**** The Official FSU vs. LSU Game Day Thread ****

mnole03

HR Legend
Mar 20, 2005
23,444
60,273
113
What’s wild is that bowl practices are normally one of the few legal opportunities to ingratiate yourself with the high school’s coach, donate money to school, and build a recruiting relationship.

Alabama pumped $50k into the facilities at Dr. Phillips. Saban schmoozed the coach and they had a huge edge there in subsequent years
 

Nole Lou

HR Heisman
Apr 5, 2002
5,081
10,739
113
Yeah the only highlights they showed is fsu fumbling and giving up big plays on drive and then of course the block. Like 6 good LSU plays to FSUs one. One thing I noticed on the replay of illustrious toss sweep is it would have worked. The line had opened up a perfect hole and he would have scored easy had he not dropped ball.

I'm not mad about the toss. Bad shit happens at the goal line sometimes. There's no play that is un-fvck-upable.

If they snap it in shotgun and its a bad snap, it's "why wasn't he under center." If we sneak it with Travis under center and he's stripped it's "Why didn't we just down it and kick the field goal." If we miss a chip shot field goal it's "Why didn't we try to score a touchdown there?"

It's not like he pulled out the Wyatt Rector 2-pt play from the Duquene game and took it out of Travis' hands, or called some crazy gadget play with three tosses that they never practice. It's a very standard play, we'd run it with success earlier, and the players just effed it up. Which can happen on literally EVERY SINGLE PLAY that you can call.

Look at the end of the UF game...literally one of the best QBs in the country, for one of the best coaches in the country, and the kid throws an absolutely HORRENDOUS interception at the goal line just needing a field goal to tie it.

I think it's somewhat fair to criticize going on 4th down at the end of the first half. Without time left on the clock, you don't get the return on field position if you fail. The math probably slightly favors kicking there. But your kicker has looked like crap to that point, and I think you have to assume (wrongly as it turns out) that you're going to need the points. Going for it is at least defensible, if not optimal. And again, the play call and execution was perfect, you just need that catch.

Other than that call possibly, I thought the coaching was solid. Even the prevent defense on the last drive...could have been played better, but it basically worked, short of the refs botching the out of bounds and giving them another untimed down. I doubt LSU gets a play off if they run one second as soon as the ball is snapped.
 

BelemNole

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
33,428
69,990
113
I'm not mad about the toss. Bad shit happens at the goal line sometimes. There's no play that is un-fvck-upable.

If they snap it in shotgun and its a bad snap, it's "why wasn't he under center." If we sneak it with Travis under center and he's stripped it's "Why didn't we just down it and kick the field goal." If we miss a chip shot field goal it's "Why didn't we try to score a touchdown there?"

It's not like he pulled out the Wyatt Rector 2-pt play from the Duquene game and took it out of Travis' hands, or called some crazy gadget play with three tosses that they never practice. It's a very standard play, we'd run it with success earlier, and the players just effed it up. Which can happen on literally EVERY SINGLE PLAY that you can call.

Look at the end of the UF game...literally one of the best QBs in the country, for one of the best coaches in the country, and the kid throws an absolutely HORRENDOUS interception at the goal line just needing a field goal to tie it.

I think it's somewhat fair to criticize going on 4th down at the end of the first half. Without time left on the clock, you don't get the return on field position if you fail. The math probably slightly favors kicking there. But your kicker has looked like crap to that point, and I think you have to assume (wrongly as it turns out) that you're going to need the points. Going for it is at least defensible, if not optimal. And again, the play call and execution was perfect, you just need that catch.

Other than that call possibly, I thought the coaching was solid. Even the prevent defense on the last drive...could have been played better, but it basically worked, short of the refs botching the out of bounds and giving them another untimed down. I doubt LSU gets a play off if they run one second as soon as the ball is snapped.
The kicker missed a what 47 yarder by a few feet? We passed up on kicking one from the 5 at the end of the half. If we don't trust him to kick a FG from the 5 we need to find someone else. Not taking those points was as bad as not taking the points last year with JS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noleclone2

Nole Lou

HR Heisman
Apr 5, 2002
5,081
10,739
113
The kicker missed a what 47 yarder by a few feet? We passed up on kicking one from the 5 at the end of the half. If we don't trust him to kick a FG from the 5 we need to find someone else. Not taking those points was as bad as not taking the points last year with JS.

