Stitt was right about punting

[BadlandsGrizFan]

To bad he got bullied out of his good judgment.

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/09/crazy_things_football_teams_should_always_do.html

I did wonder about that while watching the SFU game. If the research stands up I am surprised that Stitt would not use it.

Didn't Stitt say he determined going for it more so on gut feeling rather than stats?

 

[UMGriz75]

Are you implying that all athletes fit all systems? I mean, if these are the best athletes he's ever coached, they must fit the change of system from that they were recruited for.

Are you "implying" that athletes have certain natural skillsets that are not modifiable by coaching? These are 17 year old kids. That's what makes "recruiting" at best a "hope" and not a "guarantee."

I am stating, not implying, that not all athletes have the same types of skill sets, and therefore not all athletes will fit every system.

Well, I've been a coach for a very long time, and there's a lot to be said on that topic, and far more than can be said here, and it wouldn't survive the thread trolls in any case. However, to an extent, "systems" are strategies and those belong to the coach. Punting or not punting certainly depends on the coach's confidence level in somebody, the OL, the QB, the WRs ... or the punter for that matter. Same for taking his foot "off the gas" when there's a comfortable lead at the half. Perhaps that's the takeaway from this: Stitt does not have confidence in his offense and has resorted to a more conservative strategy; that the decision to punt shows that. As AZ notes, maybe it's just his gut feel on the day.

As I have noted, however, several decisions seem to reflect a conservatism I, for one, simply didn't expect.

 

[UMGriz75]

Did you read that article?

As I said, "on cue."

On cue, someone has the gall to call a post by 75 into question, and he instantly labels them as "troll" or accuses them of "hijacking" or "derailing" the thread.

Oh good heavens, egriz needs another thread nanny.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Did you read that article?

As I said, "on cue."

On cue, someone has the gall to call a post by 75 into question, and he instantly labels them as "troll" or accuses them of "hijacking" or "derailing" the thread.

Oh good heavens, egriz needs another thread nanny.

That actually seems to be the position that your are trying to fill.

 

[UMGriz75]

Did you read that article?

As I said, "on cue."

On cue, someone has the gall to call a post by 75 into question, and he instantly labels them as "troll" or accuses them of "hijacking" or "derailing" the thread.

You'd think, since I quoted a substantial portion of the article, located quite a ways into the article, that the question would have already been answered to anyone with a clue. Why do you think he asked the question?

 

[Fat Bruno]

Very interesting that so many UM coaches have had such success in their first year. However, nationally and over the long run, I think that would be far from the truth … would be an interesting question to research. Recruiting is not an exact science but a good staff can make some good educated guesses. Also, in a system like Stitt’s, which is at least to some degree unique (you can argue how unique), it is even more important to have his kind of player in place. He has had a particular situation here with a weak O-line, last year, and a series of quarterback problems which often made picking up any yardage a crap shoot on whichever down. That is why he is reluctant to go full bore on the 4th down strategy. I think that will change fairly dramatically over time.

 

[UMGriz75]

As I said, "on cue."

On cue, someone has the gall to call a post by 75 into question, and he instantly labels them as "troll" or accuses them of "hijacking" or "derailing" the thread.

Oh good heavens, egriz needs another thread nanny.

That actually seems to be the position that your are trying to fill.

Well, there you go. Whine some more. "I know you are but what am I" worked for Pee Wee Herman, but you don't wear as well.

 

[SaskGriz]

To bad he got bullied out of his good judgment.

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/09/crazy_things_football_teams_should_always_do.html

I did wonder about that while watching the SFU game. If the research stands up I am surprised that Stitt would not use it.

Didn't Stitt say he determined going for it more so on gut feeling rather than stats?

He might well have said that, and nothing wrong if he did. I'm not being critical of Coach, just wondering.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Did you read that article?

As I said, "on cue."

On cue, someone has the gall to call a post by 75 into question, and he instantly labels them as "troll" or accuses them of "hijacking" or "derailing" the thread.

You'd think, since I quoted a substantial portion of the article, located quite a ways into the article, that the question would have already been answered to anyone with a clue. Why do you think he asked the question?

I guess with your track record, no one assumes that you imply anything.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Don't over complicate it. The more Stitt gets his personnel in place, the more he'll go with his philosophy.

That generally has not been true at UM. Insofar as conference records are concerned, relying primarily on predecessor's recruiting,
Don Read's first year was his best.
Mick Dennehy's first year was his best.
Joe Glenn's first year was his best.
Robin Pflugrad's second year was hard to beat.
The exception to that was Bobby Hauck, who definitely got better with his own recruits.
Delaney got into the playoffs his second and third years.

