I don't understand the things Marrone is confident in

[OttoinGrotto]

Last week Marrone earned a lot of good will in my eyes by putting a good college offense on the field. It took three full seasons before we saw that. I'm hoping it's not another three full years before we see improved decision making on gameday.

Marrone is confident in our ability to use the punt to pin teams deep. I don't understand this. It's just an extremely low probability. We're talking about inexperienced guys kicking a ball that's not really shaped for kicking, and not only having the kick go exactly as planned, but our coverage to be good enough to down it where we want. Needless to say, I thought the decision to kick from the 32 was awful. We could have done anything else there, try the field goal, try to at least run a play, whatever, all of our other options short of kneeling on the ball would have better.

Marrone is not confident that our passing game won't turn it over deep in our own territory. We've seen this before (L'ville). The decision to run the Broyld Cat conceded that drive right from the first snap. USC had the luxury of knowing we were going to run the ball. Rather than execute our offense and treat the possession as an opportunity to move the ball and score, the decision was made to make sure we didn't turn it over on three downs, and hope that the next time the opponent sees the ball its after a punt with a little more field to have to go over. Well, mission accomplished, but that is the wrong mission to me. We valued field position over the ball. That's a loser's game.

Marrone is confident that his defense can get a fast three and out after a punt, but cannot get a fast three and out at midfield after a turnover on downs. I just don't understand it. The defense understands that if the team is down, they need to get the ball back to the offense. Any other circumstance is secondary. The decision to punt on 4th and 2 was a terrible decision. We needed more than one score. The defense has to make at least one stop if we have a chance. Once we decided to kick, we decided that the defense had to make two stops. Why did we decide that?

Marrone is confident that his defense can hold teams in check for 4 quarters. Look, teams will score. I really like our defense this year, but it's asking too much of any defense, especially one playing a team like USC, to hold the fort forever. I don't think it's coincidence that our defense is doing well in the first half and then struggles in the second. They're getting worn down. That's going to happen.

I also don't understand when we often choose to use our timeouts.

Marrone is confident that late in games his first teamers won't be injured. There was nothing to be gained by having so many first teamers on the field on our final drive. That should have been mop up time, and instead we're running our starting unit out there. I don't understand it. Reward the bench guys with some time on the field. Get them some experience. Don't run the risk that a key guy goes down when the outcome is decided. Build depth.

Lastly, Marrone feels like playing to win takes the game away from his players. This is the one that I really don't get. The lack of urgency is mind boggling. The clock is running, we can control our own destiny, and we pass on it because our coach believes that it's better for our players to wait for a better moment. I just don't see that better moment exist.

Overall, I'm happy that we performed well against a strong opponent. I said before the season that I would trade progress on offense for wins. I'm seeing progress on offense, so I'm content.

That said, Marrone makes a lot of bad decisions. In isolation any one of them might be forgivable, but its the accumulation that I have a hard time swallowing. His choices held the team back yesterday. For a coach that preaches accountability, I'm unimpressed with how many poor choices he makes. Coach has done a very good job of preparing his team to compete, but he is at the heart of many of our issues on game day.

One more thing - if you're going to make a poor choice, make a poor choice that errs on the side of being aggressive and trying to put more points on the board. I can't knock the decision to go for 2.

 

[DomeStranger]

Needless to say, I thought the decision to kick from the 32 was awful. We could have done anything else there, try the field goal, try to at least run a play, whatever, all of our other options short of kneeling on the ball would have better.

If you really feel the need to punt there, I'd rather see Nassib punt it, if he has any type of kicking skills anyway. If he could, I'd trust him. That's a cool trick play. No return team in there to fair catch and it catches the defense off guard. Sometimes it ends up bouncing off a linebacker or something.

 

[Millhouse]

Last week Marrone earned a lot of good will in my eyes by putting a good college offense on the field. It took three full seasons before we saw that. I'm hoping it's not another three full years before we see improved decision making on gameday.

Marrone is confident in our ability to use the punt to pin teams deep. I don't understand this. It's just an extremely low probability. We're talking about inexperienced guys kicking a ball that's not really shaped for kicking, and not only having the kick go exactly as planned, but our coverage to be good enough to down it where we want. Needless to say, I thought the decision to kick from the 32 was awful. We could have done anything else there, try the field goal, try to at least run a play, whatever, all of our other options short of kneeling on the ball would have better.

