10-20-2019, 02:17 PM
OK, this is a serious response to a somewhat tongue-in-cheek topic I find it interesting that many people on this board think it appropriate for coaches to take responsibility, at least partially, for any given loss. It is ALWAYS true that a team loses a football game because the players failed to play better than the opposition. This may happen because the players were not adequately coached, but the players are the ones who didn't win. The coaches responsibility is almost always more indirect and harder to quantify, even for those directly involved. I am sure there are instances where the coach looks at the game and feels responsible for the loss. This may be because the staff failed to anticipate the defensive strategy, or because the offensive game plan was crap, or something like that. In those cases, the coach should own up and say so. That is for sure. However, those cases are pretty rare.
The play Chryst called is in another category. I believe it was a rational, defensible call. He has the best running back in football. Illinois knows this. They are going to load up to stop him. Possibly, a pass will catch them totally by surprise and they won't defend it well (or at all). The QB won't throw it if it isn't wide open. If they get a first down, Illinois is toast. If they don't, they punt. Not a horrid call. Except the route was covered and the QB did throw it. There were already TWO defenders between the receiver and the QB, and one behind the receiver that possibly could have jumped the route. No way the QB should ever throw that ball. Chryst kept saying it was a "great interception, heck of a play". Well, in a way it was. The two defenders didn't run into each other competing for the ball. Chryst was attempting not to state the obvious. The QB totally screwed up by throwing the ball.
Many will say that Chryst should have run the ball. But the running back may fumble. See Oregon and Christobal (maybe its the name) in 2018. Maybe the QB should have taken a knee and then you punt. But the punt may get run back/blocked because of poor punt team play. Me, I would have run the ball, but that doesn't mean the other choices are necessarily bad. Good decision, bad outcome. Getting up there and saying "It is on me, I made a bad call." is crazy if in fact you don't believe you did. The team will know you aren't serious.
Where Chryst possibly should take himself to the woodshed is if he hadn't made it completely clear to the QB what the situation was. This could have come in previous coaching sessions or directly in this game. You shouldn't call that play unless you are sure your QB knows what to do.He may still make a mistake, as he did, but you should be able to say that he should have known better and mean it. Actually saying that, which Chryst didn't, would have been counter-productive. If he didn't coach that point adequately, he should apologize to the QB in private. Doing so in public would be interpreted as condescending.
Imagine the reaction if Shaw got up there and said "I screwed up. I should have recruited another QB after West because he sucks so bad that we got beat". While expressing responsibility, it is also throwing a particular guy under the bus. It also isn't accurate, as the OL was an even bigger issue. So, should Shaw say "We screwed up. We should have got better freshmen than we did."? Same problem. It throws a unit of the team under the bus, and would certainly be de-motivating to all involved. In this case, even if that is what the coach actually believes, he must not say it. If he says "We should have prepared the team better.", he may be absolutely right but nobody will take that general statement seriously.
As Shaw and others have pointed out, at the end of the day, it is ALWAYS true that the coach is responsible for the result. Saying so repeatedly is simply redundant. The good news is that in college, you can't fire the players, but you can fire the coach. The coach's failings are manifested in the player's play. If the coach points out a failing and attempts to take responsibility for it, it appears phony. He is really blaming the player. Thus, the coach is restricted to generalities, which aren't emotionally satisfying to the critics.
If I were to fault the coaches for anything in the UCLA game, it would be for not adequately preparing for max pressure and press man defense. It may be that they tried and it just didn't take, but that is where introspection is called for, IMHO. We will for sure see it again from Arizona.
The play Chryst called is in another category. I believe it was a rational, defensible call. He has the best running back in football. Illinois knows this. They are going to load up to stop him. Possibly, a pass will catch them totally by surprise and they won't defend it well (or at all). The QB won't throw it if it isn't wide open. If they get a first down, Illinois is toast. If they don't, they punt. Not a horrid call. Except the route was covered and the QB did throw it. There were already TWO defenders between the receiver and the QB, and one behind the receiver that possibly could have jumped the route. No way the QB should ever throw that ball. Chryst kept saying it was a "great interception, heck of a play". Well, in a way it was. The two defenders didn't run into each other competing for the ball. Chryst was attempting not to state the obvious. The QB totally screwed up by throwing the ball.
Many will say that Chryst should have run the ball. But the running back may fumble. See Oregon and Christobal (maybe its the name) in 2018. Maybe the QB should have taken a knee and then you punt. But the punt may get run back/blocked because of poor punt team play. Me, I would have run the ball, but that doesn't mean the other choices are necessarily bad. Good decision, bad outcome. Getting up there and saying "It is on me, I made a bad call." is crazy if in fact you don't believe you did. The team will know you aren't serious.
Where Chryst possibly should take himself to the woodshed is if he hadn't made it completely clear to the QB what the situation was. This could have come in previous coaching sessions or directly in this game. You shouldn't call that play unless you are sure your QB knows what to do.He may still make a mistake, as he did, but you should be able to say that he should have known better and mean it. Actually saying that, which Chryst didn't, would have been counter-productive. If he didn't coach that point adequately, he should apologize to the QB in private. Doing so in public would be interpreted as condescending.
Imagine the reaction if Shaw got up there and said "I screwed up. I should have recruited another QB after West because he sucks so bad that we got beat". While expressing responsibility, it is also throwing a particular guy under the bus. It also isn't accurate, as the OL was an even bigger issue. So, should Shaw say "We screwed up. We should have got better freshmen than we did."? Same problem. It throws a unit of the team under the bus, and would certainly be de-motivating to all involved. In this case, even if that is what the coach actually believes, he must not say it. If he says "We should have prepared the team better.", he may be absolutely right but nobody will take that general statement seriously.
As Shaw and others have pointed out, at the end of the day, it is ALWAYS true that the coach is responsible for the result. Saying so repeatedly is simply redundant. The good news is that in college, you can't fire the players, but you can fire the coach. The coach's failings are manifested in the player's play. If the coach points out a failing and attempts to take responsibility for it, it appears phony. He is really blaming the player. Thus, the coach is restricted to generalities, which aren't emotionally satisfying to the critics.
If I were to fault the coaches for anything in the UCLA game, it would be for not adequately preparing for max pressure and press man defense. It may be that they tried and it just didn't take, but that is where introspection is called for, IMHO. We will for sure see it again from Arizona.