Dino's Game 8 Press Conference for Va Tech: 11 AM

[OrangeXtreme]

Szmyt told Dino he could hit a 48 yarder.

 

[721Comstock]

Szmyt told Dino he could hit a 48 yarder.

Could? Sure. He could hit it.

Would? Not so much. 1-5 now from 40+

 

[tbonezone]

the field goal was certainly in syzmxxmts's range. he missed. get over it.

 

[Orangello]

Guys it’s obvious that the secret analytics guy is Dino himself.

 

[Jake]

There you go. Good catch.

 

[dollarbill44]

the field goal was certainly in syzmxxmts's range. he missed. get over it.

It was short and wide. I don't think he even tried any that long in warmups (which take place right in front of my seats). He also didn't look particularly good during those. I guess Dino only watches the other team's kicker.

 

[dollarbill44]

That's his scribe. He's taking a memo there for the memoir.

 

[orangeinohio]

Eh. I think folks are reading way too much into this. Wouldn’t be surpised if it’s a GA who provides things like TOs, down and distance etc.

JB does the same for player fouls and Time outs for both teams.

They provide the info to the coach, the coach decides what to do with it.

Dino didn’t want to hang that staffer out to dry.

Fair enough.

But I also think part of this is related to the fact that he doesn't put a significant amount of importance on analytics. Based on the fact that he has made several bad decisions this season, he probably doesn't want to get into that discussion. So, not talking about this in detail is also his way of burying this discussion.

 

[tbonezone]

It was short and wide. I don't think he even tried any that long in warmups (which take place right in front of my seats). He also didn't look particularly good during those. I guess Dino only watches the other team's kicker.

syracuse's all time leading scorer. that's some cred i believe.

 

[SWC75]

Dino doesn't seem to put much stock in analytics. He won't even name the person who provides this data.
God forbid he commits to talking about using analytics and how it could support his decision making process.

It's Homer Smith.

 

[Jake]

Fair enough.

But I also think part of this is related to the fact that he doesn't a significant amount of importance on analytics. Based on the fact that he has made several bad decisions this season, he probably doesn't want to get into that discussion. So, not talking about this in detail is also his way of burying this discussion.

The analytics are way overrated imho. I’d rather have a HC who makes decisions based on analytics and other factors.

My issue is that Dino doesn’t seem to have a feel for the situation….not knowledge of the analytics.

I do wonder how other programs handle it.

saban probably has a seven figure analytics coach.

 

[orangeinohio]

The analytics are way overrated imho. I’d rather have a HC who makes decisions based on analytics and other factors.

My issue is that Dino doesn’t seem to have a feel for the situation….not knowledge of the analytics.

I think I'm writing 'analytics' but really referring more to making good game decisions ('feel for the situation').

 

[MikeSU02]

The analytics are way overrated imho. I’d rather have a HC who makes decisions based on analytics and other factors.

My issue is that Dino doesn’t seem to have a feel for the situation….not knowledge of the analytics.

I do wonder how other programs handle it.

saban probably has a seven figure analytics coach.

Yeah, I'm almost less concerned with the go for it vs kick a fg thing versus the actual execution of the decision and getting the ops of everything buttoned up.

Go for it, kick it... let's just start with executing the decision, whatever the decision is based on.

Make the call, get the right people teed up for success as quickly as possible and then it's go time.

Saban definitely has a NASA/Cal Tech team that just is piped in via space satellite for his close calls. I'm sure he has an uplink to the International Space Station when needed.

 

[All4SU]

I hope Dino's time management guy isn't the S&C coach who stands by him the whole game.

Just wondering, why?

 

[BrooklynCuse]

Going for it on 4th and 1 vs a field goal isn’t even a deep dive analytical situation. Field goals over 40 at that point were 25% vs going for it on 4th 50%. I’m no mathematician but isn’t 50 twice as much as 25?

Dino said after the game he felt we had momentum on our side so wanted to go for the field goal to extend the game and keep playing. Does anyone else think that’s a real head scratcher? If we had momentum wouldn’t you want to go for it on 4th?

 

[Jake]

Going for it on 4th and 1 vs a field goal isn’t even a deep dive analytical situation. Field goals over 40 at that point were 25% vs going for it on 4th 50%. I’m no mathematician but isn’t 50 twice as much as 25?

Dino said after the game he felt we had momentum on our side so wanted to go for the field goal to extend the game and keep playing. Does anyone else think that’s a real head scratcher? If we had momentum wouldn’t you want to go for it on 4th?