Marrone is not confident that our passing game won't turn it over deep in our own territory. We've seen this before (L'ville). The decision to run the Broyld Cat conceded that drive right from the first snap. USC had the luxury of knowing we were going to run the ball. Rather than execute our offense and treat the possession as an opportunity to move the ball and score, the decision was made to make sure we didn't turn it over on three downs, and hope that the next time the opponent sees the ball its after a punt with a little more field to have to go over. Well, mission accomplished, but that is the wrong mission to me. We valued field position over the ball. That's a loser's game.

Marrone is confident that his defense can get a fast three and out after a punt, but cannot get a fast three and out at midfield after a turnover on downs. I just don't understand it. The defense understands that if the team is down, they need to get the ball back to the offense. Any other circumstance is secondary. The decision to punt on 4th and 2 was a terrible decision. We needed more than one score. The defense has to make at least one stop if we have a chance. Once we decided to kick, we decided that the defense had to make two stops. Why did we decide that?

Marrone is confident that his defense can hold teams in check for 4 quarters. Look, teams will score. I really like our defense this year, but it's asking too much of any defense, especially one playing a team like USC, to hold the fort forever. I don't think it's coincidence that our defense is doing well in the first half and then struggles in the second. They're getting worn down. That's going to happen.

I also don't understand when we often choose to use our timeouts.

Marrone is confident that late in games his first teamers won't be injured. There was nothing to be gained by having so many first teamers on the field on our final drive. That should have been mop up time, and instead we're running our starting unit out there. I don't understand it. Reward the bench guys with some time on the field. Get them some experience. Don't run the risk that a key guy goes down when the outcome is decided. Build depth.

Lastly, Marrone feels like playing to win takes the game away from his players. This is the one that I really don't get. The lack of urgency is mind boggling. The clock is running, we can control our own destiny, and we pass on it because our coach believes that it's better for our players to wait for a better moment. I just don't see that better moment exist.

Overall, I'm happy that we performed well against a strong opponent. I said before the season that I would trade progress on offense for wins. I'm seeing progress on offense, so I'm content.

That said, Marrone makes a lot of bad decisions. In isolation any one of them might be forgivable, but its the accumulation that I have a hard time swallowing. His choices held the team back yesterday. For a coach that preaches accountability, I'm unimpressed with how many poor choices he makes. Coach has done a very good job of preparing his team to compete, but he is at the heart of many of our issues on game day.

One more thing - if you're going to make a poor choice, make a poor choice that errs on the side of being aggressive and trying to put more points on the board. I can't knock the decision to go for 2.

stupid meatheads need simple crude rules of thumbs to make a decision fast enough. what i don't understand is why their simple crude rules have to be so biased to taking plays away from your offense.

you could have equally simple rules that aren't as stupid.

if oscar pistorius would struggle to avoid punting the ball into the endzone, bad idea.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

what i don't understand is why their simple crude rules have to be so biased to taking plays away from your offense.

you could have equally simple rules that aren't as stupid.

if oscar pistorius would struggle to avoid punting the ball into the endzone, bad idea.

Agree on all of that.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

If you really feel the need to punt there, I'd rather see Nassib punt it, if he has any type of kicking skills anyway. If he could, I'd trust him. That's a cool trick play. No return team in there to fair catch and it catches the defense off guard. Sometimes it ends up bouncing off a linebacker or something.

I get what you're saying, but I still think by willfully handing over possession of the ball you're hurting yourself more than you can maybe help yourself.

You know what a good play is there, though? Bomb to the end zone. A catch is a TD. A pick puts them at the 20, which is what the punt got us anyway. An incompletion means at least you tried to make something happen.

 

[Millhouse]

I get what you're saying, but I still think by willfully handing over possession of the ball you're hurting yourself more than you can maybe help yourself.

You know what a good play is there, though? Bomb to the end zone. A catch is a TD. A pick puts them at the 20, which is what the punt got us anyway. An incompletion means at least you tried to make something happen.

USC ended up averaging 7 yards per play. Alot of that came after the last terrible punt, I know (What does it say about Marrone that we have to be specific about which terrible punt we're referring to?)

but 7 yards per play is top 5 in the country.

Marrone thinks our chances of getting a 3 and out from a team that averages 7 yards a play are so much better than our chance of getting 2 yards that he's willing to give up the amount of time burned off by the opponent's presumed three and out.

