Attention Jim Mora: "Playing Not to Lose" Donahue Conservatism Will Kill Your Coaching Career at UCLA
by Nestor on Jan 3, 2012 9:43 AM PST
in Football
Email
Print
Lot of buzz in the college football world today about the ending of the Fiesta Bowl last night. I did not get to watch the second half (saving my sports late nighter this week for our basketball game against Arizona on Thursday - I don't know why) but by all accounts (including SBN's Stanford blogger at Rule of Tree) it was David Shaw's conservatism that cost the Trees perhaps their biggest win in years.
New York Times' Paul Meyerberg threaded Shaw's conservatism with Chris Petersen's (hey do you guys know who he is?) own dumb founding decision from earlier this season today (emphasis added):
Both (Boise State and Stanford) were sent home thanks to botched coaching decisions. Think back to November, when the Broncos lost at home to T.C.U., 36-35. Now consider the waning moments in regulation in last night's Fiesta Bowl, when the Cardinal could have stamped home a narrow win by being aggressive, not conservative.
In each game - the two biggest games on each team's schedule - a failure to stick to the script meant the difference between victory and defeat. In Boise, Chris Petersen opted to play it safe: Moore drove the Broncos 38 yards in a minute, leading the offense from its own 40 to the T.C.U. 22, before Petersen called off the dogs.
It's been two months: Petersen's head-scratching decision remains the worst moment of his otherwise brilliant coaching career. And it remains nonsensical, considering that Petersen - unlike Stanford's David Shaw - had been through the fire, had been to the B.C.S., had been game-tested, yet made a foolish decision to move away from the aggressiveness that led him and his team to that point.
You need to read the whole post. The underlying point of Meyerberg's post is consistent with the argument we made numerous times in last two years, imploring Rick Neuheisel to shed his Donahuesque conservative mindset at UCLA. Neuheisel kept playing safe and it eventually led to losing all support from Bruin Nation, and ultimately leaving UCLA with a disappointing and underachieving record of unfulfilled expectations.
As we officially get ready for the start of Jim Mora era (I believe beginning on January 9th) we hope Coach Mora is taking into account what took place in the Stanford game and generally in college football. If he is truly committed to making a culture change at UCLA, he will need to get away from the failed, conservative, playing it safe Donahue mindset that has rotten the core of UCLA's football foundation in this previous decade.
Unless Mora moves away from this conservative mindset, we are afraid the culture of mediocrity will not change. We are hoping the ushering in of Noel Mazzone era will facilitate that culture change, and enable us to pur the horrible, playing not to lose mindset, forever in our rear view mirror. Rooting for Mora to get it done.
GO BRUINS.
52 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The first phone call on Shaws...
answering machine was most likely a “colorful” language laced message from Jim Harbaugh!!!
Kickers
Why aren’t there more parents trying to raise the next Sebastian Janikowski (on-field, not off-field) instead of the next Peyton Manning?
I don’t completely disagree with the conservatism. My father is a lifelong Nebraska fan, and to this day he still curses Tom Osborne’s going for two against Miami in the 1984 Orange Bowl. It’s a case by case basis. In Stanford’s case, where you’re choosing between Andrew Luck and a redshirt freshman kicker to decide your season, you obviously go with your seasoned quarterback.
Of course, if you have Chris Sailer, Justin Medlock, or Kai Forbath on your roster, then it’s a bit more assuring going for the field goal with the season on the line.
The case-by-case situation applies better to Stanford and Nebraska
than to the UCLA Bruins. The difference is that their conservatism (or decision against it) was dependent on a particular single game. The conservative play-not-to-lose approach has pervaded the UCLA football program for 90% of every season for the last 14 years! It’s at the fundamental core of our program, rather than a failed strategy of one particular game.
Chargers just announced Turner is staying on as HC.
Any idea if this has any impact on Pagano’s hire as DC?
I agree with the call Shaw made here's why:
1) The kicker had a very high percentage of making kicks from that range.
2) If you go for 6 you risk scoring too early and giving OSU the ball back with time left.