And two kickoffs out of bounds.

After all, what could go wrong with a chip shot kick?

I think the math probably leans slightly toward kicking the field goal like you wanted, because there wasn't enough time left that you get the advantage of field position if you fail. I'm ok either way. It was a perfectly called play, perfect pass, and you can just as easily say "If you don't trust a receiver to catch a perfectly thrown ball in the end zone then we need to find someone else."

As it turns out, that three points would have made a big difference, but I don't have a big problem with thinking that you're going to need 30 points to win the game.

You're not wrong, it's probably like a 55%/45% type decision, I don't have a problem with either call a coach is going to make in that range really.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,077
19,430
113
You're not wrong, it's probably like a 55%/45% type decision, I don't have a problem with either call a coach is going to make in that range really.
I think it could only look like that close of a decision when you ignore relevant (and I think critical) factors like the fact they had limited time to work with and that we got the ball back after the half which would have put us in position to go up by three scores.
I have to think the win percentage for a team down three scores in the second half is very, very low, but I don't see how those factors are included in the 'analytics' of when/where to go for it on fourth down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole

BelemNole

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
33,428
69,990
113
And two kickoffs out of bounds.

After all, what could go wrong with a chip shot kick?

I think the math probably leans slightly toward kicking the field goal like you wanted, because there wasn't enough time left that you get the advantage of field position if you fail. I'm ok either way. It was a perfectly called play, perfect pass, and you can just as easily say "If you don't trust a receiver to catch a perfectly thrown ball in the end zone then we need to find someone else."

As it turns out, that three points would have made a big difference, but I don't have a big problem with thinking that you're going to need 30 points to win the game.

You're not wrong, it's probably like a 55%/45% type decision, I don't have a problem with either call a coach is going to make in that range really.
Can someone point out the last time we missed a FG that was less than 20 yards? Because people keep talking about how bad our kicker is or that it was a risk. Those kicks were as risky as an extra point attempt. Do we often go for 2 because our kicker is bad?
Look, I like Norvell, I think he's doing good things and is the right guy - but he's still making questionable decisions that have cost us games in the past and nearly cost us the game this weekend. I want him to take ownership of those things instead of doubling down.
 

TC Nole OX

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
12,215
26,273
113
I am not convinced he was, but there's no question that Bethune was a huge get, and Deloach and Lundy have developed very nicely.

I think his days as a coordinator are in the past as modern defenses aren't his thing. His track record as a LB coach is proven and he is showing that he can still develop LBs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nole Lou

BelemNole

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
33,428
69,990
113
I think his days as a coordinator are in the past as modern defenses aren't his thing. His track record as a LB coach is proven and he is showing that he can still develop LBs.
If we even have average linebacker play this year that's a tremendous improvement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TC Nole OX

Nole Lou

HR Heisman
Apr 5, 2002
5,081
10,739
113
Can someone point out the last time we missed a FG that was less than 20 yards? Because people keep talking about how bad our kicker is or that it was a risk. Those kicks were as risky as an extra point attempt. Do we often go for 2 because our kicker is bad?
Look, I like Norvell, I think he's doing good things and it the right guy - but he's still making questionable decisions that have cost us games in the past and nearly cost us the game this weekend. I want him to take ownership of those things instead of doubling down.

Literally LSU just lost the game by having an XP and a chip shot field goal blocked.

It's ok that you don't like it, but you'll just have to get used to it, Mike Norvell knows his fourth down math. In fact I was wrong (and you were wrong) about that call...the math says that's a go for it situation.

Fb2n1oWUsAA84xJ


He doesn't need to take ownership of anything but keeping making the right decision. And of course getting the players to catch the damn ball.

After all those years of the ultra conservative Jimbo, I get it that some fans are going to have a hard time with this, but Norvell is making the right calls on this stuff, and I'm glad he's consistent with it. I actually assumed he was going against the math by going for it, but he wasn't.