 

[Czar]

If you really feel the need to punt there, I'd rather see Nassib punt it, if he has any type of kicking skills anyway. If he could, I'd trust him. That's a cool trick play. No return team in there to fair catch and it catches the defense off guard. Sometimes it ends up bouncing off a linebacker or something.

CALL A QUICK KICK! They'll never expect it!

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Marrone thinks our chances of getting a 3 and out from a team that averages 7 yards a play are so much better than our chance of getting 2 yards that he's willing to give up the amount of time burned off by the opponent's presumed three and out.

Yeah, I just don't understand it. Analyze it however you want, it was a terrible call.

The actions Marrone takes because he's afraid of taking the game away from his players really make me question if he understands what taking the game away from his players means.

 

[Millhouse]

Yeah, I just don't understand it. Analyze it however you want, it was a terrible call.

The actions Marrone takes because he's afraid of taking the game away from his players really make me question if he understands what taking the game away from his players means.

that translates into "maximizing the number of plays where we have any chance at all" not "maximizing our chance of winning"

coaches don't think in probabilities. because they're stupid. they don't know what probabilities even are and even if they did, they can't think of it fast enough so instead of solving a probabilities question, they substitute in a question they can answer.

what gives us the best chance to win? i don't *cking know, i know what increases the number of plays where we have even a slim chance - PUNT

Daniel Kahneman "Thinking Fast and Slow" Amazing book. Talks about how people substitute answerable questions for questions they can't answer. A lot of posters here should read it and get smarter

any chart combining time remaining, points behind, down and distance, and field position will be too complex for these dummies to decipher in a short amount of time. i think we're stuck with this stupidity until the dinosaurs retire

 

[Scooch]

Ultimately the vast majority of football coaches are a lot like Congress -- their M.O. is to kick the can down the road. That's what punting on a 4th-and-2 from the 49, down 12, with 13 minutes remaining in the game is: kicking the can down the road. Marrone is saying that he'd rather lose the game later, than lose it now.

It's silly of course, and shows an utter lack of understanding of probabilities. But it's a decision an alarming number of coaches make every week, albeit often not in such stark situations.

What's most discouraging to me is that, while I've come to expect that most coaches make these kinds of decisions, it shows a particularly poor feel for the condition of the game at that moment in time. SU just spent the past 10+ minutes playing very well offensively. After going down 21-3 they engineered an excellent 78-yard, 4 1/2 minute scoring drive. Then after that amazing pick they ran a 50-yard, 2 minute scoring drive. The offense was humming. But then...

SU goes 3 and out pinned inside our own 20, and USC takes advantage of a short field off a great punt return to score quickly and make it 28-16. So at this point USC's offense was humming too. They had scored TDs on 3 of their last 4 possessions, going back to the 2nd quarter --interrupted only by that interception.

So at that point I'm thinking the calculus has to be the recognition that USC has largely solved our D (refer to the 3 TDs in 4 possessions note above) and, being down 12 and all, we'll probably need to try and outgun them over the remaining 13 minutes to have any shot of winning. And yet we tried to play field position football.

Clearly I'm not a coach. And it's clear Marrone is having success turning this program around from an athleticism and competitiveness standpoint. But he botched this one badly, and it's not the first time.

Oh Lord

 

[iommi]

Great post, Otto...Great post.

 

[Millhouse]

Ultimately the vast majority of football coaches are a lot like Congress -- their M.O. is to kick the can down the road. That's what punting on a 4th-and-2 from the 49, down 12, with 13 minutes remaining in the game is: kicking the can down the road. Marrone is saying that he'd rather lose the game later, than lose it now.

It's silly of course, and shows an utter lack of understanding of probabilities. But it's a decision an alarming number of coaches make every week, albeit often not in such stark situations.

What's most discouraging to me is that, while I've come to expect that most coaches make these kinds of decisions, it shows a particularly poor feel for the condition of the game at that moment in time. SU just spent the past 10+ minutes playing very well offensively. After going down 21-3 they engineered an excellent 78-yard, 4 1/2 minute scoring drive. Then after that amazing pick they ran a 50-yard, 2 minute scoring drive. The offense was humming. But then...

SU goes 3 and out pinned inside our own 20, and USC takes advantage of a short field off a great punt return to score quickly and make it 28-16. So at this point USC's offense was humming too. They had scored TDs on 3 of their last 4 possessions, going back to the 2nd quarter --interrupted only by that interception.

