My initial thoughts:
- Refreshing to hear very little coach-speak. Most of his answers to decent questions were relevant and he explained himself fairly well.
- Calling out specific incompletions as quality reads/throws on the fly was a nice touch, and actually gives me hope about the QB situation going forward
- McClease is finally picking up more of the "nuance" of playing running back, the small things they're trying to teach in practice, instead of just "getting in there"
- Mentioned that he thought the "play of the game" was McClease's huge 3rd-down conversion, because it forced Miami to abandon some of the heavy pressure they were bringing early, allowing Hendon a chance to get settled a bit in the backfield
- For a second, it seemed like the question about the last defensive drive threw him off a bit, as if he hadn't been paying much attention, but then discussed the 2 plays and the penalty that killed us and how their plan was to try to keep the ball in front of them, but that there was a bunch of conversation going through the headsets about specific coverages and whatnot
For the first time since he got here (at least in the interviews I've seen), he sounded like a guy who is in-touch with his team and the players and has some sense on how everything needs to improve going forward.
s/o to 2_Hokie_5 for posting the link here. Figured it merited a separate topic for visibility.
Comments
Here's the link that skips all the dead air at the beginning:
edit: Thanks for the heads up about the meme not showing! I broke the second video with the first one. Bad HTML, bad!
Fixed.
macraw83, you beat me to it, I thought I should post a separate thread, just figured we had enough post Miami threads floating around (no shade). Thanks for cliff notes too, good stuff!
Could be over thinking this, but the question about practice and how adamant CJF was about "not going back" seems like he dug his foot in and said we tried it your way it got us no where now its back to my way. In reference to the players meeting where the coaching staff was being too tough (dont remember the exact player complaint)
Turkey bacon. I think it's pretty obvious given how we played turkey bacon was in abundance.
Time to switch back to pig bacon
This sounds a lot like what the general thoughts about Jay Gruden are - players in the program love him bc he is lenient - players that go to other more disciplined teams recognize in hindsight how that model was not helping the redskins win
Interesting. I've allowed my kids to fail at something they wanted to do on their own and it has worked in teaching a lesson. However, it was always in a completely controlled setting, and the issue was something of relative little importance. (Like... I never told my 8 year that if he thought I was driving too slow, maybe he should try.)
Not sure I would want to experiment like that with my job on the line, but an interesting take nonetheless, and certianly not outside the realm of possibility.
[to the thread above] I liked his response a lot
"It will not be [difficult to maintain intensity], I can promise you that. We better practice like that on Tuesday." "We're not going back" "We've got to get physically, mentally, and emotionally, tougher; we've got to learn how to practice." "It's my job to get it done"
You fight as you train
hope and influence and Jerry kill
I appreciated his comments about "not going back" to the way we used to practice, and that there were a lot of other parts of Fuente's press conference that were encouraging... but his answer on going for two seemed to show how biased Coach Fuente is towards a conservative approach.
Just to paraphrase, someone asked about going for two when down 14. He said he understands how the math says that is the right move, but he would never do it. It was something like "I'm not disputing math. I know 5 x 3 is 15 and always will be 15, but I'm not going to go for two in that situation. The analytics people aren't the one's who have to give press conferences."
I get his perspective, but it just shows how he can really be stuck in his ways sometimes. I wish I had more time to go back and look at 4th down attempts/ 2 point conversions to see where we compare with other teams.
FYI, he has said he would have gone for two in the ACCCC against Clemson if we have scored that last TD. He isn't completely risk averse. I think he was stating that he disagreed with Manny Diaz but was then trying to give a PC answer to try so it didn't come off as pompous.
Not saying I disagree with you, but Pretty sure that math assumes there's a 50% chance of scoring a two point conversion. If you don't feel that confident in your offense, then it does change the odds.
There is a big difference for going for two when down 14 (technically 8) and you have Evans, Hodges, Cam, and Ford and when you have the current team. One of those offenses has looked a lot better so far (still time to grow).
However, it's not a great thing to do in college. The highest made 2pt conversion (not including 2018 don't have data) was in 1970 at 47.9%. The lowest was in 2014 at 34.3%. NCAA teams make PATs at 96.2%.