Wasn’t that the same reasoning as why he wanted to go for two and not kick last week?

 

[TheCusian]

Going for it on 4th and 1 vs a field goal isn’t even a deep dive analytical situation. Field goals over 40 at that point were 25% vs going for it on 4th 50%. I’m no mathematician but isn’t 50 twice as much as 25?

Dino said after the game he felt we had momentum on our side so wanted to go for the field goal to extend the game and keep playing. Does anyone else think that’s a real head scratcher? If we had momentum wouldn’t you want to go for it on 4th?

Analytics should account for opponent, too. Clemson’s D isn’t Wakes for example.

 

[rrlbees]

Going for it on 4th and 1 vs a field goal isn’t even a deep dive analytical situation. Field goals over 40 at that point were 25% vs going for it on 4th 50%. I’m no mathematician but isn’t 50 twice as much as 25?

Dino said after the game he felt we had momentum on our side so wanted to go for the field goal to extend the game and keep playing. Does anyone else think that’s a real head scratcher? If we had momentum wouldn’t you want to go for it on 4th?

I haven’t verified this but this morning on Packer and Durham they said something like we handed off to tucker 10 times in the 2nd half and he only got positive yardage 5 times.

 

[tbonezone]

Going for it on 4th and 1 vs a field goal isn’t even a deep dive analytical situation. Field goals over 40 at that point were 25% vs going for it on 4th 50%. I’m no mathematician but isn’t 50 twice as much as 25?

Dino said after the game he felt we had momentum on our side so wanted to go for the field goal to extend the game and keep playing. Does anyone else think that’s a real head scratcher? If we had momentum wouldn’t you want to go for it on 4th?

the first down wasn't points. you still trail. and no time outs. the kick was certainly "makeable". we missed.

 

[BrooklynCuse]

I haven’t verified this but this morning on Packer and Durham they said something like we handed off to tucker 10 times in the 2nd half and he only got positive yardage 5 times.

Clemson definitely shut down our run game in the second half but I would hope that Shrader could sneak for one yard or we have a one yard play in our pocket. Either way the game ends on that play.

 

[BrooklynCuse]

the first down wasn't points. you still trail. and no time outs. the kick was certainly "makeable". we missed.

“Makeable” sure but 20% isn’t great odds. And if you do get first down and pick up another 10 yards an even better chance of hitting field goal.

If Dino thought we had momentum go for it on 4th. I don’t understand the thinking that we had momentum so we were going to go for the tie

 

[tbonezone]

“Makeable” sure but 20% isn’t great odds. And if you do get first down and pick up another 10 yards an even better chance of hitting field goal.

If Dino thought we had momentum go for it on 4th. I don’t understand the thinking that we had momentum so we were going to go for the tie

true. also possible you lose ten years.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Clemson definitely shut down our run game in the second half but I would hope that Shrader could sneak for one yard or we have a one yard play in our pocket. Either way the game ends on that play.

He had 5 rushes for 4 total yards the first 5 drives of the 2nd half. Given his talent he should get more than 1 rush per drive, even if he isn't getting many yards.

Both Tucker and Shrader can break a long run at any time. I rather have Tucker have 11 zero yard gains and one 40 yard gain than pass it 5-12 40 yards with no completions over 10 yards. The yards per play are the same but with the 40 yard run we have a chance to score. Heck he had 2 big runs in the first half. Why not hope for that to happen over hoping to pass the ball with Shrader, our WRs, our OL, and Clemson's D?

We cannot sustain a drive against Clemson so we needed a big play. That was more likely to come running the ball. Yes, we got the big pass play but that was in desperation and not running our normal O. Plus we got a bit lucky. Even with that big pass play it was 1 play out of 40 called pass plays. Tucker had 22 runs and we got 2 big plays out of it.

 

[orangeinohio]

I haven’t verified this but this morning on Packer and Durham they said something like we handed off to tucker 10 times in the 2nd half and he only got positive yardage 5 times.

3rd quarter was a bloodbath for Tucker - 3 rushes for -4 yards.
Overall in the 2nd half - 10 rushes for 25 yards (+ 2 catches for 20 yards)

 

[PhatOrange]

I haven’t verified this but this morning on Packer and Durham they said something like we handed off to tucker 10 times in the 2nd half and he only got positive yardage 5 times.

at some point late in the 2nd half (maybe the 3rd Q stats) he was something like 5 carries for minus 3 yards. It was a graphic on the TV.