Stitt's Ego/Inflexibility

[Eriul]

Remember when we consistently had one of the best if not the best o line in the fcs every year?

I miss Colin dow

 

[KidColorado]

From a guy on the outside looking in:

Stay the course. Let Stitt recruit the type of players he needs. Stitt is winning with another coaches recruits and key injuries... This says a lot about the guy!

You will be happy people in the next couple years.

 

[UMGriz75]

Brady. NDSU
30 pass completions out of 55 attempts, a 55% success rate. He put up great passing yardage at 434 yards, and averaged 14.4 yards per successful pass. 1 interception. He had three passes that resulted in touchdowns, 5.5% of his attempted pass total, 10% of his successful pass total. Rushing yards net, 4.

Makena. UND
16 pass completions out of 23 attempts, a 70% completion rate; averaging 20 yards per successful throw. Total, 323 yards. The six TD passes represented 26% of his total passing attempts and 38% of his successful passing efforts. Rushing yards net, 16.

Comparing these two first starting games for these two QB, compare to Prukop's 2015 stats:

Dakota (season average)
17 pass completions out of 28.4 attempts, a 62.8% completion rate; averaging 16.5 yds per successful attempt. Total average 294 passing yards. Averages 2.57 TD passes per game. TD passes represent 9% of his total passing attempts and 16% of his successful passing efforts. Rushing yards 79. Average rushing TD, 1.1 per game.

Now, compare subsequent games

Brady, Cal Poly
40 pass completions out of 64, a 62% completion rate, average 8.8 yards, total 353 yds. 1 TD. 3 interceptions. Rushing yds 29, for an average run of 3.2 yds.

Makena, ISU
23 pass completions out of 39 attempts, a 59% completion rate; average 7.3 yds per successful attempt. Total 169 passing yards. O TD. 1 interception.Rushing yards 105 (4.8 yds per carry, Calhoun (98) 4.7 yds, JN (62), 3.6 yds).

Both Brady and Makena started with great games, and then their statistics deteriorated significantly thereafter. In each case, their second games saw significant reductions in average throwing yardage, and increased interceptions and other errors. In Brady's case, his inability to run resulted in loss. In Makena's case, his ability to run made up for the deterioration in passing game.

In both cases, QB play deteriorated from high level performances to sub-par performances because of changes in the game plays. Stitt likes a lot of those short plays. Chad Chalich's games were right on where Brady and Makena "ended up," and so Chad was likely playing Stitt's game from the get go: 59% passing completion, 9 yds average throw, 3.8 yds rushing (64 yd).

There are distinct patterns of play from all three QBs that converge at remarkably similar statistics the more games they play under Stitt.

 

[tnt]

Brady. NDSU
30 pass completions out of 55 attempts, a 55% success rate. He put up great passing yardage at 434 yards, and averaged 14.4 yards per successful pass. He had three passes that resulted in touchdowns, 5.5% of his attempted pass total, 10% of his successful pass total. Rushing yards net, 4.

Makena. UND
16 pass completions out of 23 attempts, a 70% completion rate; averaging 20 yards per successful throw. Total, 323 yards. The six TD passes represented 26% of his total passing attempts and 38% of his successful passing efforts. Rushing yards net, 16.

Comparing these two first starting games for these two QB, compare to Prukop's 2015 stats:

Dakota (season average)
17 pass completions out of 28.4 attempts, a 62.8% completion rate; averaging 16.5 yds per successful attempt. Total average 294 passing yards. Averages 2.57 TD passes per game. TD passes represent 9% of his total passing attempts and 16% of his successful passing efforts. Rushing yards 79. Average rushing TD, 1.1 per game.

Now, compare subsequent games

Brady, Cal Poly
40 pass completions out of 64, a 62% completion rate, average 8.8 yards, total 353 yds. 1 TD. Rushing yds 29, for an average run of 3.2 yds.

Makena, ISU
23 pass completions out of 39 attempts, a 59% completion rate; average 7.3 yds per successful attempt. Total 169 passing yards. O TD. Rushing yards 105 (4.8 yds per carry, Calhoun (98) 4.7 yds, JN (62), 3.6 yds).

Both Brady and Makena started with great games, and then their statistics deteriorated significantly thereafter. In each case, their second games saw significant reductions in average throwing yardage, and increased interceptions and other errors. In Brady's case, his inability to run resulted in loss. In Makena's case, his ability to run made up for the deterioration in passing game.

