2nd national championship in his third year.

And on the defensive recruiting side, much though it pains me to say this, you have to give more credit to Sonny Lubick and Greg McMackin and Tommy Tuberville and Ed Orgeron and Randy Shannon and Greg Mark for whatever was left for Butch in 1995 and 1996.

Again, I'm not trying to slam Dennis. I know that he won 2 rings at UM and got out right before the caca hit the fan. But overall, JJ was the better coach. He just was, and I don't think you'll find many UM players WHO PLAYED FOR BOTH who would say otherwise.

Some of us could give you some Dennis stories. I'm amazed the guy still has a liver. Him and his kid.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Let’s take the last drive and Int out of the equation for a minute.

How many drives did Vinny’s first 4 Int’s kill and how many points did PSU score off of those picks?

We were only down by 4 points after giving them 4 Ints. Even one less Int results in the difference in the game.

Highsmith was 18 for 119 yards rushing by himself. That is 6.6 ypc.

Highsmith was great. The rest of our rushing attack was not good, including Melvin Bratton. Look, I wouldn't be against giving Alonzo the ball 93 times, but it just wasn't going to happen.

Don't forget, in addition to the 5 INTs, we lost 2 fumbles. One happened late in the game when we were ALSO marching down the field due to Vinnie's passing.

The collective weight of all the mistakes just undermined our last couple of SOLID attempts to score the go-ahead TD.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Because of the flow of the game - specifically the SEVEN turnovers we committed - comparing stats as you did is not valid. I'm not questioning your math skills, statistical crunching or anything along those lines. What I am saying is two-fold. 1. Your example about all the passing on the last drive while true, also omits the necessity of passing the ball given the situation of the game. That concept of game situation and flow can also be used when I mentioned running the ball "the whole game". 2. I need to see the play-by-play recap (or watch it again and take notes) so that I can really breakdown the run game stats relative to the turnovers and sack yardage loss.

Lastly, given the nature of this board and it's affinity for hyperbole, you know I wasn't insinuating we should've run the ball 100 % of the time or 93 times as you mentioned. Had we stuck with a ground and pound, the clock would've run all night and we likely would've run the ball in 55-60 range with like 10-15 passes littered in. Our defense was killing them all night. Yes, I realize I didn't say this in my last post. In order to prove that I'm right, I need to spend the time to watch the game in its entirety again and quite honestly, I don't have the time or energy. I also don't have the time or energy for a duel with TOC because either way, we aren't changing the outcome and I'll likely lose anyway, if for no other reason than exhaustion.

Look, while your response is very fair and even-handed, we've had people saying things like we should have run the ball on every one of our 93 plays and never passed it. Not gonna happen.

Let's not forget, we NEVER TRAILED until Dozier's 4th quarter TD. So I'm not sure why there was a "necessity" to throw earlier in the game that was forced by "the flow of the game". We had TWO things working for us on offense, Alonzo running the ball and Vinnie passing the ball. ANY team that has 7 turnovers is going to struggle, but Vinnie didn't have big passing stats because "the flow of the game" necessitated it. He had decent passing yardage because we had a good passing game (absent INTs, of course).

Everyone loves to blame Vinnie, and while I hate Sandusky, we have to look at his brutal game plan. It worked. Our OL wasn't able to give Vinnie more time, and Vinnie tried to live up to the Heisman hero hype. But all game long, he was knocked and pushed and hit. Doing that 50 times can take a toll.

The game was ugly, no doubt. But we never trailed until the very end. We could have survived most of the turnovers, but the ones in the 4th quarter destroyed us, 2 INTs and a fumble.

 

[BigDikDaddyFromCincinnati]

Look, while your response is very fair and even-handed, we've had people saying things like we should have run the ball on every one of our 93 plays and never passed it. Not gonna happen.

Let's not forget, we NEVER TRAILED until Dozier's 4th quarter TD. So I'm not sure why there was a "necessity" to throw earlier in the game that was forced by "the flow of the game". We had TWO things working for us on offense, Alonzo running the ball and Vinnie passing the ball. ANY team that has 7 turnovers is going to struggle, but Vinnie didn't have big passing stats because "the flow of the game" necessitated it. He had decent passing yardage because we had a good passing game (absent INTs, of course).

Everyone loves to blame Vinnie, and while I hate Sandusky, we have to look at his brutal game plan. It worked. Our OL wasn't able to give Vinnie more time, and Vinnie tried to live up to the Heisman hero hype. But all game long, he was knocked and pushed and hit. Doing that 50 times can take a toll.

