Takeaway from the coach’s roundtable on ESPNU

[Empirical Cane]

I’ve never bothered to sift through the data, but it sure does seem the teams that play at a breakneck pace, almost down to every single one, give up a lot of points too. I wonder if somebody’s done an analysis of this?

Maybe there’s a few that have bucked this trend, but just based on my memory and observations, I can’t recall of any right off the top of my head.

Absolutely makes sense. Would be weird if opposing Os didnt score more.

 

[skyman]

I guess it’s hard to go from a super fast offense, and then when you have a big lead, to dial it back to a grind it out, use up the clock offense. You just might not be physically or practice wise be set up for the latter

The teams that go fast and break neck pace basically take the game and turn it on its head. You hear guys philosophy and it was to play 2 games in 1 or get as many plays in. When you look at it they are playing by different set of rules but when you pull a defensive chart with old school thinking those teams seemed to fair worse but not so. This is why Yards Per Play has become a much bigger marker or teams that defenses struggled put a high emphasis on Turn overs. Diaz is one of those coaches who looks at those other numbers that the casual fan would miss, he quotes them often.

If you play 2 games in one, or you aspire to. Your Point totals and Yards totals automatically go up. But if your offense is much more comfortable scoring 60 points a game than every other offense your goal is basically to "Get them in the deep water" and see if their conditioning and mental aspect are up to snuff. Mind you alot of these teams that had this mindset were smaller schools who wouldnt even be in the ball game to begin kickoff if they stuck to the "old rules of football"

Oregon was routinely blowing teams out, they would never be able to line up with these teams toe to toe. But they were able to light up a score board and lets say they won 60-35. That is still a 4 score blowout. But if you look at 3rd qtr (deep water) they were probably up and just coasted to victory. The other team ran more plays because they scored soo quickly and then when just looking at defensive total stats compared to other teams they didnt fare as well but they essentially played two games. While still getting the W in convincing fashion.

If interested we could look at box scores and really break it down. Believe they didnt change college football (and football overall, super bowl was won because KC went hurry up and they incorporate more spread than most. LSU changed their pro style bro to championship success) because it didnt work, lol.

 

[skyman]

Doesn't seem like it would be that hard, but it is. It's been cited by some coaches as a reason they got away from that Chip Kelly Oregon pace that a lot of teams had adopted.

Those coaches probably half assed it and tried to force some spread and some pro style. You cant have one without the other. More plays for you mean more plays for other team also. Chip was crazy with conditioning and such. You cant think outside the box with half philosophy and not understand the whole thing.

Then again alot of corches are overpaid p.e. teachers. Lol..

 

[The Franchise]

Those coaches probably half assed it and tried to force some spread and some pro style. You cant have one without the other. More plays for you mean more plays for other team also. Chip was crazy with conditioning and such. You cant think outside the box with half philosophy and not understand the whole thing.

Then again alot of corches are overpaid p.e. teachers. Lol..

They weren’t half spread half pro style. Guys like Malzahn, Hologram, and **** even Chip Kelly all slowed things down because they couldn’t take the air out of the ball in the 4th quarter with leads.

 

[Empirical Cane]

They weren’t half spread half pro style. Guys like Malzahn, Hologram, and **** even Chip Kelly all slowed things down because they couldn’t take the air out of the ball in the 4th quarter with leads.

Why do you think the UCLA experiment is going so poorly?

Did lightning just empty out of Chip's bottle?

 

[brock]

I’m having a hard time understanding why Mario would even say this?

Bama is the standard and like we were the team to beat in the 80’s early 90’s . bama has been that standard for the last decade

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

Bama is the standard and like we were the team to beat in the 80’s early 90’s . bama has been that standard for the last decade

That wasn’t my point. Of course, he had to have taken at least some of the philosophy and procedures from the most successful program, where he spent several years. That’s just common sense.

My point is what benefit does he get from saying that. Usually good coaches, whether we like it or not, engage in a lot of double talk and coachspeak to the media. For a reason. You won’t find anybody more devious than Saban. Because he’s not giving anything away.

 

[Ethnicsands]

How does that 2008-2015 group compare to the rest of the nation? And why is your cutoff 2008? The teams from 2005-2007 were mediocre to terrible.

The only stats that matter are the stats that measure us relative to the rest of the nation. And those stats all come out the same, whether it's total NFL players, total players drafted, total salaries, players drafted the past five years. You name it. We're always in the top group, and every other team in the top group is an elite program. This is just the latest example.

Save one year of vernon as a back-up, we are not even in the group of schools that have produced nfl all pros the past decade (and vernon was a shannon recruit). But you don’t like that topic so you ignore the issue by calling it small sample, unpredictable. Zero all pros from UM in a decade! I’ve said it here before - we produced better nfl talent in the 1970s than we did in the 2010s.

You keep repeating things to support a narrative and pretending your facts are comprehensive and irrefutable. They aren’t. Plenty of times we’ve discussed this and things like roster depth, balance, and experience are mentioned. When engaged you refuse to discuss these topics.

not one person here thinks our coaching has been good. But most can handle the idea that while our coaching has been awful, our overall roster talent and management has also declined.

