BJ Daniels is to blame!

[No_Willie_Jokes_Yet]

Oh wait, I mean.... "BJ Daniels is to blame?"

Okay, so I sucked some of you into this thread with rage already but read this one carefully:

I was a bit dissapointed to hear Holtz throw BJ under the bus regarding the clock management issue at the end of the first half. On the radio he pretty much called BJ out on trying to run when he wanted him to pass. He seemed to be blaming his decision (what might appear to be a bad decision) on BJ. While I am a fan who has been critical of BJ publically, I dont expect that of his coach. In fact, I was a bit worried that media statements like that can form a wedge between a coach and his players.

I didnt like the call but I also understood it. (No, not cause of BJ). My thoughts were Holtz was gonna say something like:

"Well, I thought about calling the timeout and running one more pass play BUT I was worried that if we didnt get the TD we might not get the field goal unit out and set up in time. I wanted to take the sure points and give our kicker the best chance of making the kick and taking the points".

It was odd to hear him throw BJ under the bus. Especially considering the demeanor of our CWSNBN (coach who shall not be named) who would have blamed himself before a player.

This topic may have already been posted or addressed in other posts. If so I appoligize, even though Gibbs says that is a sign of weakness.

[Triple B]

If there's any wedge driven because of this, it will be fan and media driven, making a mountain out of a molehill .... as usual. I don't understand what the big freaking deal is. Skip was asked the question coming off right after it happened. He gave an honest answer that BJ thought he could make it but he didn't. Maybe if he had time to think, and cover for BJ he would have, but either way it shouldn't be a big deal.

[No_Willie_Jokes_Yet]

If there's any wedge driven because of this, it will be fan and media driven, making a mountain out of a molehill .... as usual. I don't understand what the big freaking deal is. Skip was asked the question coming off right after it happened. He gave an honest answer that BJ thought he could make it but he didn't. Maybe if he had time to think, and cover for BJ he would have, but either way it shouldn't be a big deal.

Trip, I understand what you are saying. As a Bull fan it is definately something we havent been used to. We all became fluent in coach speak over the last ten years. Sure Skip Holtz has been much more straight forward with the media, I mean when was the last time a USF football coach would talk about putting in the 2nd string in a game before we played? That was actually refreshing before the FAMU game. Our former CWSNBN would have made them sound like world beaters and that we would be lucky to be in the game in the 4th quarter!

Now, I also disagree with your post as "honest answers given without time to think" will often create LONG TERM issues. Just watch a friend as his wife says "Do these jeans make my butt look big?" Quick honest answer or experienced wise deflection and some husband speach?

[Bull94]

If there's any wedge driven because of this, it will be fan and media driven, making a mountain out of a molehill .... as usual. I don't understand what the big freaking deal is. Skip was asked the question coming off right after it happened. He gave an honest answer that BJ thought he could make it but he didn't. Maybe if he had time to think, and cover for BJ he would have, but either way it shouldn't be a big deal.

that's exactly what will drive the wedge. assigning blame just like Holtz did.

the lack of a timeout was all on Holtz. he can rationalize it all he wants but he showed no confidence in his QB and played not to lose.

[Triple B]

that's exactly what will drive the wedge. assigning blame just like Holtz did.

the lack of a timeout was all on Holtz. he can rationalize it all he wants but he showed no confidence in his QB and played not to lose.

... the qb who had just made a decision that cost valuable time. Coming away at that point, already being "screwed" out of 14 points on that drive, would have been a disaster ... and not having a time out left, in case something SIMILAR happened on 3rd down, would have been the wrong thing to do ... you can rationalize all you want to about that ... and if BJ has matured as much off the field as he has on, he won't like it because he wants to make a play, but he'll understand it.