The game was ugly, no doubt. But we never trailed until the very end. We could have survived most of the turnovers, but the ones in the 4th quarter destroyed us, 2 INTs and a fumble.

Seems like we (you and I) are simply arguing as to whether there are more peanuts or corn in the turrd?

I acknowledge your comment about Pedo State's defensive game plan - (at least) 3 of the picks were by LBs who I believe Capt Tummysticks was dropping into coverage to confuse Vinny. I almost mentioned it in a previous post, but my stomach turns and I begin to get angry when I think of that POS.

At least one of your comments are actually pointing to my points. Specifically, "we never trailed until Dozier's 4th Q TD." Why were we passing the ball so much when Vinny was having an off night and Alonzo was running like a beast (I should've amended my original comments to focus solely on Alonzo toting the rock, but alas I did not). I get the concept of needing to keep the defense honest, but I also recognize that Vinny was downright bad that night.

Whatevs. I say corn, you say peanuts. We can still be friends....even if I'm corny and you're nuts.

 

[RF-4CCane]

He was not a lazy recruiter (I saw him nearly knock over my friend's dad to get to Lamont Green after a Palmetto/Southridge game), he just wasn't great at certain positions like OL, where he preferred giant lumbering sows to hard-working athletic types. Hence your Zev Lumeskis and Freeman Browns.

The '92 team was very talented but deeply flawed. First off we missed a good chuck of critical practice time due to Hurricane Andrew. Secondly he offense went completely into a shell sometimes. (see the Arizona game where Rusty Medaris blew out his knee. That game was torturous to watch). Gino had his moments but also had loooong stretches of being unproductive. As was said before OL was also wildly inconsistent. also the RB room was talented but just meh as far as results. Best RB was Donnell Bennet and he averaged 4.3 YPC. Ferguson was just a freshman getting mostly garbage time carries. McGuire was coming off knee surgery. In the sugar bowl we gave up 18 passing yards (!!) and still lost. Bama couldn't complete a forward pass and we still couldn't stop the run. And obviously the offense sh*t the bed even though we outgained them yardage wise. We actually had a more talented team in '94 except for QB and that killed us.

Perhaps lazy wasn’t the right word.

I had a friend who was an older and wise Cane fan and an Attorney I worked with, tell me this about Erickson and recruiting.

“He got who he wanted, he just didn’t get who he needed”.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Seems like we (you and I) are simply arguing as to whether there are more peanuts or corn in the turrd?

I acknowledge your comment about Pedo State's defensive game plan - (at least) 3 of the picks were by LBs who I believe Capt Tummysticks was dropping into coverage to confuse Vinny. I almost mentioned it in a previous post, but my stomach turns and I begin to get angry when I think of that POS.

At least one of your comments are actually pointing to my points. Specifically, "we never trailed until Dozier's 4th Q TD." Why were we passing the ball so much when Vinny was having an off night and Alonzo was running like a beast (I should've amended my original comments to focus solely on Alonzo toting the rock, but alas I did not). I get the concept of needing to keep the defense honest, but I also recognize that Vinny was downright bad that night.

Whatevs. I say corn, you say peanuts. We can still be friends....even if I'm corny and you're nuts.

We passed the ball because that's how we played the game (balance, 50 passes and 43 runs) AND because we were not behind until very late (and then only by 4 points). It's easy to think AFTER the game "we should have done X instead of Y". But if we ran Alonzo 93 times, they would have shut it down. If we passed 93 times, they would have shut it down.

I get it. I do. That was my freshman year and it's still one of the 3 or 5 worst moments of my Hurricane-game-watching life. Maybe we run the ball 50 times and pass 43 times. Sure, I guess anything is possible. But we never would have tilted to 80-20 one way or the other. It just wasn't our game. Sometimes, the other team just has a great plan.

Finally, let's not forget this. Vinnie was picked twice in the 4th quarter. What that means is that he had "only" 3 INTs for the first 3 quarters (plus) when Miami was either tied OR AHEAD. That also means that the first 3 picks did not destroy us. We managed to fight off those three picks. It's only when someone talks about FIVE PICKS that it seems like "why didn't we just pull Vinnie?". It seems easy in retrospect. Yes, after SEVEN WEEKS of not playing, Vinnie was not as sharp as he was in the first 10 games of the year when he won the Heisman. But he was playing more effectively in the 4th quarter and was undermined by a fumble and two picks.

It all sucks. I wish that Miami could replay that game. It got away from us. **** happens.