In both cases, QB play deteriorated from high level performances to sub-par performances because of changes in the game plays. Stitt likes a lot of those short plays. Chad Chalich's games were right on where Brady and Makena "ended up," and so Chad was likely playing Stitt's game from the get go: 59% passing completion, 9 yds average throw, 3.8 yds rushing (64 yd).

There are distinct patterns of play from all three QBs that converge at remarkably similar statistics the more games they play under Stitt.

Correlation doesn't equal causation. In fact Delaney in talked in great detail during the PSU game as to why and how often that exact thing happens with new/unexperienced QB's. Hero to Goat seems to be more the rule than the exception

 

[UMGriz75]

Correlation doesn't equal causation. In fact Delaney in talked in great detail during the PSU game as to why and how often that exact thing happens with new/unexperienced QB's. Hero to Goat seems to be more the rule than the exception

Dakota (season average)
17 pass completions out of 28.4 attempts, a 62.8% completion rate; averaging 16.5 yds per successful attempt. Total average 294 passing yards. Averages 2.57 TD passes per game. TD passes represent 9% of his total passing attempts and 16% of his successful passing efforts. Rushing yards 79. Average rushing TD, 1.1 per game.

Dakota Prukop, SUU game
18 pass completions out of 30 attempts, 60% completion rate; averaging 9 yds per successful attempt, 224 yds. 1 TD, 2 interceptions. Rushing yards, 96, 5.6 yds per carry.

Hero, meet Goat.

One of my early concerns, or at least my curiosity was piqued, was the "90 play" strategy. I thought that was interesting, and in part because any time the complexity of a machine or function is increased, the statistical probability of error is cumulative. The "90 Play" approach appeared to mean, to me, a lot of fast, short plays. Coach Stitt has taken some very good long-ball talent and tried to fit it into that fast, short strategy.

And, the experience of the QB is irrelevant, as the above comparisons between Brady, Makena and Dakota Prukop demonstrate. In each instance, when the play design results in passing for less than an average of 10 yards, the completion percentage falls and the probability of an interception nearly triples. Multiply that by the number of plays. And the overall talent of the OL doesn't appear particularly relevant either, as to UM (awful according to reports) with UND or MSU (totally awesome according to reports) at either UND or SUU.

And, the amazing consistency for which that statistic holds (albeit on a small sample size), also holds for losing the game or coming too close for comfort.

 

[ranco]

It appears to me, we somehow make every defense look good, despite having a lot firepower-great receivers. That would suggest we are predictable. Somehow we play schools from North Dakota better, but that could be because those opponents faced new QBs and were not able to prepare a game plan to stop predictable QB patterns. Still IMO, Stitt will eventually prove to be a good hire.

We have three very good receivers but, outside of that, the offense has no fire power. Our o-line is in the bottom half of the Bigsky, our QB's are in the bottom half of the Bigksy and our running backs are in the bottom half of the Bigsky. None of that is Stitt's fault. How can we expect to have a great offense, when overall we lack the personnel? Stitt has done a good job with the hand he has been dealt.

 

[Buttegrizzle]

Stitt is not changing anything, he is still trying to do all the things you are listing as changes but as I knew he would he is failing on the big stage. His coaching is pure poppycock plain and simple.

Griz should have hired Coach Hauck back and we would be winning the BSC and making another deep run into the playoffs.

Shhhhaaaaaaddduup.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

Correlation doesn't equal causation. In fact Delaney in talked in great detail during the PSU game as to why and how often that exact thing happens with new/unexperienced QB's. Hero to Goat seems to be more the rule than the exception

Dakota (season average)
17 pass completions out of 28.4 attempts, a 62.8% completion rate; averaging 16.5 yds per successful attempt. Total average 294 passing yards. Averages 2.57 TD passes per game. TD passes represent 9% of his total passing attempts and 16% of his successful passing efforts. Rushing yards 79. Average rushing TD, 1.1 per game.

Dakota Prukop, SUU game
18 pass completions out of 30 attempts, 60% completion rate; averaging 9 yds per successful attempt, 224 yds. 1 TD, 2 interceptions. Rushing yards, 96, 5.6 yds per carry.

Hero, meet Goat.

One of my early concerns, or at least my curiosity was piqued, was the "90 play" strategy. I thought that was interesting, and in part because any time the complexity of a machine or function is increased, the statistical probability of error is cumulative. The "90 Play" approach appeared to mean, to me, a lot of fast, short plays. Coach Stitt has taken some very good long-ball talent and tried to fit it into that fast, short strategy.

