|
|
I think what all 3 games had in common was that we were doing very well in the 1st half and felt like we were going to win. But then in the 2nd half, we lost control of the game and ended up barely losing at the last second. NW was due to turnovers. ODU was due to only having 3 offensive possessions. Marshall was due to their defense adjusting to our running game and our inability to pass the ball (imo).
And yet, at the end of the day, we couldn't close out three close games we had ample opportunities to win. I would also contend that the playcalling in all three efforts -- though ODU was limited in the second half -- seemed very much different from our other outings. Some would say, "extremely close to the vest, playing not to lose" type playcalling.Originally Posted by T1
They used to say Lebron tightened up in close games. Have heard of bball coaches having a similar M.O. Possibly Holtz reacts similarly.
0-3 in games decided by less than a TD. I definitely think we tighten up into that position.
Phil Steele swears that teams who lose close games in one year are typically much improved the following year.
NW State wasn't playcalling. Dixon should have had a field day on a team like that regardless if we called run left or run right or run up the middle. Turner, Lee, and Taylor should also do well against a team like that regardless of what pattern they were told to run. There should have been a bigger window for Sokol to throw to. The line should not have had to hold their DL that brought back big plays. And at the very least, our depth should have prevailed if all else failed. At some point, the players have to execute the plays that are called, even if those plays are "conservative."
ODU and Marshall were similar games. We moved the ball in the first half, but couldn't move the ball in the 2nd half. We couldn't get first downs even. We could in the first half, but not the 2nd half. Same plays were being called in both halves as far as I could tell. Maybe the other team was making adjustments and we couldn't solve the adjustments? You got me, we need to keep an eye on it though. I do enjoy the blowouts over the close games... especially when the close games are against the weaker teams on the schedule. Someone tell Holtz we like to blowout the bad teams too!
Granted NSU had more typical playcalling on the whole. But, as the game drew near the end, timidity seemed to rule in the playcalling choices, which is the way I would describe the other two 3 point losses.
Execution was sorely needed in all 3 losses, absolutely. But sometimes you can properly execute a chess move or two and it still be an unwise strategy on the whole. Execution might have gotten us narrow wins in those close games; while a different strategy (especially late in the game) might have provided us more breathing room toward a more comfortable win. Speculation, rabble rabble.
Players also tighten up in close games. I've noticed our defense to become seemingly more timid when the possibility of losing looms larger. It reminds of how Arkansas kept losing in the end until they didn't. Players begin to press and can behave differently when the game is at stake. That's sorta the opposite of teams like Florida State and Alabama.
Have you considered those Dogs?
I've heard many a coach say, "they need to learn how to win"..........
How about, "we just want to find a way to keep it close until the 4th quarter then find a way to win." That's usually when they are a big underdog.
Certainly true; players can often play situationally, too. And some coaches can manage those player tendencies better than others -- Jimbo and Saban being elite examples, for sure. Winston has a way of staying loose and carefree; Sokol maybe doesn't quite have a knack for that. Jimbo/Saban have a way of keeping their players focused and believing; Holtz may not quite have that. ((But now we're comparing 5th year transfers to Heismans, and pink-slip coaches to BCS champion coaches.))
I'm attempting to tease out a possible confounding variable. That is, how long a certain coach has worked with certain players and how long players played within a certain system. Of course, there are "gamers" who seem to overcome (Winston?). That said, I wouldn't argue with the feeling you get when watching our close games. I get the same vibe.
Have you considered those Dogs?
Oh, tons of variables, for sure. From weather, to officiating, to injuries, to ineligibility, to FG shanks, player and coach and system familiarty/comfort (as you mentioned), and on and on. All are fair discussion points, but hijack the OP somewhat. My original intent was to utilize some data to try and confirm or debunk the "vibe" I get when I watch Holtz coach a nail-biter.
NWST loss was a screw up on multiple levels. IMHO, it was one of the worst performances if not THE worst performance by our offensive line this year. No push against the DL, the pass pro was so so. I remember one play where the (DE or OLB, can't remember) came around the left side totally untouched and leveled Sokol. OL never knew what happened.
The turnovers happened at the absolute worst time, from the muffed punt by Taylor to the Sokol INT. I knew with 5 min to go in that game we were going to lose. But hey, the fireworks were pretty.
Florida State has no problem winning close games. Maybe Holtz should consult with Jimbo Fischer.
Beat me to it. Players have tendencies, just as coaches do. Holtz may have keyed in on certain players' tendencies to tighten up in close games and called plays based somewhat off that. There's more moving pieces to this than saying Holtz can't win close games regularly.
I'm starting to sound like T1 here...
To the OP, I'd like to look at the data not just in "close games" but in close games after Holtz has been the coach for 3+ years. That would account for the variable--player/system familiarity.
Have you considered those Dogs?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote