Friday Feedback
September 25, 2015 by Mike Casazza
Welcome to the Friday Feedback, which does not go on hiatus after today’s edition. Actually, it might but just for a week. Typically the standard has been that we won’t do the F Double on the Fridays I travel, and I’m not sure that’s going to change. The closer doesn’t come out every night, you know?
We’ll see.
Speaking of scheduling and functionality and probably pitchers, too, I think I’ve found the strike zone with this new schedule. It’s still weird as hell to have to publish for Saturday and Sunday papers and push myself for the entire week, and I haven’t even soldiered through a travel day yet, but the blog routine is fine on my end. Obviously, we’re still working through conquerable issues with its appearance and the way things are supposed to look and work, but we’ll get there. The headlines and the RSS feed on the blog’s homepage ought to be working soon. The problem with embedding the chat is fixed. The other problem with the chat should have never happened, but that’s not a blog thing. I’m not at the “Write your local congressperson!” stage quite yet.
I took the new in-game blog plug-in for a spin yesterday, and some of you caught it. It’s all right. I think I’ll like it, and I hope you do, too, but it’s new, so of course I’m not sold on it as of yet, and it won’t be completely smooth tomorrow. But as has been the case on the Daily Mail side, that’s going to be our as-it-happened account of the game. No halftime story. No at-the-buzzer story chased by a more complete version for print. Live position the game. Story after the game. There won’t be as much Twitter, either, and, yes, this is a different story than I told you two weeks ago. But we spent some time considering the options and this was the best vehicle, as it always was.
All I ask is you be on your very worst behavior.
(One more: My JRL493 class publishes its first editions of their competing online sports magazines a week from today. Your, um, feedback is appreciated.)
Onto the Feedback. As always, comments appear as posted. In other words, choose your words carefully.
Mack said:
I think the telling part of Mike’s story is that when RichRod picked up on people possibly stealing his signs, he switched to a wristband… it didn’t work and they went back to the signals halfway through the game. The more you overthink things, the worse off you’re going to be.
An advantage can certainly be gained if you know the play that is coming… but the players on the field have to be the ones that know it. If the coach on the sidelines knows the play, it just seems as though it would take way too much time and effort (and likely lead to confusion) for them to tell their players as the offense is lining up.
The Georgia Southern coaches though WVU might run some zone read… so they prepped for it. How many plays did WVU actually run a zone read? On top of that, with White/Slaton/Schmitt, WVU seemed to only run four different plays per game and still no one on their schedule could stop them.
I think ESPN and Rod Gilmore has led us, as fans, to believe that a win can always be had if the coach just makes the right decisions throughout the game. I’d say it has a lot more to do with the players on the field doing the right things. (Sorry, I watched part of a game that Gilmore was commentating, this weekend. At all times, he wants every player/coach/team to do anything other than what they’re doing.)
Bingo. In the referenced 2007 game, WVU was bothered during the game because it allowed itself to be bothered before it. There was something empowering for that team to stand on the sideline and see the coach rip of his wristbands and go, “Screw it. We’re beating them at our game, even if they know it’s coming.” I think more coaches are like that than we think, though they’re all paranoid to certain and sometimes extreme degrees. The bigger concern, as I see it and has been relayed to me, isn’t what opponents know but when they know it. It’s too hard, as explained above, to communicate every stolen signal on every play. The best coaches would rather their defenders read and react than predict and react. But say there’s a fourth-and-2 play at the defense’s 34-yard line in the fourth quarter and the offense wants to pick up the first down to protect a 31-30 lead and kill the final 1:05 on the clock. Defenses are smart enough to know the offense is going to pick from a small number of plays. That’s scouting. The defense can then call a timeout or just quickly convey something and prep the players for, say, three plays. Those players can then go out and focus on the signals for just three plays. The other side of that is the defense could just as easily tell the players to look for those three plays and read and react and not predict and react. How you feel and what you believe about this topic is really subjective. I just find it fascinating, and that was the case before Baylor’s brilliance. Those guys …
smeer said:
if WVU’s O- past or present – is playing fast, there is no way for the opponent’s D to look to their own sideline to get a formation and then look to our sideline to get what play we are running – requiring a skill set/intelligence that the opponent’s D is adept at rading even simple signals
defensive coaching is prepping all week for tendencies out of formations and field position and personnel and down and distance.
and even then, sometimes you just line up in base formation and do your assignment – mano y mano.
i’m with you Mack – opponents knew what was coming with the zone read from Fraud – still couldn’t stop it (except when PW was hurt in the game that shall never be named)
all that said, I applaud HCDH for entertaining us with the posters and for adding in some elements that leaves no doubt that nothing in being stolen
we have nothing to fear but paranoia itself
This is where I step away from the crowd and say, yes, it’s fun to poke at paranoia, but these coaches act this way and protect this way out of experience. It does happen.
netbros said:
That ground-level audible could evolve into a fumble-rooski some day.
I took the bait and asked. He does it for the precise reason you think. The defense can’t see him. The offensive line can hear him better. But, like you, I can’t help but imagine a second-and-goal at the 1 in the future in which he stands in the shotgun and calls a dummy play, scoots toward the line, drops down, takes a snap and slips into the end zone. That’s the day I quit, because we’ve nothing left to prove here.
WVU77 said:
Coaches are not infallible. They mention things to friends, colleagues, donors, etc… that they might wrongly assume will be kept quiet. The recipients of the information might even promise not to tell, but to a “civilian” and fan any nugget of information from a major college coach is too juicy to keep under wraps. For instance, I have a close friend who is a HS coach. He was at WVU on a coaches day for practice the spring before Alabama. He told me that WVU was going back to the 335 and that he was told so by Coach Gibson. Later, it became apparent that WVU was denying switching back to the 335 in the media. I’m sure he wasn’t the only HS coach with that information.
This is all true. Sometimes your worst enemies are actually friendly, and they just don’t know any better. And your 3-3-5 anecdote is assuredly accurate. Without giving it away, I was certain it was coming for a like reason — remember, we were the only goofs writing and talking about it. Yet I also have material from a clinic Tony Gibson did in the spring of 2014, I think In Pennsylvania, in which he and Brian Mitchell went over WVU’s multiple 3-4 defense in great detail — and they were already down the road in switching to a 3-3-5. (See?!?! Isn’t this a fun topic?)
ccteam said:
Spying maybe, but it ain’t cheatin’. If a team can’t communicate without the other team seeing it then what you have is a signaling problem, not a cheating one.
The teleological approach.
SheikYbuti said:
Disagree. The point is to play football, your athletes against our athletes; it’s not supposed to be a cryptography competition.
The deontological approach.
(Before we leave the subject, I really liked this timely tale from Matt Keller.)
Sid Brockman said:
Art Briles won’t comment until he talks to Chris Petersen.
What a 180 for that guy and that program. Deserved, it would appear, but I did not see this coming a few years ago. He’s Rocky Maivia.
Oklahoma Mountaineer said:
In case you are still wondering, Baylor is the dirty player in the Big XII pool. If it’s shady, they are probably involved or somebody is copying what they have already done……
The dirt is across the entire athletic department, but most prevalent in football…….
We were warned — and we haven’t even talked about Scott Drew.
MontanaEer said:
Baylor is our new Miami, but without the big time bowl wins and NCs.
I don’t believe it’ll be the case, but what if they’re both undefeated when WVU goes to Baylor? Between the 70-spot the Bears dropped on the last visit, WVU’s win last season and some subtle jabs thrown and landed this season, there’s animus to consider.
Down South said:
I’ve read dozens of articles about Briles, from how he lost his parents to how his offensive philosophy developed. I was always pretty intrigued by the guy. Right up until he showed his a$$ during the game last season about a targeting ejection while Terrell Chestnut was laying motionless about ten feet away. Just low class. Never be able to root for the guy after that, conference affiliation or not. Having said that, this seems to me to be much ado about nothing. There’s a certain incestuousness to all these coaching family trees. My guess is this is much more about visiting friends than scouting. More about lack of knowledge about a silly rule than malicious intent. Briles is right. There is nothing you could see standing on the sideline that you can’t see in a game film or television broadcast. I guess you could maybe hear their on-field calls, but he could probably pick up the phone and call his buddy at Tulsa and get the same information. Hope for Baylor’s sake that their computer compliance program isn’t emailing notice of the violation to the spam folder. I hear that can cause problems.
It reminds me of SpiderPadGate. It’s not that there was inherent cheating. It’s that the rule is there to be known and obeyed. People break rules. Certain people ought not to. Let’s also hope the coaches there can differentiate between texts and email. That, too, is an apparent source of confusion.
BobbyHeenan said:
If The U was Ric Flair, then Baylor is Greg “the hammer” Valentine. All heel, no redeeming qualities, no big championships, but if he locks the figure four in you’re in trouble.
BobbyHeenan also said:
plus, to make that figure four more effective he wears that questionably legal shin guard gimmick.
I feel like this could be a post on a slow day. Like, where’s Bob Orton and his cast in this conversation?
Clarence Oveur said:
Art “see no evil, hear no evil” Briles
I talked to a couple assistant coaches I know (various sports … none at WVU, for the record) and they all said there’s no way an assistant coach doesn’t know he can’t do what the Baylor assistant did. They all take a NCAA test regularly, too, that quizzes them on the rules. Oftentimes scouting and cheating are covered in depth. Here’s the best part about this: Briles addresses the matter and says it was an honest and a dumb mistake and that it shouldn’t have been happened. Doesn’t really touch on the fact it shouldn’t have been allowed to happen, but, fine, whatever. He sounded contrite and embarrassed, and he did call Oklahoma right away to settle it. Kudos. Then he decides to further treat it with a dismissive shrug and apply no penalty. The athletic director — Briles’ boss who’s now been dragged into a few too many instances like this — intervenes and issues a suspension for one half of one game. A half! It’s the most kind-of-pregnant punishment possible. Then the Big 12 issues a reprimand, something it’s never had to do before. How did Briles think his son-in-law didn’t deserve any sort or penalty when his boss and then his conference followed with punitive responses? (Speaking of family members … this is interesting.)
Mack said:
The Big 10’s position on out-of-conference scheduling:
Games against D1 Independents (Notre Dame, Army, BYU) will count as games against Power 5 opponents. (Ok, I’m with you).
Games against UConn and Cincinnati will also count as games against Power 5 opponents. (Wait. What?)
Let’s translate the Big Ten’s language here: UConn = Alabama, USC, Oklahoma, Florida State and also Vanderbilt, Washington State, Kansas and Wake Forest. Useful. But here’s my problem with this, beyond that stupidity: How can the Big Ten get away with this? If nothing else were to come from the Baylor-TCU debacle, it was that the College Football Playoff needed (at least more) uniformity. This is another variable in the already-too-varied CFP. We already had an issues with whether or not a team plays a conference championship game. We’ve already had conversations about the difference between eight- and nine-game conference schedules. We’ve already heard dissertations on the strength of schedules and whether a team should play FCS schools or has to play all highly visible teams … or at least one (!). It was already too varied, despite a two-year runway before the first season. And now we’re redefining what a highly visible team is as a way to broadly interpret strength of schedule? That’s insanity. A tabby cat is not a tiger, and Cincinnati is not LSU. There’s really no difference in Ohio State scheduling UConn instead of Iowa State, but there’s a really good chance schools will do that in the future rather than schedule a better team form a highly visible league and then, permissibly, say to the CFP committee, “Hey, we played that highly visible school!” which is nuts. And good for UConn and Cincinnati. They’re going to make a lot of money off of this.
tls62pa said:
FYI: Zeke Moisey earned an invitation to the All Star Classic on November 1st. MAJOR deal. WVU has not had anyone in this event since Greg Jones (who impressively won 3 times). This is BIG news for the program.