As far as their overall records (conference and non-conference), since Larry Donovan, of seven coaches only Mick Delaney had a worse first year record than Bob Stitt.

While it is a very plausible "truism" that coaches get better results with their "own" recruits, there really isn't a strong basis in UM's program history to argue that. I couldn't argue any logic to that record, just that it is the record.

Where are you getting these facts? Must be from a different record....

Don Read's first year was HARDLY his best. He was 6-4 his first year at Montana. He finished up 10-2, 11-3 and 13-2.
Mick Dennehy's first year (14-1) was his best.
Joe Glenn was 13-2 his first year, but 15-1 in his second year.
Pflu's 2nd year was his best and you already discussed Bobby's improvement over time.

And, since Larry Donovan departed, Don Read (6-4), Robin Pflugrad (7-4) and Mick Delaney (5-6) ALL had the same or worse first years than Bob Stitt (7-4, unless you're counting 8-5 with the playoff win & loss).

 

[UMGriz75]

This is why, kids recruited by MD might not have skill sets that will thrive in the changed philosophy brought by Stitt. As for your "best athletes" statement, it is true that the kids at UM are most likely better athletes than at CSM, but how they are compared to the opponent is all relative.

That's why I noted that even kids recruited by Bob Stitt may not "thrive" in the "changed philosophy" brought about, such as Daum. As a student of Jud Heathcote, I learned early on from the Master himself, recruiting is its own special risk.

No, but you would hope that the percentages were in your favor if you recruit a kid with the skill set you covet.

Well, you've only got so many scholarships and lots of positions to fill. I've always enjoyed the conversations that start with "Stitt is going to recruit quarterbacks that are smart and fast!" Because, as we all know, coaches in general aren't looking for quarterbacks that are "smart and fast."

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

On cue, someone has the gall to call a post by 75 into question, and he instantly labels them as "troll" or accuses them of "hijacking" or "derailing" the thread.

Oh good heavens, egriz needs another thread nanny.

That actually seems to be the position that your are trying to fill.

Well, there you go. Whine some more. "I know you are but what am I" worked for Pee Wee Herman, but you don't wear as well.

WTF?

 

[grizpsych]

not that anyone cares....but my take on Stitt's....."go for it, no punting strategy"......have to punt....when you don't have complete confidence in your offense.......

I think it depends on the quality of the opponent. He goes traditional playing an opponent we are expected to easily beat. And ramps up his philosophy when the opponent gets tougher. Thus, I expect to see more fourth down offensive plays on Saturday.

 

[UMGriz75]

Where are you getting these facts? Must be from a different record....

Don Read's first year was HARDLY his best. He was 6-4 his first year at Montana. He finished up 10-2, 11-3 and 13-2.

You are right. The list I looked at was an abbreviated list, and I did not notice that.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

This is why, kids recruited by MD might not have skill sets that will thrive in the changed philosophy brought by Stitt. As for your "best athletes" statement, it is true that the kids at UM are most likely better athletes than at CSM, but how they are compared to the opponent is all relative.

That's why I noted that even kids recruited by Bob Stitt may not "thrive" in the "changed philosophy" brought about, such as Daum. As a student of Jud Heathcote, I learned early on from the Master himself, recruiting is its own special risk.

No, but you would hope that the percentages were in your favor if you recruit a kid with the skill set you covet.

Well, you've only got so many scholarships and lots of positions to fill. I've always enjoyed the conversations that start with "Stitt is going to recruit quarterbacks that are smart and fast!" Because, as we all know, coaches in general aren't looking for quarterbacks that are "smart and fast."

I always assumed that Stitt would recruit the best QB, the best football players, he can with the skill sets he believes are the best fit for his system. Not sure any of your posts addresses my previous statement though.

 

[UMGriz75]

As I said, "on cue."

On cue, someone has the gall to call a post by 75 into question, and he instantly labels them as "troll" or accuses them of "hijacking" or "derailing" the thread.

You'd think, since I quoted a substantial portion of the article, located quite a ways into the article, that the question would have already been answered to anyone with a clue. Why do you think he asked the question?

I guess with your track record, no one assumes that you imply anything.

Well, I am sure you can keep any thread going with your personal crap and pointless thread clutter.

Anything else to say about football? If not, go have a beer.