 

[Ethnicsands]

Just posting stats, my man. They tend to be more effective than GIFs.

Every month there is a new stat with the same result: the top NFL producing teams are the most successful programs, plus Miami. Then the usual suspects come here and try to explain it away. Rinse, repeat.



Agreed. So when the NFL keeps picking and paying our players, it should send a message about our talent.

You keep saying stuff like this but never actually engage in a discussion of it. It’s amazing.

Are you using the right stats/metrics? What might be flawed in your chosen metrics? What is it predictive of? What does it overlook?

I just don’t understand why you keep citing these metrics if you aren’t interested in trying to understand what is hidden by them.

Not one person disputes that our coaching has been terrible for two decades. Plenty of posters here and elsewhere over that time have been more negative than you on those staffs for much of that time period. I point that out only because you aren’t debating talent with people who are defending our staffs.

The NFL lists are a poor measure of our effective roster talent for the past decade, and instead of mocking that point you should try to consider it, imo.

 

[DMoney]

The NFL lists are a poor measure of our effective roster talent for the past decade, and instead of mocking that point you should try to consider it, imo.

How about recruiting rankings? You refuse to accept those, either.

If your only measure of talent is W/L record, it’s a skin-deep analysis with no insight as to whether a team is underachieving or overachieving.

My position is that we’ve underachieved beyond belief. I post a new stat every other week that proves that point. It’s not one random list. It’s total NFL players, recruiting rankings, total salaries, players drafted the last 5 years, players drafted the past ten years, combine invites. They all lead to the same conclusion.

Has talent declined since the early-2000s, when we had the most talented teams in history? Of course. Does that decline in talent explain our inability to win the Coastal? No, and any objective measure of our talent confirms that.

 

[brock]

Save one year of vernon as a back-up, we are not even in the group of schools that have produced nfl all pros the past decade (and vernon was a shannon recruit). But you don’t like that topic so you ignore the issue by calling it small sample, unpredictable. Zero all pros from UM in a decade! I’ve said it here before - we produced better nfl talent in the 1970s than we did in the 2010s.

You keep repeating things to support a narrative and pretending your facts are comprehensive and irrefutable. They aren’t. Plenty of times we’ve discussed this and things like roster depth, balance, and experience are mentioned. When engaged you refuse to discuss these topics.

not one person here thinks our coaching has been good. But most can handle the idea that while our coaching has been awful, our overall roster talent and management has also declined.

The All pro/pro bowl argument looks silly when you have players like Lavonte David who has been arguably the most productive and impactful linebacker in the game the last couple of years yet has never made a pro bowl. Does that means he sucks because he’s never made an all star game or deemed all pro? **** no..

additionally you can Cite whatever you like but bottom line Miami doesn’t have much of its 2000-2010 canes in the league anymore and are STILL top 5 in nfl salaries, top 5 in # of players overall, top 5 in players drafted in the last 5 years despite how disappointing the program has been. being more successful on the field equates to bringing in more talent and producing premium draft picks, it’s simple. Remember Miami is annually recruiting at a top15-20 level so it’s outpacing what it should be producing really tbh.

don’t even want to really touch on the 70’s talent comment, what would they look like and fare in modern day football? No one knows or could really even answer that sh*t so why even say it?

 

[DTP]

A lot of times, the teams running the absolute most plays are doing so because they need to. They don't have much help on defense and are often in close, shoot-out type games. Their only chance at victory is going lighting fast and scoring as much as they can. They also don't often have huge chunk yardage plays so even their scoring drives often take a lot of plays. Of the top 20 teams in plays per game last year (all ran at least 75) Only Ohio State would be considered a powerhouse program. The rest of the list is P5 also-rans and G5 schools.

You'll find LSU and Clemson a little further down the list (both in the 73-74 play range) but the reasoning is obvious. A) they were explosive on offense so they didn't need to run as many plays and B) they often had huge leads and could take their foot off the throttle in the 4th quarter. While a team that's conditioned to run everything at break neck pace might struggle a bit if purposely slowed down, It doesn't make a difference when you're winning by 30 and just trying to kill the clock. Efficiency goes out the window because killing time is more important than scoring.

 

[The Franchise]

Why do you think the UCLA experiment is going so poorly?

Did lightning just empty out of Chip's bottle?

It's odd to me that the thing that made Chip hot--the high-octane, super fast paced spread--is nowhere to be seen in his current approach at UCLA. It just doesn't make a lot of sense, but maybe he thought football caught up to and figured out the old Oregon frenetic tempo spread he ran.

Additionally, I think he's getting killed in recruiting too because he's got a bad personality and doesn't want to suck up to kids. He thinks the kids should be sucking up to him.

 

[The Franchise]

Bama is the standard and like we were the team to beat in the 80’s early 90’s . bama has been that standard for the last decade

It's a little weird for a coach at a high-profile program to be publicly sucking off another high-profile program. But to each his own.

 

[DTP]

Why do you think the UCLA experiment is going so poorly?

Did lightning just empty out of Chip's bottle?

