Taking Major Issue With Those Zany Bill Stewart Explanations

by Dr. Charley West on Nov 17, 2009 1:00 PM EST in HCBS Comment 17 comments

Lately, Bill has been dazzling us with explanations for his rationale behind certain moves in games, like "The Punt" (as it will now be called) at USF to the fourth and eight at Cincinnati. It's the quote that explains the play before that play, third and nine from the Cincinnati 25 yard line, that is the most curious.

Now remember, it was Jock Sanders that run up the middle for a gain of one on that play, setting up the fateful fourth and eight try. Here is Bill's explanation:

"That was a power play that we had been gashing for 6, 8, 12, 10 (yards)," Coach Bill Stewart said. "They slanted and blitzed and Jock got caught off the backside. It was one of those 'gotchas.'"

That's an extremely interesting take on the situation, one that is not totally incorrect, but one that is certainly not 100% truthful.

We had absolutely been gashing them up the middle with that play, but with Ryan Clarke doing the running. Unfortunately, it was Jock Sanders who carried that ball. Jock, for the night, ran for 14 yards on seven carries. His longest carry went for seven yards. So when Bill says that we had been been gashing them up the middle, it wasn't Jock that was doing that gashing. On that drive alone, Jock carried five times, with gains of six, one, one, zero, and negative one. Ouch.

I'm not even saying it was a terrible play call, but taking more issue with the explanations that go along with failed plays. Somehow, there's always an explanation, even when that explanation doesn't make much sense, if any at all. The numbers prove that Jock had not been gashing the defense, if not doing the complete opposite of that.

So if the play had worked, just not with Jock, why design the play for Jock?

"They didn't look like they wanted to hit old Clarke," Stewart said.

...and on one of the most important plays in the game, we didn't give them a chance.

Note: I know Mike Casazza goes into some detail about all of this, but I wish someone would truly follow-up with a biting question on a subject that deserves a better explanation.

0 recs | Comment 17 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Just Saying

If he didn’t give an explanation, everyone would be complaining because he does things without being able to explain them. Of course there’s always an explanation. And with some imagination, you might be able to come up with some plausible explanations of why he wanted Jock in there and not Clarke. I’m not saying it was right or wrong, I’m just saying that you automatically jump to the conclusion that Clarke should have been the one to carry the ball. To that, I offer some possible theories (again, not saying any of these are true, just saying that if they are, it may explain the call):

1. What if Clarke has shown a propensity to fumble in practice when he carries for more than a couple yards?

2. What if we wanted to make it look like we were going to pass, and putting Clarke at tailback instead of Jock would give away the run?

3. What if Clarke had only practiced out of the I-formation because he has difficulty reading blocks without a fullback leading the way?

4. What if Clarke had practiced that play during the week and had never picked up more than 1 or 2 yards, but when Jock ran it, he consistently picked up 7-10 yards?

by Country Roads on Nov 17, 2009 1:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Stop trying to imply that I'm not smarter than the coaching staff.

I understand there are a ton of other variables, 99% of which I probably have no clue about. But Stewart’s explanations always seem to raise more questions than answers.

by Dr. Charley West on Nov 17, 2009 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You're the one doing the implying by jumping to conclusions.

Your post was all about “why didn’t Jock carry the ball?”, implying that it should have been Clarke, no questions asked. It’s not like Stew, or any coach, can go into the 17 different reasons that one particular call was made. His explanation was “we were running the ball well, and they just happened to dial up the right defense.” What more do you want him to say? That kind of thing happens in football all the time. You make your play call based on the information you have available, and sometimes the other team just guesses right. Certainly you remember what happens when the other team gueses right from your days playing Tecmo Bowl, right?

by Country Roads on Nov 17, 2009 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But we weren't running the ball well.

Only Ryan Clarke was running the ball well. Noel averaged 3.5 yards a carry on the night, Jock only 2 yards. Ryan Clarke averaged 12 per carry. So I take great issue when Bill says we were gashing them.

by Dr. Charley West on Nov 17, 2009 1:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I was referring to that drive,

but looking back, that’s not even true. The key plays that drive were JB runs for 10 and 23 yards.