And, the experience of the QB is irrelevant, as the above comparisons between Brady, Makena and Dakota Prukop demonstrate. In each instance, when the play design results in passing for less than an average of 10 yards, the completion percentage falls and the probability of an interception nearly triples. Multiply that by the number of plays. And the overall talent of the OL doesn't appear particularly relevant either, as to UM (awful according to reports) with UND or MSU (totally awesome according to reports) at either UND or SUU.

And, the amazing consistency for which that statistic holds (albeit on a small sample size), also holds for losing the game or coming too close for comfort.

And for each second game, defensive coordinators had game film to break down and find tendencies and plot strategies over several days. Maybe the offense should change strategies a little each game to get away from spotted tendencies. Seems to me 10 minutes with Gregorak on Sunday asking how he would adjust to defend what the Griz were doing Saturday would be a conversation worth having.

 

[mcg]

From a guy on the outside looking in:

Stay the course. Let Stitt recruit the type of players he needs. Stitt is winning with another coaches recruits and key injuries... This says a lot about the guy!

You will be happy people in the next couple years.

That's exactly what Bill McCartney would say. It worked for him back in the 1990's.

 

[tnt]

And for each second game, defensive coordinators had game film to break down and find tendencies and plot strategies over several days. Maybe the offense should change strategies a little each game to get away from spotted tendencies. Seems to me 10 minutes with Gregorak on Sunday asking how he would adjust to defend what the Griz were doing Saturday would be a conversation worth having.

That's one of the many reasons why succeeding performances tend to decline....... Its pretty hard to "coach to the strengths of the QB" when that QB has only a few tricks in his bag. Once they are known they can push his limits pretty easily as did PSU.

My BIL was a professional poker player - a very good one (world series finalist several times) Odds players according to him were ALWAYS the easiest to beat. Its like telling everybody what you are going to do next. He knew exactly what was in their hand Running 90 plays doesn't help your odds, especially when have only a few options. Smart coaches have already queued in on what's coming next. The odds actually go against you.

 

[Glendivegriz]

From a guy on the outside looking in:

Stay the course. Let Stitt recruit the type of players he needs. Stitt is winning with another coaches recruits and key injuries... This says a lot about the guy!

You will be happy people in the next couple years.

That's exactly what Bill McCartney would say. It worked for him back in the 1990's.

That would be great if there was a lack of talent. I don't think that is the case. Bill McCartney took over a program in shambles. There was no where to go but up. The point of the thread is that there seems to be a rigidity of thinking. You coach to your strengths and not in spite of them.

 

[griz5700]

Purging the roster of tight ends, H- backs and a fullback, significantly reduces your options in both the run game and in the red zone. We never put a man in motion to confuse the defense. We have two all Americans at wide out and can't get them enough touches. Jones and Henderson are working against press coverage with help over the top. Anyone who coached football beyond the sixth grade knows that putting your stud receivers in the slot position takes them off the scrimmage line and allows for more and different routes they can run. Jones was awesome last year in the slot, running crossing patterns and seem routes. We almost never put either one of them in motion to confuse press coverage. The Griz offense right now is the most predicable offense in the Big Sky. Our offensive line has done a decent job considering the defense knows the only thing they have to defend is a very vanilla zone read option. Great job by the Griz defense, the pick six and of course miracle in overtime were special.

Great post. This is spot on.

People are so wrong on so many things with this offense, the "terrible" o-line for example. Simple minds.

 

[get'em_griz]

From a guy on the outside looking in:

Stay the course. Let Stitt recruit the type of players he needs. Stitt is winning with another coaches recruits and key injuries... This says a lot about the guy!

You will be happy people in the next couple years.

That's exactly what Bill McCartney would say. It worked for him back in the 1990's.

That would be great if there was a lack of talent. I don't think that is the case. Bill McCartney took over a program in shambles. There was no where to go but up. The point of the thread is that there seems to be a rigidity of thinking. You coach to your strengths and not in spite of them.

If Stitt coached with what he had, then that would delay the implementation of his offense that he wants to run. I'd rather him rip the band-aid off quickly and get his system in place rather than him slowly implement it over time. By implementing it now, he's setting the tone that the future starts now, not in a few years once he has his recruits in place. Pflugrad did the exact same thing when he took over in 2010 and people absolutely tore him up for his decision to do so. Because of that, we saw a semifinal appearance in 2011 (JJ's first year starting and a Pflu recruit). If Pflu had coached to the strengths of the 2010 team (Hauck's recruits), we may not have even had that semifinal run in 2011. Running the spread in 2010 was important to prepare the players for the 2011 run. Stitt is doing the same thing because he sees the bigger picture... short-term sacrifice for long-term gains.

