Coaching Grading

[Bone_afide_Dawg]

We’ve all heard about player grading. I’ve never been through it because it became something well after my playing days. What I’d love to see is Holtz’s coaching graded. Obviously everyone on here has an opinion of his performances. Based on a summary of comments, I’d say the vast majority would agree that Holtz is most often a good coach against lesser opponents, but he’s a bad coach against better competition. Now back to the grading thing... I did a quick search online, but I didn’t see any such system. I was really hoping to find something to use while re-watching the MS replay to truly evaluate Holtz by way of a legit system/scale.

[boxerdog]

Holtz definitely played a part in the loss. But some people are unwilling to recognize that he also played a part in our being in position to win a game at Miss State down to the very last play. If you want to say it was the players who do that part--who is ultimately responsible for getting players into our program? If you say, assistant coaches are the ones who recruited them--who is it that hired the assistant coaches? If you say Miss State sucks, then why did most of you pick them to pummel us? Just have some consistency. If Holtz is to blame for the loss, he's also deserves the credit to have our team in position to win. Miss State has 10x our budget, we were playing on the road, the have better recruits.... Do the math

[HogDawg]

I'm starting to believe Holtz may be throwing games. As Champ967 pointed out in another thread, it seems highly improbable, statistically speaking, that one football coach can lose this many 4th quarter leads accidentally. Honestly, I think it's time to consider it.

[boxerdog]

I'm starting to believe Holtz may be throwing games. As Champ967 pointed out in another thread, it seems highly improbable, statistically speaking, that one football coach can lose this many 4th quarter leads accidentally. Honestly, I think it's time to consider it.

Throwing games for gambling purposes? He covered the spread. Nobody with any brains would bet that game straight up.

[HogDawg]

Throwing games for gambling purposes? He covered the spread. Nobody with any brains would bet that game straight up.

So, you don't think somebody wouldn't pay him big bucks to BEAT the spread, but not win the game?

[johnnylightnin]

So, you don't think somebody wouldn't pay him big bucks to BEAT the spread, but not win the game?

You’ve just elevated him from moron to evil genius.

Am I at Qanon?

[boxerdog]

So, you don't think somebody wouldn't pay him big bucks to BEAT the spread, but not win the game?

Ummm... no

[glm47]

Holtz definitely played a part in the loss. But some people are unwilling to recognize that he also played a part in our being in position to win a game at Miss State down to the very last play. If you want to say it was the players who do that part--who is ultimately responsible for getting players into our program? If you say, assistant coaches are the ones who recruited them--who is it that hired the assistant coaches? If you say Miss State sucks, then why did most of you pick them to pummel us? Just have some consistency. If Holtz is to blame for the loss, he's also deserves the credit to have our team in position to win. Miss State has 10x our budget, we were playing on the road, the have better recruits.... Do the math

Being in position to win is worthless unless you actually win.

[boxerdog]

Being in position to win is worthless unless you actually win.

I took more positives from the game in terms of our season's projection than negatives. Maybe Miss State stinks, and we stink more. Time will tell.

[FriscoDog]

I heard this little factoid. During his tenure at Tech, Holtz has not beaten a P5 opponent in regular season (not counting bowl games). We are 0-15 against P5 schools.

[techman05]

Being in position to win is worthless unless you actually win.

Exactly. Even all of us non coaches know you keep doing what is working until the other team stops it. Great coaches don’t care how much they blow out another team. They call plays seeking success, not trying to just avoid disaster.

[SicemDawgz]

If everyone in the world is picking you to lose, it really doesn’t matter too much if you do. So what I can’t figure out is why Holtz always plays so tight in these games? Dude, go for broke. That game was ripe for the taking, and once again Holtz does his thing and surrenders. It’s absolutely mind blowing that he keeps doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting it to work. Literally every P5 game we’ve lost in the 4th plays out exactly the same. I’ll tell y’all another little tidbit you may not know, fear is contagious, and every time Holtz loses the momentum, he’s scared to death.

[FriscoDawg]

If everyone in the world is picking you to lose, it really doesn’t matter too much if you do. So what I can’t figure out is why Holtz always plays so tight in these games? Dude, go for broke. That game was ripe for the taking, and once again Holtz does his thing and surrenders. It’s absolutely mind blowing that he keeps doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting it to work. Literally every P5 game we’ve lost in the 4th plays out exactly the same. I’ll tell y’all another little tidbit you may not know, fear is contagious, and every time Holtz loses the momentum, he’s scared to death.

Actually I was more pleased than I usually am with the way the game was called offensively. There were some plays that simply weren't made that could have made a huge difference. The play-calling in the last set of downs was obviously questionable.

The defense couldn't get a stop on any of the three series that started in Tech territory, and that was disappointing. And the defense going missing for the two long drives when Tech gave up the lead is concerning.

Punting was fine except for the shank that happened during the collapse. Kickoffs and kickoff coverage were the most inconsistent areas of special teams, and those have to be cleaned up. A skykick is no good if the coverage team can't contain.

[SicemDawgz]

Actually I was more pleased than I usually am with the way the game was called offensively. There were some plays that simply weren't made that could have made a huge difference. The play-calling in the last set of downs was obviously questionable.

The defense couldn't get a stop on any of the three series that started in Tech territory, and that was disappointing. And the defense going missing for the two long drives when Tech gave up the lead is concerning.

Punting was fine except for the shank that happened during the collapse. Kickoffs and kickoff coverage were the most inconsistent areas of special teams, and those have to be cleaned up. A skykick is no good if the coverage team can't contain.

Isn’t it a coincidence that the whole team (offense, defense, ST) just all start to suck at almost the exact same time? As soon as the kick return happened, the entire team fell apart. That’s a leadership issue, and it happens all the time. The defense couldn’t make a stop, the offense becomes a 3 and out machine, and special teams…..well they were special as always.

[PawDawg]

Isn’t it a coincidence that the whole team (offense, defense, ST) just all start to suck at almost the exact same time? As soon as the kick return happened, the entire team fell apart. That’s a leadership issue, and it happens all the time. The defense couldn’t make a stop, the offense becomes a 3 and out machine, and special teams…..well they were special as always.

The team had been playing to win for three quarters and suddenly the HC calls the dogs off.

The non-kick to the end zone was the beginning.

Then he ran the defense on the field and insisted on a three man rush and "prevent" when we had been stuffing them and causing mistakes all day. This defensive collapse was 100% on our HC.

Then his offensive play calling.