In ten years, these kinds of calls won't phase you or anyone else. This is the future. If you're as old as me, you remember the old days when there was a penalty on a field goal attempt that would result in a first down, and the adage was "you don't take points off the board." And any coach that gave up the made FG and took the fresh downs was treated like a stark raving madman. No there isn't a coach in America at any level that would think twice about taking the first down.

Learn to love it, because it's not going away, and he's not pulling these decisions out of his ass. And if he gets fired, the next coach is probably going to be the same way (it will if its Kiffin).
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed

Nole Lou

HR Heisman
Apr 5, 2002
5,081
10,739
113
I think his days as a coordinator are in the past as modern defenses aren't his thing. His track record as a LB coach is proven and he is showing that he can still develop LBs.

More concerned about him on the recruiting trail, but we'll wait and see on that.
 

BelemNole

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
33,428
69,990
113
Literally LSU just lost the game by having an XP and a chip shot field goal blocked.

It's ok that you don't like it, but you'll just have to get used to it, Mike Norvell knows his fourth down math. In fact I was wrong (and you were wrong) about that call...the math says that's a go for it situation.

Fb2n1oWUsAA84xJ


He doesn't need to take ownership of anything but keeping making the right decision. And of course getting the players to catch the damn ball.

After all those years of the ultra conservative Jimbo, I get it that some fans are going to have a hard time with this, but Norvell is making the right calls on this stuff, and I'm glad he's consistent with it. I actually assumed he was going against the math by going for it, but he wasn't.

In ten years, these kinds of calls won't phase you or anyone else. This is the future. If you're as old as me, you remember the old days when there was a penalty on a field goal attempt that would result in a first down, and the adage was "you don't take points off the board." And any coach that gave up the made FG and took the fresh downs was treated like a stark raving madman. No there isn't a coach in America at any level that would think twice about taking the first down.

Learn to love it, because it's not going away, and he's not pulling these decisions out of his ass. And if he gets fired, the next coach is probably going to be the same way (it will if its Kiffin).
Math doesn't understand kids or programs. We've collapsed several times over the past 3-4 years at the end of the game and let wins become losses. Telling me that you're giving up a near guaranteed FG for a 51% chance at a TD because the win rate is 4% greater is stupid if you don't account for history.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,077
19,430
113
Literally LSU just lost the game by having an XP and a chip shot field goal blocked.

It's ok that you don't like it, but you'll just have to get used to it, Mike Norvell knows his fourth down math. In fact I was wrong (and you were wrong) about that call...the math says that's a go for it situation.

Fb2n1oWUsAA84xJ


He doesn't need to take ownership of anything but keeping making the right decision. And of course getting the players to catch the damn ball.

After all those years of the ultra conservative Jimbo, I get it that some fans are going to have a hard time with this, but Norvell is making the right calls on this stuff, and I'm glad he's consistent with it. I actually assumed he was going against the math by going for it, but he wasn't.

In ten years, these kinds of calls won't phase you or anyone else. This is the future. If you're as old as me, you remember the old days when there was a penalty on a field goal attempt that would result in a first down, and the adage was "you don't take points off the board." And any coach that gave up the made FG and took the fresh downs was treated like a stark raving madman. No there isn't a coach in America at any level that would think twice about taking the first down.

Learn to love it, because it's not going away, and he's not pulling these decisions out of his ass. And if he gets fired, the next coach is probably going to be the same way (it will if its Kiffin).
90% chance to make a field goal from the 8 yard line?

NOTSUREIF.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole

Nole Lou

HR Heisman
Apr 5, 2002
5,081
10,739
113
Math doesn't understand kids or programs. We've collapsed several times over the past 3-4 years at the end of the game and let wins become losses. Telling me that you're giving up a near guaranteed FG for a 51% chance at a TD because the win rate is 4% greater is stupid if you don't account for history.

Sorry, I want the coach making the best call for the game regardless of what happened in a game Willie Taggart coached three years ago.

If you think about what you said, I'm sure you don't actually want that to go into the decision making.

We could have taken three there and lost by three later...nobody knows what's going to happen in the second half. Then the smart folks are crushing him for being too conservative.

You want the coach to include the emotional resonance of previous coaches and games when he's making a play call? I certainly don't. That's like me saying that I DON'T want us to kick a field goal because of the Wide Rights.

I want him to make the call based on the mathematically sound decision, not some emotional feeling, and his understanding of his players and getting the correct play in to work.

The decision was mathematically correct. The play worked as designed. The only coaching failure on this play is not having recruited or developed the receivers to make the play. They are responsible big picture for not having good enough receivers for this play yet OR should have called a play they could execute.

I'm not telling you to like it. It's especially hard for our fan base to adapt to because Jimbo Fisher had a lot of success here, and is literally the most conservative and worst as fourth down math.

But just like the wishbone and fullbacks, whether you like it or not doesn't change anything. Norvell is closer to the leading edge on this than people are used to, and following close after an absolute dinosaur. It's fine to say "I hate this" but claiming it is "wrong" is nothing more than acting with 100% hindsight. Of course everything that doesn't work is wrong, and everything that does work is right, once it plays out. You could wish we had a coach that was further behind the curve on this, for your comfort level, but this is without question where its going.

----


"We play Texas A&M, and we go for it on the 1 and don't make it," Kiffin said, recalling the Rebels' 2021 game against the Aggies. "Probably most people watching this know, 'You take the three points.' A lot of very successful coaches would take the three because that's just what you're trained to do. When you don't make it, 'Oh, it's so bad, it's so bad,' but now the ball is on the 1, and you have a chance to get a safety and get the ball back."

That's exactly what happened against Jimbo Fisher's Aggies. After a fourth-down failure by the Ole Miss offense in the second quarter -- which followed a fourth-and-2 touchdown in the first quarter -- the Rebels' Chance Campbell and Mark Robinson stuffed Isaiah Spiller in the end zone for a safety, giving Ole Miss a 15-0 lead en route to a 29-19 upset win.

A&M's only fourth-down attempt, by the way, came in the final minute in a desperation situation. This wasn't much of a surprise -- the Aggies had just 10 fourth-down attempts all season, fewest in the nation.

"It's everybody's choice whether you follow analytics or not," Kiffin said, "but you know when you're playing certain coaches, well, if we're playing A&M, and it's fourth-and-1, no matter where the ball is we're just sending out our punt return team. They're going to punt. That's Jimbo, and I think he's even quoted as saying, you know, 'The game's not played in a book, I'm not looking at a stupid book.'"

Fisher's Aggies have gone a combined 17-5 over the past two seasons, of course, just as the fourth-down allergic Los Angeles Rams won the Super Bowl in 2021. Punting on fourth-and-short doesn't automatically prevent teams from winning games. But the past few seasons have shown that more coaches are coming to understand that in many instances, punting is the risk, as opposed to going for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed

BelemNole

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
33,428
69,990
113
Sorry, I want the coach making the best call for the game regardless of what happened in a game Willie Taggart coached three years ago.

If you think about what you said, I'm sure you don't actually want that to go into the decision making.

We could have taken three there and lost by three later...nobody knows what's going to happen in the second half. Then the smart folks are crushing him for being too conservative.

You want the coach to include the emotional resonance of previous coaches and games when he's making a play call? I certainly don't. That's like me saying that I DON'T want us to kick a field goal because of the Wide Rights.

I want him to make the call based on the mathematically sound decision, not some emotional feeling, and his understanding of his players and getting the correct play in to work.

The decision was mathematically correct. The play worked as designed. The only coaching failure on this play is not having recruited or developed the receivers to make the play. They are responsible big picture for not having good enough receivers for this play yet OR should have called a play they could execute.

I'm not telling you to like it. It's especially hard for our fan base to adapt to because Jimbo Fisher had a lot of success here, and is literally the most conservative and worst as fourth down math.

But just like the wishbone and fullbacks, whether you like it or not doesn't change anything. Norvell is closer to the leading edge on this than people are used to, and following close after an absolute dinosaur. It's fine to say "I hate this" but claiming it is "wrong" is nothing more than acting with 100% hindsight. Of course everything that doesn't work is wrong, and everything that does work is right, once it plays out. You could wish we had a coach that was further behind the curve on this, for your comfort level, but this is without question where its going.

----


"We play Texas A&M, and we go for it on the 1 and don't make it," Kiffin said, recalling the Rebels' 2021 game against the Aggies. "Probably most people watching this know, 'You take the three points.' A lot of very successful coaches would take the three because that's just what you're trained to do. When you don't make it, 'Oh, it's so bad, it's so bad,' but now the ball is on the 1, and you have a chance to get a safety and get the ball back."