[Bull94]

... the qb who had just made a decision that cost valuable time. Coming away at that point, already being "screwed" out of 14 points on that drive, would have been a disaster ... and not having a time out left, in case something SIMILAR happened on 3rd down, would have been the wrong thing to do ... you can rationalize all you want to about that ... and if BJ has matured as much off the field as he has on, he won't like it because he wants to make a play, but he'll understand it.

sorry but you're wrong.

no head coach in their right mind would run close to 20 seconds off the clock to kick a field goal on third down from the 2.

why didn't holtz leave enough time on the clock for a possible bad snap on the FG attempt? or an offensive penalty? or any number of scenarios that could have negated the FG attempt.

he's coaching not to lose and throwing BJ under the bus is embarrassing.

[Triple B]

sorry but you're wrong.

no head coach in their right mind would run close to 20 seconds off the clock to kick a field goal on third down from the 2.

Sorry, no, I'm not "wrong", it's my opinion and it just differs from yours ...

[Bull94]

Sorry, no, I'm not "wrong", it's my opinion and it just differs from yours ...

you base it on opinion.

it should be based on math. Math says you go for it.

just like going for it on 4th down from the 1 yard line is mathematically more favorable than kicking a FG(going for it on 4th down produces expected points greater than 3).

He made a dumb decision based on the expected points.

A FG is worth 2.7 points as there are scenarios where a FG is blocked (hey that happened to us!), missed FG, etc.

going for a TD from the 2 yard line on 3rd down with 20 seconds left produces expected points greater than 2.7.

In fact going for it on 4th down from the 2 produces expected points just over 4.

here are a couple of excerpts from the article arguing to be more aggressive. see if they fit our situation:

David Romer's explanation goes a step further. He suggests that coaches are thinking more about their job security than their team's chances of winning. Coaches know that if they follow age-old convention by kicking and lose, then the players get most of the blame.

and another:

I buy both of those explanations, plus I'll throw in my own take. In addition to the natural conservatism of coaches, I believe much of the reason why coaches don't go for the conversion more often can be explained by Prospect Theory. As I outlined in my Decision Theory article, people tend to fear a loss more than they value an equivalent gain. This built-in tendency toward risk aversion means that coaches are biased toward kicks rather than conversion attempts. They understandably view an unsuccessful conversion attempt as a 'loss' and a successful one as a 'gain.' But people naturally tend to exaggerate the consequences of a loss, and this favors the conservative decision.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-1.html

[Triple B]

you base it on opinion.

it should be based on math. Math says you go for it.

just like going for it on 4th down from the 1 yard line is mathematically more favorable than kicking a FG(going for it on 4th down produces expected points greater than 3).

He made a dumb decision based on the expected points.

A FG is worth 2.7 points as there are scenarios where a FG is blocked (hey that happened to us!), missed FG, etc.

going for a TD from the 2 yard line on 3rd down with 20 seconds left produces expected points greater than 2.7.

In fact going for it on 4th down from the 2 produces expected points just over 4.

here are a couple of excerpts from the article arguing to be more aggressive. see if they fit our situation:

David Romer's explanation goes a step further. He suggests that coaches are thinking more about their job security than their team's chances of winning. Coaches know that if they follow age-old convention by kicking and lose, then the players get most of the blame.

and another:

I buy both of those explanations, plus I'll throw in my own take. In addition to the natural conservatism of coaches, I believe much of the reason why coaches don't go for the conversion more often can be explained by Prospect Theory. As I outlined in my Decision Theory article, people tend to fear a loss more than they value an equivalent gain. This built-in tendency toward risk aversion means that coaches are biased toward kicks rather than conversion attempts. They understandably view an unsuccessful conversion attempt as a 'loss' and a successful one as a 'gain.' But people naturally tend to exaggerate the consequences of a loss, and this favors the conservative decision.

http://www.advancedn...udy-part-1.html

LOL ... a textbook overanalyzation ... but thanks for sharing.

[Bull94]

LOL ... a textbook overanalyzation ... but thanks for sharing.

what?? it's simple math.

your "opinion" and Holtz's opinion is wrong and I proved it with mathematical facts.