Other past WVU participants:
Scott Collins (NCAA Champ)
Mark Banks
Keith Taylor
Dean Morrison
Mike Mason
Vertus JonesVery exclusive company for the sophomore…
tls62pa also said:
Sorry, forgot to note that Dean Morrison was also an NCAA Champ
Very much worth including here.
smeer said:
signing up for the FYI thread
the Sunbelt of our Georgia Southern fame, must have the largest footprint in America – Idaho – not in the actual sunbelt – is in the Sunbelt along with schools in New Mexico, Texas, Arkansas and SEC states
we are not the furthest outlier and at least we have the $$ to get there
noticed when I saw that USC beat up on not one but two Sunbelt teams (Idaho and Arkansas state) to start the season – enough to earn them #18-19 rankings while losing to Stanford – because afterall they are USC and the Pac12 rules
Adding Coastal Carolina in the future, too. Here’s my FYI, considering WVU played GSU and GSU thumped Western Michigan. Liberty pulled an upset, I guess, last week against Montana. Good squad, that one.
Joe Dryler said:
Well, we keep saying that this year is big for HCDH, that he has to finally arrive and take ownership and show he has matured into a big-time D-1 coach (which I think he is doing). This is one of those weeks to prove it. This game has all the makings of a trap game – big spread, off a bye week, four ranked conference games coming after (3 on the road!), etc. Oh, and there is just something about Mary(land), right? Rarely our best efforts. WVU is clearly the better team talent and depth-wise (I’ll even take our kicker). It’s up to the coaches to get them to show up early, keep the crowd into it, and take care of business. So, I’m going to be watching very carefully at how the coaching staff has this team prepared on all four sides (the fourth being effort here) of the ball.
Fair.
MontanaEer said:
Last year shouldn’t have been nearly as close as it was. Some key lapses on D and special teams, and 4 TOs kept them in it, despite being outgained by 250 yards, doubled in first downs, and Edsall’s whining about how many plays we ran. If Howard is, indeed, as good as Trickett, if the D is improved, and if we don’t blow it on punt/kick returns (either way), we should pull away after halftime.
Not really much attention on this topic this week, and I’m probably to blame for it, but this is our first Skyler Howard Game of 2015. What he’s done so far has at lest eased some apprehension rooted in last year’s performances. There’s a difference between easing and erasing, though, and this is easily the best defense he’s seen this season (I’m also not sure how good this defense is or is not, and some of that, or a lot of that, is up to Howard). A loss could restore a lot of worries, especially if quarterback play contributes, but a win doesn’t necessarily erase them, either. I think we’ll have more answers about the rest of 2015 at around 6:30 Saturday evening and I suspect Howard will have much do to with them.
ccteam said:
Not looking for style points, but I get a lot more confident about the rest of the year If WV wins in a fashion that clearly indicates the Mountaineers were the better team.
Brings up an interesting debate: Is the team or are the expectations to the point where a win is not enough? I would argue no, but I do think WVU has a better roster and team, so, along that line of thinking, it should win and win with a certain conviction. But is WVU’s roster and team so much better that conviction is attainable? Again, I would argue no. Odd place to be in, no?
Down South said:
New York Giants just ran a stick draw. No one in my living room understands why I just yelled “STICK DRAW!”
I actually got a text about this, too. Warms the heart.
BobbyHeenan said:
It’s his hair still glorious? These are the important hard-hitting details we need to know, Mike.
Appears to be the case.
Clarence Oveur said:
I was never sold on Ford.
Always been a Chrysler kinda guy.
Enjoy the weekend!