3) Turnovers, you could fumble or throw a pic.
4) You risk stopping the clock.
With the way Stanford did it, they gave themselves a 90%+ chance to win before OT, without giving OSU a chance to win, and they absolutely guaranteed the other team didn’t get a shot at it. The FG wasn’t a chip shot, but it should have been a routine, easy FG.
Sorry
I don’t buy this:
3) Turnovers, you could fumble or throw a pic.I’d buy that if an average QB was managing the game. Not the case here. Second, stopping the clock is not an issue in OT.
Sorry,
I was referring to the first kick at the end of regulation.
I disagree.
Maybe, if you’re looking at just the last couple of plays, then yeah. But in watching the game, Stanford went WAY conservative with 10 minutes left in the game, while they were tied at 38.
There was a point where 2 dumb running plays put them in a 3rd and 14. Forced a passing down, which Luck brilliantly converted. Then it was back to running up the gut. They played really conservatively, and basically took the game out of the hands of Luck (their best player), and put it into the foot of their redshirt freshman kicker.
They did the same in the overtime period.. Stanford had the chance, both in regulation and overtime, to stamp out an emphatic win. They didn’t even have to be particularly aggressive, just needed to be “not conservative”. Instead, well, they lost it.
I know it’s easy to say this in hindsight, but I was yelling at the TV for those calls all throughout the 4th quarter. I couldn’t believe the plays Shaw was calling.
There's normally a pretty decent argument to be made
but I see zero argument for “take the ball out of Andrew Luck’s hands.” When you have Luck, you don’t decide on a field goal with 45 seconds left. You let Luck go to work and if need be you fall back on the field goal.
Two roads diverged in a wood and I – I tweeted my followers to ask which I should take
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Jan 3, 2012 6:08 PM PST up reply actions
Yep
That’s the thought process that Shaw rejected. It seems to me that Furd had a better chance of scoring with Luck throwing and their running back running than with an inexperienced FG kicker. That said, I was pleased Furd tried it that way. I was rooting for OSU. Two reasons for that: It lets OSU people say they deserve the NC if LSU gets beat, and I’m just a bit tired of the luck propaganda machine.
Well...
it’s not really propaganda if it’s true…is it? :)
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
If he was as good as they all said, he would have figured a way to pass it to himself for the winning TD.
And before you say it, if the coach had not suddenly started channeling Donahue, he may well have called that play and the game would have been over.
Mark Richt was even worse in the Outback Bowl
I don’t know if anyone watched the Outback Bowl, but Richt lost it for Georgia with one of the most chickens**t calls I’ve ever seen. It was Donahue x10 If I was a Bulldog fan, I’d be tempted to call for his resignation and/or head, immediately.
Situation: It’s OT, Georgia intercepted MSU on the first possession, so they just need any score. First play is a run outside, gets 2 yards. I figure, they’ll try a couple more running plays, or if they were really smart, maybe a long pass like Gundy did against Stanford, and end it there. What does he do? Has the QB run to the middle, and take a knee, losing the 2 yrads he just gained, then kicks it on 3rd down!! Of course it misses, and MSU wins in the next OT. Unbelievable. A 42-yarder is not a chip shot, and you had two more tries to pick up some yardage. I just shook my head in disbelief.
I thought the FG was the right call in regulation for Stanford, because you need to bleed all the time off the clock so OSU can’t come back. Terrible play calling in OT however, a run up the middle on 2nd and 10 when you have the best QB in football, and a psycholgically damaged kicker, is just mind-boggling.
For the record, I wasn’t too keen on Gundy’s call for the field goal from the 1/2 yard line, instead of using three tries to punch it in for a TD.
The end of the Fiesta Bowl was a huge letdown
After such a good game, for Stanford to go conservative like that and for Gundy to not even TRY to punch it in, I just felt insulted as a viewer. Game ended with such a whimper.
Right
Georgia’s OT calls pretty conservative. I really enjoyed watching that game and was perhaps wasn’t invested in either of the team winning. May be that’s why Richt’s call didn’t bother me as much as the ones from Shaw (after seeing the last few mins today).