 

[Grizzoola]

The predicted 65/35 pass:run ratio going to a 50/50 ratio as mentioned earlier is significant. Stitt was supposed to be the second coming of Read, but lately, his predicted style is not panning out. Others have noted the repetitive runs by Ngyuen up the gut, when obviously those plays weren't working, except for one.

I think Simis, Hendu, and Jones should be turned loose, so they can get into the rhythm that a passing unit needs. Of course, it would be great if Simis had more pass protection. But I agree with those who complain about sticking to Ngyuen's up the gut runs, when after 3 & outs and other times when they clearly didn't work. If Stitt were inflexible, I'd say it's in this respect.

 

[Glendivegriz]

From a guy on the outside looking in:

Stay the course. Let Stitt recruit the type of players he needs. Stitt is winning with another coaches recruits and key injuries... This says a lot about the guy!

You will be happy people in the next couple years.

That's exactly what Bill McCartney would say. It worked for him back in the 1990's.

That would be great if there was a lack of talent. I don't think that is the case. Bill McCartney took over a program in shambles. There was no where to go but up. The point of the thread is that there seems to be a rigidity of thinking. You coach to your strengths and not in spite of them.

If Stitt coached with what he had, then that would delay the implementation of his offense that he wants to run. I'd rather him rip the band-aid off quickly and get his system in place rather than him slowly implement it over time. By implementing it now, he's setting the tone that the future starts now, not in a few years once he has his recruits in place. Pflugrad did the exact same thing when he took over in 2010 and people absolutely tore him up for his decision to do so. Because of that, we saw a semifinal appearance in 2011 (JJ's first year starting and a Pflu recruit). If Pflu had coached to the strengths of the 2010 team (Hauck's recruits), we may not have even had that semifinal run in 2011. Running the spread in 2010 was important to prepare the players for the 2011 run. Stitt is doing the same thing because he sees the bigger picture... short-term sacrifice for long-term gains.

That makes no sense. Why implement a system with players you don't think will be playing next year. What good does that do? Besides few recruits that will come in next year will probably see the field for a year or two unless it's on special teams. Why even play Henderson and Jones then? Insert your new receivers now. Get them game experience.

 

[get'em_griz]

That's exactly what Bill McCartney would say. It worked for him back in the 1990's.

That would be great if there was a lack of talent. I don't think that is the case. Bill McCartney took over a program in shambles. There was no where to go but up. The point of the thread is that there seems to be a rigidity of thinking. You coach to your strengths and not in spite of them.

If Stitt coached with what he had, then that would delay the implementation of his offense that he wants to run. I'd rather him rip the band-aid off quickly and get his system in place rather than him slowly implement it over time. By implementing it now, he's setting the tone that the future starts now, not in a few years once he has his recruits in place. Pflugrad did the exact same thing when he took over in 2010 and people absolutely tore him up for his decision to do so. Because of that, we saw a semifinal appearance in 2011 (JJ's first year starting and a Pflu recruit). If Pflu had coached to the strengths of the 2010 team (Hauck's recruits), we may not have even had that semifinal run in 2011. Running the spread in 2010 was important to prepare the players for the 2011 run. Stitt is doing the same thing because he sees the bigger picture... short-term sacrifice for long-term gains.

That makes no sense. Why implement a system with players you don't think will be playing next year. What good does that do? Besides few recruits that will come in next year will probably see the field for a year or two unless it's on special teams. Why even play Henderson and Jones then? Insert your new receivers now. Get them game experience.

Henderson and Jones fit Stitt's offense more than they ever did in Delaney's IMO.

 

[AZGrizFan]

The predicted 65/35 pass:run ratio going to a 50/50 ratio as mentioned earlier is significant. Stitt was supposed to be the second coming of Read, but lately, his predicted style is not panning out. Others have noted the repetitive runs by Ngyuen up the gut, when obviously those plays weren't working, except for one.

I think Simis, Hendu, and Jones should be turned loose, so they can get into the rhythm that a passing unit needs. Of course, it would be great if Simis had more pass protection. But I agree with those who complain about sticking to Ngyuen's up the gut runs, when after 3 & outs and other times when they clearly didn't work. If Stitt were inflexible, I'd say it's in this respect.

Last game was an anomaly, in that ISU was susceptible to the run.