That's exactly what happened against Jimbo Fisher's Aggies. After a fourth-down failure by the Ole Miss offense in the second quarter -- which followed a fourth-and-2 touchdown in the first quarter -- the Rebels' Chance Campbell and Mark Robinson stuffed Isaiah Spiller in the end zone for a safety, giving Ole Miss a 15-0 lead en route to a 29-19 upset win.

A&M's only fourth-down attempt, by the way, came in the final minute in a desperation situation. This wasn't much of a surprise -- the Aggies had just 10 fourth-down attempts all season, fewest in the nation.

"It's everybody's choice whether you follow analytics or not," Kiffin said, "but you know when you're playing certain coaches, well, if we're playing A&M, and it's fourth-and-1, no matter where the ball is we're just sending out our punt return team. They're going to punt. That's Jimbo, and I think he's even quoted as saying, you know, 'The game's not played in a book, I'm not looking at a stupid book.'"

Fisher's Aggies have gone a combined 17-5 over the past two seasons, of course, just as the fourth-down allergic Los Angeles Rams won the Super Bowl in 2021. Punting on fourth-and-short doesn't automatically prevent teams from winning games. But the past few seasons have shown that more coaches are coming to understand that in many instances, punting is the risk, as opposed to going for it.
I'm sorry, I'm looking for a coach to coach, not for an actuary to run the team. Telling me that throwing on 4th and goal at the 3 with seconds left in the half is the better decision because it has a 4% better chance to win the game even though it has a 40+% chance LESS of being successful because some numbers have been run in the past will never convince me that it's the smart play.
 
Feb 9, 2013
19,940
55,624
113

Sorry, I want the coach making the best call for the game regardless of what happened in a game Willie Taggart coached three years ago.

If you think about what you said, I'm sure you don't actually want that to go into the decision making.

We could have taken three there and lost by three later...nobody knows what's going to happen in the second half. Then the smart folks are crushing him for being too conservative.

You want the coach to include the emotional resonance of previous coaches and games when he's making a play call? I certainly don't. That's like me saying that I DON'T want us to kick a field goal because of the Wide Rights.

I want him to make the call based on the mathematically sound decision, not some emotional feeling, and his understanding of his players and getting the correct play in to work.

The decision was mathematically correct. The play worked as designed. The only coaching failure on this play is not having recruited or developed the receivers to make the play. They are responsible big picture for not having good enough receivers for this play yet OR should have called a play they could execute.

I'm not telling you to like it. It's especially hard for our fan base to adapt to because Jimbo Fisher had a lot of success here, and is literally the most conservative and worst as fourth down math.

But just like the wishbone and fullbacks, whether you like it or not doesn't change anything. Norvell is closer to the leading edge on this than people are used to, and following close after an absolute dinosaur. It's fine to say "I hate this" but claiming it is "wrong" is nothing more than acting with 100% hindsight. Of course everything that doesn't work is wrong, and everything that does work is right, once it plays out. You could wish we had a coach that was further behind the curve on this, for your comfort level, but this is without question where its going.

----


"We play Texas A&M, and we go for it on the 1 and don't make it," Kiffin said, recalling the Rebels' 2021 game against the Aggies. "Probably most people watching this know, 'You take the three points.' A lot of very successful coaches would take the three because that's just what you're trained to do. When you don't make it, 'Oh, it's so bad, it's so bad,' but now the ball is on the 1, and you have a chance to get a safety and get the ball back."

That's exactly what happened against Jimbo Fisher's Aggies. After a fourth-down failure by the Ole Miss offense in the second quarter -- which followed a fourth-and-2 touchdown in the first quarter -- the Rebels' Chance Campbell and Mark Robinson stuffed Isaiah Spiller in the end zone for a safety, giving Ole Miss a 15-0 lead en route to a 29-19 upset win.

A&M's only fourth-down attempt, by the way, came in the final minute in a desperation situation. This wasn't much of a surprise -- the Aggies had just 10 fourth-down attempts all season, fewest in the nation.

"It's everybody's choice whether you follow analytics or not," Kiffin said, "but you know when you're playing certain coaches, well, if we're playing A&M, and it's fourth-and-1, no matter where the ball is we're just sending out our punt return team. They're going to punt. That's Jimbo, and I think he's even quoted as saying, you know, 'The game's not played in a book, I'm not looking at a stupid book.'"

Fisher's Aggies have gone a combined 17-5 over the past two seasons, of course, just as the fourth-down allergic Los Angeles Rams won the Super Bowl in 2021. Punting on fourth-and-short doesn't automatically prevent teams from winning games. But the past few seasons have shown that more coaches are coming to understand that in many instances, punting is the risk, as opposed to going for it.
Here’s what one guy has to say about it:

So how does Saban feel about the new age of analytics-based decision making?

“Well, I’m not an analytics guy,” Saban said. I know coaches who are and I know coaches who we had on our staff in the past that very much are. And I like for our coaches to look at the analytics and then come and bring them up to me and I can say ‘That don’t make any sense.’ Or I can say ‘That’s an interesting thought.’

“But philosophically, some guy who hasn’t played football ever and he sits at a computer and he puts a bunch of stuff into a computer. And you have to have a feel for your team, too. One of the questions I have is how good are we in those situations? Do we have good plays to call in those situations? Do we feel good about our opportunity to convert in those situations? So all these things are factors in the game relative to how the other team plays and what they do.”
 

Nole Lou

HR Heisman
Apr 5, 2002
5,081
10,739
113


Here’s what one guy has to say about it:

So how does Saban feel about the new age of analytics-based decision making?

“Well, I’m not an analytics guy,” Saban said. I know coaches who are and I know coaches who we had on our staff in the past that very much are. And I like for our coaches to look at the analytics and then come and bring them up to me and I can say ‘That don’t make any sense.’ Or I can say ‘That’s an interesting thought.’

“But philosophically, some guy who hasn’t played football ever and he sits at a computer and he puts a bunch of stuff into a computer. And you have to have a feel for your team, too. One of the questions I have is how good are we in those situations? Do we have good plays to call in those situations? Do we feel good about our opportunity to convert in those situations? So all these things are factors in the game relative to how the other team plays and what they do.”

Well, that's a misdirection. Of course he's correct. You have to filter it through the your personel and the plays available to you. Obviously, you make a different decision whether you have the best punter in America, or whether your punter was injured in warm ups and your backup safety is now punting.

If Travis had lost his helmet on the previous play and had to come out for fourth down, I'd certainly hope that we would have kicked, or not run that particular play with Rodemaker.

Saban is being a bit facetious here. Do we really think there are situations in which Alabama doesn't have good plays to call in any situation? Or have situations they aren't good in relative to other teams? LOL.

But also...

"Three things can happen when you pass the ball, and two of them are bad." - Woody Hayes

Things change. Everything is moving in this direction, in college football and the NFL. If Saban is around long enough, he will adopt this as well, just as he embraced passing and spread concepts and tempo. Alabama became a subscriber to the analytics service like 5-6 years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed
Feb 9, 2013
19,940
55,624
113
Well, that's a misdirection. Of course he's correct. You have to filter it through the your personel and the plays available to you. Obviously, you make a different decision whether you have the best punter in America, or whether your punter was injured in warm ups and your backup safety is now punting.

If Travis had lost his helmet on the previous play and had to come out for fourth down, I'd certainly hope that we would have kicked, or not run that particular play with Rodemaker.

Saban is being a bit facetious here. Do we really think there are situations in which Alabama doesn't have good plays to call in any situation? Or have situations they aren't good in relative to other teams? LOL.

But also...

"Three things can happen when you pass the ball, and two of them are bad." - Woody Hayes

Things change. Everything is moving in this direction, in college football and the NFL. If Saban is around long enough, he will adopt this as well, just as he embraced passing and spread concepts and tempo. Alabama became a subscriber to the analytics service like 5-6 years ago.
Isn’t that what Belem is saying? You have to know your team and the situation and not just trust the numbers?

What analytics call for a reverse flea-flicker?
 

SeaPA

HR Heisman
Dec 17, 2002
6,836
14,660
113


Here’s what one guy has to say about it:

So how does Saban feel about the new age of analytics-based decision making?

“Well, I’m not an analytics guy,” Saban said. I know coaches who are and I know coaches who we had on our staff in the past that very much are. And I like for our coaches to look at the analytics and then come and bring them up to me and I can say ‘That don’t make any sense.’ Or I can say ‘That’s an interesting thought.’

“But philosophically, some guy who hasn’t played football ever and he sits at a computer and he puts a bunch of stuff into a computer. And you have to have a feel for your team, too. One of the questions I have is how good are we in those situations? Do we have good plays to call in those situations? Do we feel good about our opportunity to convert in those situations? So all these things are factors in the game relative to how the other team plays and what they do.”

Yeah, but what does that guy know about winning football games?
 

Nole Lou

HR Heisman
Apr 5, 2002
5,081
10,739
113
Isn’t that what Belem is saying? You have to know your team and the situation and not just trust the numbers?

What analytics call for a reverse flea-flicker?

They don't call for a reverse flea flicker, that's not how it works. That's not what Belem was saying, he wants to take into consideration games from 3-4 years ago and a tendency to collapse. Of course, I don't know how you know in the first half that is where the game is headed, or why the best way to avoid that isn't to have more points.

If your case is that we should have known that we couldn't pick up the first down like that, then that's a play calling complaint. That's not an analytics complaint.

If you have some reason to believe that you don't have the 50% chance to make a first down (injured quarterback, can't block the edge all day, pouring rain, etc), then you should adjust. But there's nothing public at least of that nature that should have gone into that decision.

What SHOULDN'T go into that decision is something that happened two years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed

alaskanseminole

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2002
12,062
14,110
113
Isn’t that what Belem is saying? You have to know your team and the situation and not just trust the numbers?

What analytics call for a reverse flea-flicker?
I like numbers when game-planning, but you have to know your team, feel the atmosphere/momentum and sometimes you just have to trust your gut.

Jimbo was a genius when it came to game planning, but his controlling OCD would rarely allow him to adjust when something wasn't working. It's like he's incappable of feeling when the tide turns. He just doubles down and says, "DAMMIT! I SAID WE'RE GONNA RUN THE BALL. WE'RE GONNA KEEP RUNN'N!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole

Nole Lou

HR Heisman
Apr 5, 2002
5,081
10,739
113
sometimes you just have to trust your gut.

See, that's a big no thank you for me though. I mean, obviously on play calling, and when to call lower percentage plays like bombs or fake punts, that's where the gut comes in.

But on kick/go situations...no I don't want my coach "just feeling it." If there's a measured reason to overrule the optimal call based on personel, then that's a rational adjustment, not gut feeling. But I would much prefer that my coach has a specific plan for how he deals with situations and sticks with it barring confounding data.

That way the players know what is expected of them, the assistants know what the decision is going to be, etc, than make an call in the moment based on how loud it is or what it feels like or what people are going to say about it the next day.

I would much rather that time outs, or time between plays, be completely focused on the best play call.

Now, to be clear, there isn't the most devout analytical proponent that wouldn't trade optimal 4th down decisions for top five recruiting classes and a 500 person support staff and a golden armed quarterback. See Jimbo Fisher. It's a marginal advantage. Mike Norvell isn't going to 4th down math his way into success or failure as FSU's coach. And all of a sudden these decisions are all going to look a lot better when he actually has good players executing them.

But all things being equal, I want the coach making optimal 4th down decisions.

By the way, here's a great read here (I don't agree with the all comments that evaluate the decision) that give some context by looking at all 4th down decisions last year. Norvell overrules the pure numbers plenty to go more conservative than the pure numbers indicate.

 

SeaPA

HR Heisman
Dec 17, 2002
6,836
14,660
113
I've never spent any great deal of time looking at, reading, or researching the analytics. On what are they based?
 

runkpanole

HR Legend
Nov 17, 2002
16,299
26,728
113
It saddens we to see that our fanbase has become so jaded that they can't enjoy a big win over an SEC team on the road without looking for every little thing they can find to bitch about.
Brother, I still sound like a frog today. That was the most fun I’ve had at a game in a long time and I’m relishing in it this week. Go Noles!!!