I'm with Nestor on this, both philosophically and as to the Fiesta Bowl: Conservative coaches are afraid.
Shaw’s play calling showed that he was afraid. He was afraid that his talented offense would turn the ball over (and they had turned the ball over during the game). He was afraid that Luck might throw an incomplete and stop the clock (and that had happened, albeit very, very rarely during the game). He was afraid that his defense would not be able to hold OSU if his dominant offense scored too quickly (and indeed his defense had given up quick scores). That sort of fear means he should not be a head coach. If you are afraid your offense will louse things up, then go to the victory formation on every play and hope for a defensive score after you punt.
The article’s point about Petersen (is he that guy who coaches on the plaid field?) is likewise apt. Petersen went for two and a win against Oklahoma in that wonderfully exciting game (the names of the two game-winning plays both started with the word “old”). He proved then that he’s not cowardly, but his play calling against TCU certainly showed that for some reason he thought his scoring machine team would not be able to do anything against the Frogs.
Also, Shaw’s kicker had not shown that he was the go to guy in the situation he was put in. I read where he had been doing well in the first part of the season, but had only made a few FGs in the last half, and was something like 2 for 5 going into the Fiesta Bowl. On his first miss, I noticed that he looked much younger than a redshirt freshman. After the miss, it looked like he wanted to challenge the ref that it was good, i.e., that he wanted to blame someone else for his miss. His head was not on straight, and the coach should have known that. Shaw ended up being afraid to trust the game to his proven veteran, a man who had an outstanding game up until then, and chose instead to trust a boy with an ingrown anus. Bad move, but typical of conservative coaches.
Boise St., Petersen, and shifting circumstances
Chris Petersen and Boise State illustrate how much things change in only a few years. In 2007, Boise State had absolutely nothing to lose in the Fiesta Bowl against Oklahoma. They were only the second “BCS-Buster” to play in a BCS Bowl, and really, they were the first to play a legitimate opponent (sorry, 2004 Pitt). Boise State’s situation in that Fiesta Bowl emboldened Petersen to think and play outside the proverbial box, and it paid tremendous dividends. Fast forward to 2010, with the same school and the same coach, only this time with everything to lose (a potential berth in the BCS Championship Game), and Petersen plays it close to the vest and it backfires.
I would say that Petersen made the correct calls both times, according the circumstances. He had nothing to gain by playing it safe against Oklahoma because that was the program’s biggest game at the time. Against TCU in 2010, he had everything to lose and played it safe. The rest, of course, is history, but I think history would’ve been far unkinder had Petersen went for the touchdown and failed. I believe it’s more forgivable under these circumstances when coaches/leaders opt for the safer, prudent course of action, lest they be labeled “reckless”, which is a more damning label than “conservative”, IMHO.
I think that’s what coaches are afraid of when they’re compelled to make a significant game-time decision. They’re afraid of what the press, fans, blogs, et. al. will say. They’re afraid of how their decision, which has to be made in 40 seconds, will be broken down, analyzed, and torn to shreds for days, weeks, months, and years afterward. It’s understandable because that’s what we, the public, do to our leaders, but it’s also the reason why they’re leaders, to make those types of decisions.
Play to win the game...
I watched UGA and Stanford choke away games because they assume a kicker can make a 40 yard FG like a chip shot. Both teams have NFL QBs and need to go for the throat.
I want a coach with the Chip Kelly mindset always on the attack.
by Seahawcla on Jan 3, 2012 12:44 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Was 35 yards in regulation
If that is not a chip shot, I don’t know what is. If Shaw goes for it and the team doesn’t get it, this blog post never gets written because it would have shown conservatism would’ve been favored over gutsiness.
I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...
http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com
by johnvely on Jan 3, 2012 1:23 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
OSU's game-winner was a chip shot
But that’s beside the point.
It isn’t that Shaw called a field goal with 3 seconds left in the game. There’s nothing wrong with that decision, if you look ONLY at the one playcall with 3 seconds left. But throughout the 4th quarter, and especially on that last drive, they called conservative running plays that failed to work time and time again. They acted like they were grinding out a lead, when they had no such thing (it was a tied game).
Stanford could have played more agressively (not even “super aggressively”), and they would’ve either iced the game with a TD in regulation, moved the field goal attempt up another 20 yards in regulation, or done the same in the 1st overtime period.
It was mindboggling.
Conservatism is smart in moderation
Sure, football fans will want the sexy 2-point conversion or going for it on 4th-and-1, but if Mora gambles, everyone here will ask for his firing upon completion of the game if they lose.
Shaw’s decision made sense. Anything can happen in the final seconds of a football game. The odds seem about even between missing chip-shot from 35 yrds out and throwing an interception (Luck’s fault or otherwise) or fumbling the ball. The mentality is not “playing to lose” but rather weighing the safer bet. If Williamson makes that kick, a kick any legitimate starting kicker can make, then Stanford wins. It isn’t as if the Cardinal were kicking FGs all day. When they finally needed one, their freshman kicker choked. It’s that simple.
If our defense is elite enough, we can afford to play it safe on offense half the time. But fans want the flashy crap you often play on Madden, so whatever.
I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...
http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com
by johnvely on Jan 3, 2012 1:21 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Quit with this
but if Mora gambles, everyone here will ask for his firing upon completion of the game if they lose.
Been seeing an uptick in this garbage way of making a counterpoint. It’s worse than a generalization and a strawman argument. It’s a hypothetical and is pure conjecture, but it’s being asserted as if it’s a legitimate counterargument. Cut this BS out.
johnvely
We appreciate the contribution.
However, you do realize it is not exactly cool that you take cheap shots against this community on your blog and then come here using it in your signature? You are welcome to partake here if you are going to be respectful. But you can’t have it both ways.
Didn't take a cheap shot against this community
I took cheap shots against members of the community. It’s frustrating like hell knowing that if I’m about to disagree on something voraciously, my comment’s going to get deleted, regardless of its tone. I’ve been respectful and because my opinion goes against the grain, it is discounted.
This blog doesn’t solely represent the sentiment of the UCLA fan-base, but it sure acts like it, considering the heavy-handed manner in which everything is treated at times. When BN is writing objectively about coaches’ schemes and postulating about who fits where, it’s the best community on the planet because everyone is rational and respectful. But when certain people take a stance on something, and comments are moderated as “this way or the highway”? That’s when the community — and the beauty of online discussion — goes to hell.
I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...
http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com
When you take shots against the moderators of this site ...
… who put in their own time to build this community, you are attacking the whole community. You can say whatever you want wherever you blog. However, you cannot do that and then use the platform here to make yourself more visible. You can’t have it both ways. You are not going to be able to go on BRO and promote your site with a link if it contains attacks on BRO moderators on how that community is run. It just doesn’t work that way.
This is a forum where people participate after agreeing to rules. It works for everyone except for few malcontents. This community does represent a huge portion of UCLA alumni base, given it’s members and numbers. You may not like it but that is the reality based on 6+ years of body of work.
If you are not going to stop attacking the moderators in this community, do not post again. We are not going to have special rules for you.
You don't speak for me, John
I will never fault a coach for being aggressive in his play calling. I will never fault a coach for being unconventional. You probably don’t go back far enough to remember Coach Prothro, but he did unusual things constantly. That became so much a part of UCLA that it caused problems for other teams. We quick-kicked on third down, and it invariably worked. (In that sense, punting was winning.) We also went for it on fourth down. No one could plan for us.
Example. Rose Bowl of 1966. MSU had the great Bubba Smith at defensive end. It was accepted by all that we would never run his direction. On the first play of the game, Beban ran around Bubba’s side of the line for 20-plus yards. We got a TD on that drive, and then did an onsides kick which we recovered.
I will forever criticize Coach Neuheisel and his predecessor for bringing “fearful football” to UCLA. I will never criticize a coach for playing to win, as we did under Coach Prothro.
Play nice John
We are all Bruins here.
Dump Dan!
by bruinclassof10 on Jan 3, 2012 7:33 PM PST up reply actions
Just like the comment on Tydides comment
Dude can tell me my reasoning is “garbage way of making a counterpoint” and to “Cut this BS out” and when I tell him others use the same reasoning for the other side and to “chill the f*** out” my comment gets deleted.
You guys have the power of network effects and are wasting it on manipulating a community to fit the mold of what you think is the sentiment of the UCLA fan-base? That’s ridiculous.
I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...
http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com
BN Rules
They are clear:
Any insult or any comment that would be perceived as an insult, attack or a lecture to the moderators could be subjected deletion, warning or subsequent banning. The moderators reserve the right to delete any post or comment that is deemed not appropriate for Bruins Nation. Also, we will not tolerate any lectures to moderators on how they should run this community.If this doesn’t work for you, then do not engage. You will not get another warning if you hijack a thread again like this. Thanks.
There you go again
I said what I said based on your exact comments. It was based on the words you posted. It’s not based on what I think would have been posted had something else happened. That’s when this discussion goes from legitimate to BS. You did it again just now which suggests to me that you and others have a habit of this, and it’s not going to fly any longer.
I commented on this above, but I'll do so again here
The issue isn’t “Shaw called a kick with 3 seconds left, rather than heaving to the endzone! BOO!”.
The issue is that Shaw went conservative on the entire drive, playing for the field goal, which is NEVER guaranteed. Even pro kickers miss seemingly chip shot field goals on occassion (see: Vinatieri w/ the Colts v. the Chargers a few years back).
To illustrate further:
By your chip shot logic, a touchdown is a guaranteed 7 points. This makes ONE touchdown drive worth more than TWO field goal scoring drives. You should always be playing for the touchdown, with that 3pt as a last resort. Playing FOR a field goal is a loser’s mindset.
I can promise you right now, if Mora is intelligently aggressive, I will not ask for his firing if it backfires.
The kid was wetting himself
They showed him on the sidelines, and he looked like he was going to throw up. Who do you give your season to—the all-American quarterback or the teenage kicker?
Moreover, with 51 seconds to go, Stanford was on the 18. They ran once, then let the clock run down before calling time out, leaving the Cowboys with a time out to call to freeze the kid, on top of everything else.
And finally, the OK State defense was getting beat—in both senses, both tired and unable to keep up with the Trees. Two time outs, 51 seconds, you’ve got to let your all-American take a shot.
And speaking of time outs, how about Shaw not taking one when his defense was gassed down the stretch. On the last Cowboy TD the safety was signaling to the bench that he didn’t know what to do, even as the play was starting.
Shaw
I was more frustrated by the Stanford offensive calls during the first overtime than I was on their last drive, though I concede the point. Luck was having a great throwing game. OSU had proven they can score and score quickly. The Stanford kicker just proved he was capable of choking. Yet, Stanford stayed conservative and the first two plays were running plays.
I hate the philosophy
But that isn’t my biggest issue with the Boise St. or the Stanford or the Georgia decisions at the end of these games.
I don’t understand why these coaches go away from their philosophy at the end of games. If your team’s mindset is to go for it, then you go for it.
College coaches have to realize that it is not the NFL. NFL kickers are damn near robots. Anything within 50 yards is almost automatic. I saw a study that showed that NFL kicker’s percentages after being iced went up like 4%. That is insane.
I hope someone conveys that to Mora and to any coach coming to NCAA from the NFL. You can’t assume in college, because the kickers miss field goals like that.
"I have one word for you...Be careful."
-Jose Guillen
by IE Angel on Jan 3, 2012 3:52 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Love this comment:
If your team’s mindset is to go for it, then you go for it.
I remember the game against SC after we had won 8 in a row, SC found themselves in a close game that should never have been that close. When they trotted out their kicker to go for the win with a field goal, Toledo calls a time out. He wants to ice the kicker.