It's funny though. We averaged 5.3 ypc against UND. Then 3.4 against PSU. Then 4.4 against ISU.

We ran 99 plays. John Nguyen ran the ball 17 times. I wouldn't call that "sticking to Nguyen's up the gun runs"...But we DO only have two healthy RB's...so, if we're going to run, it's going to be either Nguyen or Calhoun.

 

[maroonandsilver]

That's exactly what Bill McCartney would say. It worked for him back in the 1990's.

That would be great if there was a lack of talent. I don't think that is the case. Bill McCartney took over a program in shambles. There was no where to go but up. The point of the thread is that there seems to be a rigidity of thinking. You coach to your strengths and not in spite of them.

If Stitt coached with what he had, then that would delay the implementation of his offense that he wants to run. I'd rather him rip the band-aid off quickly and get his system in place rather than him slowly implement it over time. By implementing it now, he's setting the tone that the future starts now, not in a few years once he has his recruits in place. Pflugrad did the exact same thing when he took over in 2010 and people absolutely tore him up for his decision to do so. Because of that, we saw a semifinal appearance in 2011 (JJ's first year starting and a Pflu recruit). If Pflu had coached to the strengths of the 2010 team (Hauck's recruits), we may not have even had that semifinal run in 2011. Running the spread in 2010 was important to prepare the players for the 2011 run. Stitt is doing the same thing because he sees the bigger picture... short-term sacrifice for long-term gains.

That makes no sense. Why implement a system with players you don't think will be playing next year. What good does that do? Besides few recruits that will come in next year will probably see the field for a year or two unless it's on special teams. Why even play Henderson and Jones then? Insert your new receivers now. Get them game experience.

Just to nit-pick your post---Henderson is a Junior.

 

[UMGriz75]

And for each second game, defensive coordinators had game film to break down and find tendencies and plot strategies over several days. Maybe the offense should change strategies a little each game to get away from spotted tendencies.

I'm sure they do. It's HOW they change from week to week that is the question. To me, it isn't that Coach Stitt is inflexible and can't/doesn't change, it's that he seems to change it too much, and the changes tend to be in one direction. The PSU game is an exemplar. UM has an outstanding passing QB, but is that really the game plan in a downpour?

And yet, nothing was lined up or attempted the way it was the previous week either. So, the game didn't get set up to UM's strengths, and played to a specific weakness on that given day. I've gotten through a second viewing of that game, and I really have no idea what the strategy was, except that Makena was making a lot of passing attempts that shouldn't have been on the calendar that day, and then getting chewed for doing it. He did make a rushing TD! So, there it was. He was the leading rusher that day.

To be said, there was more running than passing, 47 vs 36 plays, 160 yds vs. 134 yds. The running game was an anemic 3.2 yards per attempt, With 339 yds, PSU "ran" all over us because they had a game that worked in the rain -- works pretty well regardless of the weather-- whereas we didn't. Ellis Henderson never touched the ball.

Notably, PSU's QB was only 4 for 12 passing, but two of those were TDs, and one was for 40 yards.

 

[Glendivegriz]

That would be great if there was a lack of talent. I don't think that is the case. Bill McCartney took over a program in shambles. There was no where to go but up. The point of the thread is that there seems to be a rigidity of thinking. You coach to your strengths and not in spite of them.

If Stitt coached with what he had, then that would delay the implementation of his offense that he wants to run. I'd rather him rip the band-aid off quickly and get his system in place rather than him slowly implement it over time. By implementing it now, he's setting the tone that the future starts now, not in a few years once he has his recruits in place. Pflugrad did the exact same thing when he took over in 2010 and people absolutely tore him up for his decision to do so. Because of that, we saw a semifinal appearance in 2011 (JJ's first year starting and a Pflu recruit). If Pflu had coached to the strengths of the 2010 team (Hauck's recruits), we may not have even had that semifinal run in 2011. Running the spread in 2010 was important to prepare the players for the 2011 run. Stitt is doing the same thing because he sees the bigger picture... short-term sacrifice for long-term gains.

That makes no sense. Why implement a system with players you don't think will be playing next year. What good does that do? Besides few recruits that will come in next year will probably see the field for a year or two unless it's on special teams. Why even play Henderson and Jones then? Insert your new receivers now. Get them game experience.

Henderson and Jones fit Stitt's offense more than they ever did in Delaney's IMO.

So that lack of separation and the constant down the sidelines passes are a system problem then. (See WSU game for prime example.)