[CTcard]

The football writer for the Daily George Chen looks at the Red Zone play calling drive-by-drive, then draws conclusions.  It's a good read that is worth a few minutes of your time.

The drive by drive analysis is good in reminding people what happened and in thinking about what worked and what didn't.

However I do object to the concept advanced here, and in much of the world of fandom, that it is possible to apportion credit/blame between players and coaches; i.e. I don't think the entire concept of saying a loss (or a win) is 90% on the coaches has any meaning.

In one sense, the coaches are 100% responsible for everything that happens on a college football team. If players don't execute, well it's the coaches' job to teach them how to execute. If players are not inherently athletic enough, well it's the coaches' job to assemble the players on a team. If the players are not strong/skilled enough, well it is the coaches' job to develop them while in the program.

In another sense, players are 100% responsible for what happens on the field. After all, no coaches are throwing, running, or blocking. Even the worst called plays work if executed perfectly.  Steve Sarkisian didn't beat Stanford in 2012 and 2014, the UW Huskies and then the S-C. Asia-Minor-Warriors did.

I guess I would say everything is 100% coaches AND 100% players. The separation is meaningless.


Hmmmm. Not sure what set me off on this - certainly the approach is not unique to this Daily writer. But there it is.

[CTcard]

The football writer for the Daily George Chen looks at the Red Zone play calling drive-by-drive, then draws conclusions.  It's a good read that is worth a few minutes of your time.

The drive by drive analysis is good in reminding people what happened and in thinking about what worked and what didn't.

However I do object to the concept advanced here, and in much of the world of fandom, that it is possible to apportion credit/blame between players and coaches; i.e. I don't think the entire concept of saying a loss (or a win) is 90% on the coaches has any meaning.

In one sense, the coaches are 100% responsible for everything that happens on a college football team. If players don't execute, well it's the coaches' job to teach them how to execute. If players are not inherently athletic enough, well it's the coaches' job to assemble the players on a team. If the players are not strong/skilled enough, well it is the coaches' job to develop them while in the program.

In another sense, players are 100% responsible for what happens on the field. After all, no coaches are throwing, running, or blocking. Even the worst called plays work if executed perfectly.  Steve Sarkisian didn't beat Stanford in 2012 and 2014, the UW Huskies and then the S-C. Asia-Minor-Warriors did.

I guess I would say everything is 100% coaches AND 100% players. The separation is meaningless.


Hmmmm. Not sure what set me off on this - certainly the approach is not unique to this Daily writer. But there it is.