My gut instinct at that time was it was a mistake. Their kicker was garbage that year. But, when Toledo called time out, he effectively gave him time to gather his thoughts; review the mechanics of the kick. SC was in a hurry. The clock was working for us, not them. Toledo’s time out bailed them out.
Sure enough, they made the kick and won the game. Big mistake!
Winning is not a sometime thing; it's an all the time thing. You don't win once in a while; you don't do things right once in a while; you do them right all the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. ~ Vince Lombardi
Stanford could of...
Despite their hurtful lost, I must say that overall Stanford plays solid football. Im sure they will show some decline with the lack of Luck next year, but they will continue to play their style of football. At least until Shaw is there. They will definitely learn from this experience.
by Trueblue'09 on Jan 3, 2012 5:35 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Pet peeve...
what does “could of” mean? How do you write that, look at it, and think it’s ok?
Sorry, I’m from Fox’s School of Pre-Madonnas.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Sure thing
What I meant was that one or a couple of decisions could of made or break Stanford. In this case, it turned into Stanford losing the game. Obviously, there could have been different scenarios take place. Many scenarios have been posted and highlighted on this thread. Shaw decided to go with his kicker and paid the consequences. Overall, Stanford had a good season despite their lost. Im sure Shaw has taken a lot of heat , as he should, from everywhere and it will be a learning experience for Stanford.
by Trueblue'09 on Jan 4, 2012 2:04 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Ummm...seriously?
It’s “could HAVE”. “Could of” is not English.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Thanks for the correction
I will continue to communicate as best as I can. As long as I get my point across. Is proper grammar part of the BN guidelines? Just wondering. As long as there is equality across the field, I have no problem.
by Trueblue'09 on Jan 4, 2012 2:51 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Using proper grammar is part of being a grown up, True.
Kids use kid language. You should of known that. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
Don’t forget to study for next week’s quiz on “The Care and Use of the Apostrophe.”
Thanks
My intention is not to belittle or single out anyone on BN. That is not why I joined. If this is constructive criticism, then I will leave it at that. My main point will be that all BN is treated equally. I do appreciate all the feedback I’m getting. I have some learning to do. Maybe it’s because English has been my second language. I’m a Latin American Studies major after all and English has been my weakness. Math my strength. Thanks Fox 71 and tasser10.
by Trueblue'09 on Jan 4, 2012 3:50 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Think about it this way
Thanks to Fox and tasser you are totally going to ace Senora Ross’s course now!
by Nestor on Jan 4, 2012 5:37 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
True
The GRE is next. I need all the help I can get.
by Trueblue'09 on Jan 4, 2012 5:42 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Ahh..Nevermind. It appears I'm not the only one being scrutinized
I definitely should have known better being a newbee and all. Nonetheless, I will continue with my posts as long as I’m given the opportunity to do so. If there’s one thing that UCLA taught me was to research. I slipped. I wish there was a better way of addressing these off topic tantrums. Like sending a direct message as opposed to embarrassing people on the blog. I would prefer it that way. It seems like these kinds of issues spur up every now and then.
commentators even mentioned his anxiety
Shaw had to go over and give him a pep talk before the kick. He looked tight on the sidelines. Luck was efficient, unafraid, and frankly, perfect during the game. Okla state won because they let Blackmon make plays, Stanford lost because the kept the ball out of Luck’s hands when it mattered. I think it will build Luck’s character and make him a better qb. I might be mistaken but I think Peyton lost a NC in 1997. He turned out ok.
by Strathmore&Gayley on Jan 3, 2012 5:47 PM PST reply actions
Mora is well aware, his ass is on the line, if we start losing.
I’m sure he’ll pull out the stops, knowing he’s under a microscope. And in all reality:
This is Mora’s audition for the possibility of coaching in the NFL as a HC someday.
Good news is: Mora’s hiring coaches who will be getting promoted and leaving, which is the best thing for our program. No “Fear of Success,” of an Asst Coach taking his job.
When we become an Intstitution of higher Coaches, we will automatically become an Institution of higher recruits! We will start losing Asst Coaches to promotions, while bringing in new ones to carry on the winning tradition. It’s the wheels of success.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
