We need to hire a math coach... | Syracusefan.com
.

We need to hire a math coach...

BostonOrange

2nd String
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
722
Like
478
...for Marrone. I am totally serious. The head coach has to think about a lot of shiiit out there. Someone should be responsible for saying "Doug, there are 41 seconds left, there is a 40 second clock in college football, have Ryan take a knee". I mean seriously...what if AAM coughed the ball up there? It happens.
 
...for Marrone. I am totally serious. The head coach has to think about a lot of shiiit out there. Someone should be responsible for saying "Doug, there are 41 seconds left, there is a 40 second clock in college football, have Ryan take a knee". I mean seriously...what if AAM coughed the ball up there? It happens.
I figured you find something to bitch about.

Go to the SU site and watch his post game presser and hear his thoughts...maybe, just maybe you might understand his thought process.
 
Complain, complain, complain.

People want him to show balls--well, he went for the first at the end and picked it up. Can't have it both ways.
That doesn't make any sense. Running a play that could result in a turnover when going to a knee ends the game is STUPIDITY. It isn't 'having it both ways', it is showing intelligence.
 
There is no way AAM was coughing the ball up after watching for the first quarter of the season. Give it a rest for one night.
 
I figured you find something to bitch about.

Go to the SU site and watch his post game presser and hear his thoughts...maybe, just maybe you might understand his thought process.

Don't confuse BostonOrange with OrangeinBoston, who is the leader of the I Hate Shafer fan fan club club.
 
I'm embarrassed to ask this but what is the play clock rule? Sometimes it's 40 (1st downs?) and other times it's 25. So if it would have been 25 then we would have had to punt.
 
That doesn't make any sense. Running a play that could result in a turnover when going to a knee ends the game is STUPIDITY. It isn't 'having it both ways', it is showing intelligence.


Whatever. You've been decidedly anti-Marrone, and you're rationalizing things to pedantically nitpick.

This board talks out of both sides of their mouth. Some posters complain out when he coaches conservatively, calling it "not to lose." When he plays aggressively, we get posts complaining that he should have been more conservative.

In the interest of transparency, I thought that he could have used the playclock a little better at the beginning of the final drive. How's that for a nitpick? But we ran effectively, kept the ball inbounds, and moved the chains several times converting several big third down plays to keep the drive alive. I saw him run the play clock all the way down toward the end and use a timeout to maximize burning the clock. I'd say he did a pretty good job managing the clock without needing a "math coach." You either trust your players or you don't. Marrone put the game in his players' hands and they won the game.

Edit: chip, I think you are right. Sorry that I incorrectly attributed where you were coming from to another poster, BostonOrange--my bad. I got you two mixed up, and I'm a bit weary of his schtick.
 
That doesn't make any sense. Running a play that could result in a turnover when going to a knee ends the game is STUPIDITY. It isn't 'having it both ways', it is showing intelligence.

So being painfully conservative to prevent something that is no more than a, what, 5% probability at the very, very most, is being intelligent? Isn't that just being scared?
 
There is no way AAM was coughing the ball up after watching for the first quarter of the season. Give it a rest for one night.

Oh no? AAM had only one hand on the ball on first down. Somebody must have told him to cover the ball with both hands...or maybe he heard me screaming at my TV.
 
Whatever. You've been decidedly anti-Marrone, and you're rationalizing things to pedantically nitpick.

This board talks out of both sides of their mouth. Some posters complain out when he coaches conservatively, calling it "not to lose." When he plays aggressively, we get posts complaining that he should have been more conservative.

In the interest of transparency, I thought that he could have used the playclock a little better at the beginning of the final drive. How's that for a nitpick? But we ran effectively, kept the ball inbounds, and moved the chains several times converting several big third down plays to keep the drive alive. I saw him run the play clock all the way down toward the end and use a timeout to maximize burning the clock. I'd say he did a pretty good job managing the clock without needing a "math coach." You either trust your players or you don't. Marrone put the game in his players' hands and they won the game.
Again, running a play with 41 seconds left doesn't make even a little bit of sense. That is fact - not opinion. As for the anti-Marrone bit I think you may be confusing me with another poster - look through my posts. I think he's been a mix of some good (generally more competitive teams) and some bad (bad math skills, too many penalties for a coach that emphasizes discipline, etc)
 
Again, running a play with 41 seconds left doesn't make even a little bit of sense. That is fact - not opinion. As for the anti-Marrone bit I think you may be confusing me with another poster - look through my posts. I think he's been a mix of some good (generally more competitive teams) and some bad (bad math skills, too many penalties for a coach that emphasizes discipline, etc)


See my post above--I think I put in an edit after you were responding. Sorry I got you confused with someone else, which is why I took your post a little out of context.
 
So being painfully conservative to prevent something that is no more than a, what, 5% probability at the very, very most, is being intelligent? Isn't that just being scared?
No. It isn't a question of conservative vs aggressive. By handing the ball off there you take a 0% chance of losing and turning it into a non-zero chance of losing. And that is stupidity. Ever hear of Joe Pisarcik?
 
I'm embarrassed to ask this but what is the play clock rule? Sometimes it's 40 (1st downs?) and other times it's 25. So if it would have been 25 then we would have had to punt.

4o after a normal play...25 after a penalty like illegal motion,ref blows the whistle to discuss a situation. after the offense is already set to run a play
 
So being painfully conservative to prevent something that is no more than a, what, 5% probability at the very, very most, is being intelligent? Isn't that just being scared?

I get what you are saying, but even with a 5% chance...the smart play is to eliminate all risk. Every last risk. IMO, that's not being conservative, that's being smart.

44cuse
 
I have to say, I was a bit confused why SU was running plays with ~20 seconds left on the clock. At the time it didn't seem smart.
 
See my post above--I think I put in an edit after you were responding. Sorry I got you confused with someone else, which is why I took your post a little out of context.
No worries. And I'm actually serious about the math coach not just trying to be a jerk. Every head coach should have someone responsible for that, it really isn't directed at Marrone (though I do think he's struggled a bit in this area). There is so much stuff that a head coach has to deal with it would be helpful to have one guy who is solely responsible for that. For instance...up 4, midfield, 2 minutes 10 seconds to go opponent has 1 timeout, we have 2nd and 5. If we run the ball twice and don't get the first down how much time do they have when the get the ball back? We need a coach that has a big chart and can answer that immediately. Every team does...
 
No. It isn't a question of conservative vs aggressive. By handing the ball off there you take a 0% chance of losing and turning it into a non-zero chance of losing. And that is stupidity. Ever hear of Joe Pisarcik?

You don't want Ameen-Moore running on third down because it happened once because of a bad exchange in 1978 and once in a Baylor game in like 1999? It's happened twice that anyone can think of and that's reason enough?

I get what you're saying. But to me, the combined odds of A) A fumble B) Pitt gaining 50 yards in 40 seconds with 0 time outs and C) Pitt scoring a touchdown or converting a field goal are way to low to worry too much about it.
 
Seriously, enjoy the win. Maybe we should have taken a knee on the INT because we might have fumbled.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 

Forum statistics

Threads
174,178
Messages
5,139,578
Members
6,110
Latest member
chhill

Online statistics

Members online
242
Guests online
1,757
Total visitors
1,999


...
Top Bottom