Bad Coaching

[Apis Bull]

Actually, you do when it's 3rd and goal from the half yard line. The opportunity cost of orchestrating an advanced play like that played out for all of us to see. Five yard penalty. 

And if you can't take a snap from under center and pop it over the line, then you have no business accepting a scholarship to a D1 program. Taggart sharted himself calling such an idiotic play.

 

This is a silly statement as several P5 programs don't have their QB takes snaps under center, ever.  This is an inherent issue with the spread offense.  I've seen it as an issue with several teams, such as Oregon.

I'm curious, if the penalty didn't occur, how many would be on here saying that it was a bad call and that Price should have never gone in motion?   We have lots of plays where the TE goes into motion and we rarely have an illegal procedure call.  I could see if this were an ongoing issue to question it, but it hasn't been.  One of the receivers erred, it's really that simple.

[Who'sYourData?]

Back to the coaching.  I'm somewhat torn.  The coaching and results have been marginally better this year.  And we did win the game.  On the other hand, we went through a stretch there (again) when CWT refused to call a pass play.  We had receivers open all night long.  I understand we are a run first team.  But you can't run the ball effectively if you refuse to pass.  I understand that QF was throwing the ball horribly all night, but during that third quarter and into the fourth, we needed to mix in a couple more passes on first and second down.  We were too predictable, finally pulled ahead when we opened it up a bit more.

On the other hand, Tom Allen is the best DC we've had since Wally Burnham.

[Calibull]

First of all, its simple mathematics.  Secondly, it was a rainy night with a soggy field.  Any other coach goes for 2 in that situation.  Either way if they march the distance of the field would you rather have a 5 point lead or a 6 point lead?  It wasn't early in the game, this happened with 4 minutes left.  These decisions are important.  It didn't come back to bite us today.  But we saw this under the Skip Holtz regime too.  I'm thinking you're response wasn't thought out too well. 

I figured it out with that last comment, you don't know anything strategic about football except the score if you don't know why there is no difference... unless they changed the two point play into a three point play and nobody knew.  As I said, you didn't think it out. 

[USFbulls24]

He didn't feel they'd be able to march the distance and score a touchdown, so what difference would it have made?  I mean 2 points would have still made it so they needed a TD to win.  I mean unless you're banking on someone missing an extra point, then this is literally a moot argument.  I honestly don't get your argument.  It's not well thought out and appears to be out of emotion. 

Haha.. 

Missed extra points happen. You're not BANKING on anything, you're simply giving your team a chance to extend the game if the scenario of ECU going down to score at the end of the game happened. What scenario would you rather be in: ECU scores with very little time left and prior to the extra point you're already losing, or you're tied? You can say it doesn't matter, but every coach in America is going to tell you they want a chance to block the extra point, chance for a bad snap, chance the kicker just flat out misses, etc and so would I. We missed a 22 yarder or something ridiculously close in the game. Anything can happen. I thought it was a bad decision. It obviously didn't matter in the end, but there's no reason to not go for 2 there. 

Edited November 8, 2015 by USFbulls24

[Calibull]

Haha.. 

Missed extra points happen. You're not BANKING on anything, you're simply giving your team a chance to extend the game if the scenario of ECU going down to score at the end of the game happened. What scenario would you rather be in: ECU scores with very little time left and prior to the extra point you're already losing, or you're tied? You can say it doesn't matter, but every coach in America is going to tell you they want a chance to block the extra point, chance for a bad snap, chance the kicker just flat out misses, etc and so would I. We missed a 22 yarder or something ridiculously close in the game. Anything can happen. I thought it was a bad decision. It obviously didn't matter in the end, but there's no reason to not go for 2 there. 

Because there was a 100% chance we'd get the 2 points?  It didn't make a difference because they would have needed seven to score and the defense was playing good.  The numbers say no difference between 5 and five.  But if he missed the two points... then what?  No harm, no foul?  It didn't make a difference. 

[Bull Dozer]

This is not a huge deal but some people love to dig up reasons to bash Taggart after wins. 

[FlowerPower]

why can't anyone be happy with a win? this is ridiculous. If we had lost you all would be calling for his head, now we win and you still want him gone. Had it not been raining, and at home, it would have been a much different game but we came out with a win.

[USFbulls24]

Because there was a 100% chance we'd get the 2 points?  It didn't make a difference because they would have needed seven to score and the defense was playing good.  The numbers say no difference between 5 and five.  But if he missed the two points... then what?  No harm, no foul?  It didn't make a difference. 

Not at all, but you're giving yourself that chance. Had they gone down and scored you're losing prior to the extra point whether you missed the 2 point conversion or kicked the extra point. You have the opportunity in your control after you score the TD to execute and put yourself up by 6. I don't think it's a major issue and I'm certainly not bashing him, but there was no reason not to go for 2 there.

If he missed the two point conversion we are up by 4 so ECU still has to get a TD to extend or win the game and we end up winning by 4 so yes no harm, no foul. 

Edited November 8, 2015 by USFbulls24

[USFbulls24]

why can't anyone be happy with a win? this is ridiculous. If we had lost you all would be calling for his head, now we win and you still want him gone. Had it not been raining, and at home, it would have been a much different game but we came out with a win.

Don't remember calling for his head at all. 95+% of coaches in America go for 2 there. It's okay to point out that we think he made a mistake in that scenario. A mistake that didn't mean anything in the end, but still. 

[MikeG]

If I were coaching the team, I would have gone for two simply to make it a 6 point game, realizing the 4 or 5 point lead were equivalent and going for the 6 point lead gives us an extra chance at avoiding a loss-- however slight that gain in advantage might be.

I get that some people don't like Taggart and I certainly have been annoyed by various coaching related situations under his regime. He isn't perfect by any means as a coach but IIRC no coach usually is perfect (even under Leavitt sometimes you were just scratching your head trying to understand WHY did they do that?).

The part that is glaring though in this case is the simple math involved. Some argued that he wanted to give his kicker confidence? Do that on the practice field. The kicker knows 6 points is better than 5 or 4. If we don't make it-- so what? The only possible thing to worry about would be them getting the ball and running it back for 2 points themselves- making it only a 2 point lead. Now if you weigh that chance versus the shot of forcing them to make an extra point if they get a tying TD-- ok-- maybe it makes a little sense. Of course-- if that is your line of thinking-- you might as well down the ball on the extra point try to avoid the chance it gets blocked while you are at it.

I think even CWT would see this was an obvious error. Not the "fire him now" type or one that resulted in a loss but hopefully something he will learn from.

Anyway -- I am glad they won. But I do wonder why we do things sometimes. How our team uses the clock or time outs is so predictably bad (in all eras- even Leavitt) that I have come to expect it. People calling for Taggart's head makes me laugh because 1) they think what gets said here actually matters to anyone making decisions like that  AND 2) Willie is not going anywhere for at least one more year short of going on a player slapping spree. The number of wins he has put together and the visible progress of the team is enough for most fans to understand the program is at the very least moving in the right direction. Some times though-- I wonder if a different coaching staff would have this team winning the close losses and winning by more in the other games. Players have a base line level of ability-- but with proper coaching, they tend to make less mistakes (penalties, illegal formations, clock management, running out of bounds, etc) and get closer to maximizing their efforts.