Couple of reasons. Chip's offense is no longer cutting edge. The zone blocking scheme he used so well was originally designed by him at New Hampshire in the mid 90's. He took the Oregon job in 2007 and his best years were a decade ago. His UCLA offenses haven't been terrible (they were much better than Miami under Enos last year) but they're no longer really good either. I'm sure talent weighs into the equation too.

 

[Ethnicsands]

The All pro/pro bowl argument looks silly when you have players like Lavonte David who has been arguably the most productive and impactful linebacker in the game the last couple of years yet has never made a pro bowl. Does that means he sucks because he’s never made an all star game or deemed all pro? **** no..

additionally you can Cite whatever you like but bottom line Miami doesn’t have much of its 2000-2010 canes in the league anymore and are STILL top 5 in nfl salaries, top 5 in # of players overall, top 5 in players drafted in the last 5 years despite how disappointing the program has been. being more successful on the field equates to bringing in more talent and producing premium draft picks, it’s simple. Remember Miami is annually recruiting at a top15-20 level so it’s outpacing what it should be producing really tbh.

don’t even want to really touch on the 70’s talent comment, what would they look like and fare in modern day football? No one knows or could really even answer that sh*t so why even say it?

First of all, no one said anyone sucks if they don’t make a pro bowl. You sound ridiculous for writing that. Secondly, pointing to one guy doesn’t make the all pro argument flawed. Why don’t you look at how many total guys have been all pro the past decade? It’s a big number. Suggesting David proves anything is logically flawed.

And your second paragraph is just spin and deflection. You guys are trying to use nfl blah blah to tell a narrative about Um talent but when called on it you refuse to actually consider why your blah blah may be a misleading picture of UM talent. It’s just intellectually dishonest. If you want to talk about nfl in the context of what it means for Um, take the time to actually think it through better. How does it really explain our talent by year? What about depth, what about roster holes, what about experience?

Again, not one person worth responding to has said our coaching has been anything but awful the past decade-plus. But the obvious truth is that terrible coaches were not good evaluators. and managed our rosters poorly also. The point is that all this needs to be fixed if we want to be competitive again. Saying we shouldn’t lose to LA Tech is wasted discussion. Of course we shouldn’t.

 

[Ethnicsands]

How about recruiting rankings? You refuse to accept those, either.

If your only measure of talent is W/L record, it’s a skin-deep analysis with no insight as to whether a team is underachieving or overachieving.

My position is that we’ve underachieved beyond belief. I post a new stat every other week that proves that point. It’s not one random list. It’s total NFL players, recruiting rankings, total salaries, players drafted the last 5 years, players drafted the past ten years, combine invites. They all lead to the same conclusion.

Has talent declined since the early-2000s, when we had the most talented teams in history? Of course. Does that decline in talent explain our inability to win the Coastal? No, and any objective measure of our talent confirms that.

That is entirely wrong. I don’t ‘accept’ them because I actually want to consider what they miss, just like with your nfl ‘data.’ You ‘accept‘ them because you are uninterested in what they’re missing and are just trying to pitch a story.

The reality is recruiting rankings are inherently flawed measure of recruiting because they don’t incorporate evaluations by each school. Did we evaluate the kids well and did we evaluate how they fit us and our needs well? Rivals won’t tell you that for us, they just compile (unverified) lists of which schools are said to fancy signing a kid. So recruiting rankings are one data point, and they do tell you a lot about some things, but one key thing they do not tell you about is evaluations. And as you know, evaluations are a central element of recruiting and something I have been harping on for 18 years in these sites.

So none of this is new or surprising. I just don’t understand why you fling around data but then refuse to actually consider whether it’s a flawed measure of the point you want to use it for. You and me likely don’t have much disagreement with the underlying issues, but how we are willing to discuss them differs a lot.

 

[Gooner#44]

Why do you think the UCLA experiment is going so poorly?

Did lightning just empty out of Chip's bottle?

he recruits like sh@t E

 

[DMoney]

So recruiting rankings are one data point, and they do tell you a lot about some things, but one key thing they do not tell you about is evaluations.

What do the NFL draft numbers tell you about evaluations?

 

[Empirical Cane]

It's odd to me that the thing that made Chip hot--the high-octane, super fast paced spread--is nowhere to be seen in his current approach at UCLA. It just doesn't make a lot of sense, but maybe he thought football caught up to and figured out the old Oregon frenetic tempo spread he ran.

Additionally, I think he's getting killed in recruiting too because he's got a bad personality and doesn't want to suck up to kids. He thinks the kids should be sucking up to him.

Agree with both yourself and DTP. The bottle broke and the lightning is gone. With each disaster season, his brand diminishes further.

Speaks volumes of the total team concept--coaches, scheme, strong units as greater sum than parts, etc.

It is evident something is missing. Philosophy, bad luck, whatever. He should be able to field a much stronger squad than he has at UCLA.

I don't follow recruiting like some here, are LA amd SF considered areas where you swing a dead cat and can hit xxxx 5* players? You would think yes considering the metro size, varied demographic makeup, and ability to play year round.