Coaching a Shootout vs Coaching a Chess Match

[The Kamikaze Kid]

This morning millions of disappointed Duck fans are grappling with the feeling that their team let a big one get away yesterday. A few key decisions at a few key moments altered the path from victory to defeat even though the Ducks won the statistical battle in most categories on the stat sheet including QB performance.

 

There where also haunting similarities to earlier losses from the Chip Kelly days. I think it comes down to the different coaching mentalities between being in a shootout vs a chess match. In a shootout, you just hope that your defense can get a key stop or a turn over as you race your opponent to fifty on the scoreboard. In a chess match, you brace for a defensive struggle and try to win the field position battle and scratch and claw your way to getting  a few more points than your opponent.

 

Watching Kelly and Lanning leave points on the field in a slug fest with elite teams is frustrating. Watching Mario settle into a slug fest mentality when his team was capable of boat racing most opponents was even more frustrating. I think there is a hidden skill to coaching that is about being aware of the type of game you are in not just believing the type of game you want to be in.

 

Lanning has proven that he is a go for the jugular type of coach which is great against inferior teams buy has proven catastrophic in equal opponent chess matches. If he is the always achieving to get better guy he says he is, he will embrace the need to develop the tactile skills of a chess master and coach the team to victory in these situations.

 

My glass is has full one this and I think he is that guy and will get there. If he gets there this year, they still may be a playoff level team. Go Ducks!

 

[The Kamikaze Kid]

In his post game interview, Lanning seemed to point out this very subject. He said something to the effect of going for it before the half because he thought it was more of a high scoring type of game (get as many points as you can) but he should have thought of it as a close score type of game and should have taken the points instead. I think this is some growth on his part.

[DanLduck]

When a play doesn't work, why is it always the coaches fault?

If the players don't execute properly, any play can fail.

 

As noted, Oregon won basically every category statistics wise. That seems to me to suggest a good game plan by the coaches.

 

No one is complaining about going for 2 pts, twice! Because they worked. That 2nd time was genius cuz it kept the score within 3. Lewis has been great this year, no one thought he would miss.

 

I for one have no issues with the coaching decisions. The players didn't execute.

Sometimes games come down to a couple big plays. Our guys just weren't able to make one more big play.

 

They played their hearts out for the full 60 minutes. No doubt in my mind that we win in OT.

 

I hope we get a rematch this year in Vegas. We have the players and the coaches to get us there.

[The Kamikaze Kid]

A play or two goes our way in the end and today the country is talking about that awesome goal line stand and Lanning running to get the ref's attention for a drive (and game) saving time out in the nick of time. Personally, I think a better play call on the final 4th down that gave Bo enough options to do Bo type things would have won the game. That's pretty dang close to pulling off an impressive top 10 road win.

[1Ducker1]

Woulda Coulda Shoulda--at the end of the day its all about the win. I feel strongly that Dan Lanning would agree 100%

 Now we HAVE to FINISH STRONG. Zero letdowns. NO room for any loss.