 

[Eriul]

On cue, someone has the gall to call a post by 75 into question, and he instantly labels them as "troll" or accuses them of "hijacking" or "derailing" the thread.

You'd think, since I quoted a substantial portion of the article, located quite a ways into the article, that the question would have already been answered to anyone with a clue. Why do you think he asked the question?

I guess with your track record, no one assumes that you imply anything.

Well, I am sure you can keep any thread going with your personal crap and pointless thread clutter.

Anything else to say about football? If not, go have a beer.

I want to hear your reply to the "facts" that AZ posted about coaches seasons and calling you on your BS

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

On cue, someone has the gall to call a post by 75 into question, and he instantly labels them as "troll" or accuses them of "hijacking" or "derailing" the thread.

You'd think, since I quoted a substantial portion of the article, located quite a ways into the article, that the question would have already been answered to anyone with a clue. Why do you think he asked the question?

I guess with your track record, no one assumes that you imply anything.

Well, I am sure you can keep any thread going with your personal crap and pointless thread clutter.

Anything else to say about football? If not, go have a beer.

Funny that you said "pointless thread clutter". LOL #kingofclutter

 

[UMGriz75]

To bad he got bullied out of his good judgment.

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/09/crazy_things_football_teams_should_always_do.html

I did wonder about that while watching the SFU game. If the research stands up I am surprised that Stitt would not use it.

Didn't Stitt say he determined going for it more so on gut feeling rather than stats?

Something like that. Rachac wrote this last May:

If you're a Griz fan, how will you react the first time new coach Bob Stitt decides to go for it on fourth down from his own 35 yard line ... and then they don't get it? How will you react if the opponent, let's say it's four-time defending national champion North Dakota State, subsequently takes that gift and scores a touchdown? I'm envisioning a chorus of boos from 27,000 fans at Washington-Grizzly Stadium.

Of course, Montana won't go for it on every fourth down this season. There will be time for punts and field goals. But with Stitt now at the helm, many traditional philosophies that have permeated the game for generations will be discarded.

Stitt wants to run as many offensive plays as possible in order to wear down defenses, and that includes pushing the boundaries in fourth-down situations. That, he says, is how you outlast teams when it gets down to crunch time in the fourth quarter.

“You’ve got four downs, you might as well use them,” Stitt said recently. “It’s not something that a lot of people agree with, but you’re manufacturing turnovers. When you go for it on fourth down and you get it, it’s a turnover. And you’re getting the ball in good field position and you’re keeping their defense on the field.

“As the play count goes up our success goes up. If we don’t get the fourth down the defense only has to defend a short field and it keeps them fresh. Also, (the opposition is) either going to score quick or be off the field quick and we get their defense back on the field. In the end, in the fourth quarter, that’s where you win it. That’s where you’ve grinded them out.”

Last year at Division II Colorado School of Mines, Stitt's offense went for it on fourth down an astounding 51 times. They converted 33 of them, a success rate of 65 percent. Comparatively, Mick Delaney (a traditionalist by every stretch of the word) elected to go for it just 15 times on fourth down last season, and the Grizzlies converted nine of them. Stitt's offense at Mines averaged just under 90 offensive snaps and 39 points per game in 2014. The Griz, meanwhile, had averages of 64 plays and 29 points per game.

Stitt explained his fourth-down philosophy further, saying:

“It’s a gut feeling and something I believe in. The people that are negative towards it don’t really understand football and they don’t look at the positives of it. Through our research (at Mines), when we converted a fourth down we averaged five points, and when we didn’t convert we gave up .5.

“Yeah, it’s going to look bad and it’s going to be glaring when it doesn’t work, but all the times that it did work gave us the ability to win some games maybe we shouldn’t have. I’m not afraid of that. It will look pretty silly if we don’t convert (fourth down) on national TV, but I’m OK with that. I can take that heat.”

Are Griz fans ready for Stitt's evolutionary fourth-down tactics? Remember, offenses in the Big Sky Conference can put up huge points — five Big Sky teams ranked in the top 25 in the nation in scoring last season. Giving up short fields to teams in this league, even 30 percent of the time, seems pretty dangerous.

This will be one of the most intriguing subplots to Montana's 2015 season.

http://billingsgazette.com/sports/college/big-sky-conference/university-of-montana/football/um-s-stitt-pushes-fourth-down-boundaries/article_7b3c4dfd-24cc-554b-bfc5-f18ac31a6180.html

 

[UMGriz75]

Funny that you said "pointless thread clutter". LOL #kingofclutter

Yep, there it is. "On cue."