I guess the thing is, I get sick of the second guessing. There are always going to be play calls that turn out bad, this one just happened to be in a key situation. I’m sure Stew had his reasons for running Jock out of that formation, and I’m sure that I don’t know enough about football or the team to pretend to think I could’ve done a better job. That’s what gets me. I understand that people are frustrated that we lost and that the plays didn’t work. But when people start acting like they know more than the coaches, well…that’s when it goes too far.

by Country Roads on Nov 17, 2009 2:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

See how I'm having trouble making sense of that quote?

It just doesn’t seem to work in context. If you want to run Sanders, I am OK with that. You’re the coach and it’s your decision, but when a reporters asks you why you did it, I hope your reasons make sense. In this case, they don’t really seem to make any sense at all.

That’s my only problem.

by Dr. Charley West on Nov 17, 2009 2:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And my "stop implying" comment

…was a joke. Of course I know less than the coaching staff. But if they’re going to give an explanation for a play, all I wish is for that explanation to make just a little sense.

by Dr. Charley West on Nov 17, 2009 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm with you...Doc

That was the first thing I thought of when he called it a “power” play and didn’t give it to Clarke. I’m not saying the play call was bad necessarily, but the explanation didn’t make a lot of sense. Again. This guy sure is cooky.

by WVU-Atlanta on Nov 17, 2009 1:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

If Jock was caught from behind...

Don’t you think Clarke would’ve also been caught from behind?

One could also argue that on the plays Clarke got the ball our coaches “guessed” right with their play calls and any of our running backs could have gained those yards. I am not making that argument because Clarke lowered his head and ran for some very tough yards but the argument could be made.

Leave no doubt tonight! Leave no doubt tonight! No doubt! They shouldn't of played the Old Gold'n Blue.

by 5th Year Senior on Nov 17, 2009 2:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I am not questioning the result of the play.

Running Clarke could have also spectacularly failed. What I am questioning is Stewart’s logic that got us to the Sanders call, which the “evidence” he suggests he used doesn’t exist.

by Dr. Charley West on Nov 17, 2009 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

??

Did we or did we not gain those yards in the game using that play?

Jock may have not been the runner on all those plays but we had used that play effectively

Leave no doubt tonight! Leave no doubt tonight! No doubt! They shouldn't of played the Old Gold'n Blue.

by 5th Year Senior on Nov 17, 2009 3:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

call me weird, but

I’ve never felt the need for coaches to explain their methods or reasoning behind their decisions. When asked this in pressers, interviews, etc., 9 times out of 10 you get “coach speak” or cliches and the 1 time you don’t is usually a meltdown a la “Playoffs?!?!?!,” “I’m a man. I’m 40” or “You play. To Win. The game.”

by WVUIE97 on Nov 17, 2009 2:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Also, keep in mind who is actually calling the plays. Granted, Stew can veto what Mullen wants to do, but it’s Mullen calling the play, not Stew. So Stew is stuck explaining Mullen’s reason for calling the play, which may or may not be the easiest thing to do.

by Country Roads on Nov 17, 2009 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There will always be plenty of legitimate reasons for failing. That is why it takes a truly remarkable coach to overcome it all and succeed.

by The 25314 on Nov 17, 2009 3:10 PM EST via mobile reply actions 0 recs

He is just a fucking buffoon, don’t try to analyze his zany explanations.

by EatSchmittPitt35 on Nov 17, 2009 6:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Secondhand Information...

I heard from a guy last night (who I completely trust) that he participated in a conversation with a couple starters from both sides of the ball. The essence of the conversation was:

1. They couldn’t understand why Clarke didn’t get the ball;
2. Those 3rd and 4th down plays were entirely Mullen’s choices; and
3. That those gentlemen hold a rather low opinion of Mullen’s abilities.

Take it for what it’s worth, but perhaps Stew really was having to explain a decision he didn’t make. I don’t know if I’m more irritated by Stew’s lack of oversighty (Hi Mr. Bowden!) or the fact that apparently even the players, yet not Mullen, thought Clarke was the guy to run in that situation.

by The Double U on Nov 18, 2009 11:17 AM EST reply actions 0 recs