So at that point I'm thinking the calculus has to be the recognition that USC has largely solved our D (refer to the 3 TDs in 4 possessions note above) and, being down 12 and all, we'll probably need to try and outgun them over the remaining 13 minutes to have any shot of winning. And yet we tried to play field position football.

Clearly I'm not a coach. And it's clear Marrone is having success turning this program around from an athleticism and competitiveness standpoint. But he botched this one badly, and it's not the first time.

Oh Lord

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute_substitution

football is a gold mine for experimental psychologists

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Daniel Kahneman "Thinking Fast and Slow" Amazing book. Talks about how people substitute answerable questions for questions they can't answer. A lot of posters here should read it and get smarter

Thanks for the recommendation. Have you ever read Stumbling On Wins?

 

[Millhouse]

Thanks for the recommendation. Have you ever read Stumbling On Wins?

yes, it was very good. Scorecasting is good too. thinking fast and slow is about a million pages long. just like your average post, you'll like it

 

[OttoinGrotto]

yes, it was very good. Scorecasting is good too. thinking fast and slow is about a million pages long. just like your average post, you'll like it

I can dig it.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Great post, Otto...Great post.

Much appreciated, iommi.

 

[OrangeTown]

USC ended up averaging 7 yards per play. Alot of that came after the last terrible punt, I know (What does it say about Marrone that we have to be specific about which terrible punt we're referring to?)

but 7 yards per play is top 5 in the country.

Marrone thinks our chances of getting a 3 and out from a team that averages 7 yards a play are so much better than our chance of getting 2 yards that he's willing to give up the amount of time burned off by the opponent's presumed three and out.

Average yards per play is not a good indicator to use in making that determination. If there have been 10 plays, with one play going for 100 yards, and the other 9 for zero, you're still averaging 10 yards per play, which would seem to insinuate an almost guaranteed 1st down over the course of 3 plays. Extreme, of course, but just using some easy numbers. I'd have to guess the standard deviation in USC's situation is fairly high.

Stats are only as good as the person using them and the context in which they're used. Quite often, one's own eyes and instinct/knowledge are just as, if not more valuable.

Did I like the call? Not really. But how can I pass up a chance to disagree with Millhouse?

 

[Millhouse]

Average yards per play is not a good indicator to use in making that determination. If there have been 10 plays, with one play going for 100 yards, and the other 9 for zero, you're still averaging 10 yards per play, which would seem to insinuate an almost guaranteed 1st down over the course of 3 plays. Extreme, of course, but just using some easy numbers. I'd have to guess the standard deviation in USC's situation is fairly high.

Stats are only as good as the person using them and the context in which they're used. Quite often, one's own eyes and instinct/knowledge are just as, if not more valuable.

Did I like the call? Not really. But how can I pass up a chance to disagree with Millhouse?

USC is good at getting first downs and touchdowns. You don't get as many yards as they do by getting lots of three and outs. if your intuition tells you otherwise, you just might be on bath salts.

USC was 11th in the country in first downs last year. Their offense is still really good, probably better. There is no evidence that they're simply feast or famine

intuition is mostly a nice way of saying bullsh!t. There are stats for first downs. USC didn't have that many first downs because they had huge plays and short fields but that doesn't mean they are any less good at getting first downs.

 

[OrangeTown]

USC is good at getting first downs and touchdowns. You don't get as many yards as they do by getting lots of three and outs. if your intuition tells you otherwise, you just might be on bath salts.

USC was 11th in the country in first downs last year. Their offense is still really good, probably better. There is no evidence that they're simply feast or famine

intuition is mostly a nice way of saying bullsh!t. There are stats for first downs. USC didn't have that many first downs because they had huge plays and short fields but that doesn't mean they are any less good at getting first downs.

You initially brought forth stats from this one particular game (USC averaged 7 yards per play). Fair enough - that's good information and should definitely be used to help make game decisions. But it's just one piece. Perhaps instinct was the wrong word and I should have just stuck with the eyes and knowledge reference. But anyway...

What I'm getting at is that I don't care how many first downs USC got last year. I also don't care how many they got this year. Actually, I do - I care about the ones they got in the game against us. If I'm making the decision whether or not to go for it on 4th and 2, last year's first downs are about as prominent in my head as a naked picture of Laurie Fine. I'm much more interested in what I'm seeing happen in front of my eyes, and for the past couple hours.

Like I said, I didn't like the call either. I wanted to see them go for it. I just don't think it's as black and white as you try to have your numbers make it. Not everything is quantifiable, and of those things that are, not all should be.

 

[Millhouse]

You initially brought forth stats from this one particular game (USC averaged 7 yards per play). Fair enough - that's good information and should definitely be used to help make game decisions. But it's just one piece. Perhaps instinct was the wrong word and I should have just stuck with the eyes and knowledge reference. But anyway...

What I'm getting at is that I don't care how many first downs USC got last year. I also don't care how many they got this year. Actually, I do - I care about the ones they got in the game against us. If I'm making the decision whether or not to go for it on 4th and 2, last year's first downs are about as prominent in my head as a naked picture of Laurie Fine. I'm much more interested in what I'm seeing happen in front of my eyes, and for the past couple hours.

Like I said, I didn't like the call either. I wanted to see them go for it. I just don't think it's as black and white as you try to have your numbers make it. Not everything is quantifiable, and of those things that are, not all should be.

you say that USC might get lots their yards in isolated plays and might not be that great at converting first downs

i respond by saying USC was 11th in the country in first downs last year with most of their offense returning.

then you respond by saying you don't care how many they got last year or this year.

OK... that sounds really smart to me!

some things are quantifiable. like USC's ability to get first downs. my position is that teams with lots of first downs are good at getting first downs. but you say stats shmats.

 

[OrangeTown]

you say that USC might get lots their yards in isolated plays and might not be that great at converting first downs

i respond by saying USC was 11th in the country in first downs last year with most of their offense returning.

then you respond by saying you don't care how many they got last year or this year.

OK... that sounds really smart to me!

some things are quantifiable. like USC's ability to get first downs. my position is that teams with lots of first downs are good at getting first downs. but you say stats shmats.

I don't recall saying anything about USC not being that great at converting first downs, but I do often have a bad memory and say dumb things (obviously).

The only thing I mentioned was that yards per play is not always a great indicator of how to measure how much may be gained on the next couple plays. It can be, but it should be used with other information. That's all I was getting at.

You take things too literally. Of course if most of their offense returns from a great offense last year, I do care about that. I also care about how much we improved. But in making a split second determination regarding a 4th down play, I'm more interested in how much more likely we are to get 2 yards in a given play, and most importantly, how well we are playing against them at that specific moment in time.

I embrace stats, I just embrace other information with them. It just takes a while to get you to move from the all or nothing stats mentality to the more dummy-friendly "teams with lots of first downs are good at getting first downs", but we finally got there. As a dummy myself, I thank you.

 

[BlackKnight76]

I think that part of the reason for the high yards per play number was that we dedicated ourselves to not letting Woods or Lee beat us deep, which pretty much worked. Obviously they were both money in the redzone, but we forced USC to beat us methodically, and while they ended up making big plays down the stretch, it's probably the reason we shut them out in the first quarter and were within 5 points late.

No QB we face this year will have nearly the ability to throw perfect TD passes like Barkley did, and no one will have a WR half as good as Woods or Lee alone besides maybe Mizzou with their stud frosh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Millhouse]

I don't recall saying anything about USC not being that great at converting first downs, but I do often have a bad memory and say dumb things (obviously).

The only thing I mentioned was that yards per play is not always a great indicator of how to measure how much may be gained on the next couple plays. It can be, but it should be used with other information. That's all I was getting at.

You take things too literally. Of course if most of their offense returns from a great offense last year, I do care about that. I also care about how much we improved. But in making a split second determination regarding a 4th down play, I'm more interested in how much more likely we are to get 2 yards in a given play, and most importantly, how well we are playing against them at that specific moment in time.

I embrace stats, I just embrace other information with them. It just takes a while to get you to move from the all or nothing stats mentality to the more dummy-friendly "teams with lots of first downs are good at getting first downs", but we finally got there. As a dummy myself, I thank you.

At that moment in time both offenses were very good.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[OrangeTown]

At that moment in time both offenses were very good.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Very true, sir - hence my opinion that we should have gone for it. No clue what he was thinking.

 

[DezisOrange]

Just a question to throw out their...do you think that a lot of DM's decision making is still influenced by NFL thinking/philosophy as opposed to what a true college coach would think or do, because the two games are so different? Is it possible that he is still even now "learning on the job" so to speak about the college game and a college coaches mentality?