The odds of making 2 PATs is 93%
The odds of making 2 pt and a PAT is 46% (this is any order, so not realistic)
The odds of making one 2 pt conversion is 73% but this is unrealistic as if you make the first you wouldn't attempt the second.
This leads us to the odds that you make the 2nd 2pt conv. which is 47.9
Now if you use the NFL numbers of 48.8% and PAT is 95.2% the story is different. So maybe someone should tell Manny his team isn't NFL caliber, oh wait the Hokies just did.
Just because i wanted to end the post on a drop the mic moment here is my follow up to the analysis .... most 2pt analysis is done on points per chance. So 2 points means that 97.6% chance per point. While a PAT is 95.2%. But in this case it is two events in which the first influences the 2nd. The outcome of the first PAT/2PT feeds what happens in the 2nd. If i have a 47% chance to make the first and a 47% chance to make the second that doesn't mean i have a 94% chance to make 2 points. And here is the same math in coin flips:
A coin is either heads or tails. If I have two chances then my outcomes are HH, HT, TH, TT, which means I have 75% chance of getting at least one head (success) and 25% chance at not getting head (fail). Yet each flip I have a 50% chance of getting head. This case of down 14 has two linked events. The math doesn't work.
EDIT: if you are trying to maximize your points over a season, then yes, 2 points is the way to go, if you are relying on two attempts to get two points then you're math is off. What isn't calculated is the benefit of winning it versus going into OT. But based on the math tying the game is less likely.
So, you're playing for the win (i.e. to get 3 points), and if that doesn't happen go for the tie. As you pointed out, to ensure two points via kicking it, it's an odds of 93%.
To go for the win down 8, you have four scenarios:
1) Make the 2-pt conversion first time, kick a PAT. Take 1 pt lead. Odds = 46.1 %
2) Make the 2-pt conversion first time, kick and miss PAT. Tie. Odds = 1.8%
3) Miss the 2-pt conversion the first time, attempt the 2-pt again and make. Tie. Odds = 24.9%
4) Miss the 2-pt conversion the first time, attempt the 2-pt again and miss. Lose. Odds = 27.2%
So, if you're going for the win with a 2 point conversion down 8 (and assuming you can score another touchdown), you have a 46.1% chance for lead; 26.7% chance to tie, and 27.2% chance to lose. So you're sacrificing 93% to tie, for a 72.8% chance to win or tie that is inclusive of a 46.1% chance to win.
These numbers should also be compared to going for 1 pt kick 8 points down with the plan to go for the win with a 2-pt conversion on next TD.
There are four scenarios:
1) Make kick, make 2-pt conversion. Take 1 pt lead. Odds = 46.1%
2) Make kick, miss 2-pt conversion. Lose by 1. Odds = 50.1%
3) Miss kick, make 2-pt conversion. Tie. Odds = 1.8%
4) Miss kick, miss 2-pt conversion. Lose by 2. Odds = 2.0
So, if you elect kick for a PAT down 8, you have a 47.9% to win or tie, inclusive of 46.1% chance to win and a 52.1% chance to lose.
In sum, if you want to play for the win but still want to give yourself a good chance for the tie, Manny was right. You have a 72.8% chance to win or tie if you go for 2-pt conversion 8 points down, compared to a 47.9% chance to win or tie if you wait until the next TD to go for 2. Each way gives you a 46.1% chance to win in regulation.
Should also consider Overtime wins/losses. Assuming its a 50/50 chance in overtime to win, the scenarios between going for 2 8 points down compared to kicking to tie are compared.
For the risk averse, playing for the tie with kicks, you have 4 scenarios:
1) Make PAT, make PAT. Tie. Odds = 92.5%
-------> OT win odds: 46.25% OT loss odds: 46.25%
2) Make PAT, miss PAT. Lose. Odds = 3.7 %
3) Miss PAT, make 2-pt conversion. Tie. Odds = 1.8%
-------> OT win odds: 0.9% OT loss odds: 0.9%
4) Miss PAT, miss 2-pt conversion. Lose. Odds = 2.0%
Overall Odds of winning by kicking: 47.15%
Going for 2 down 8, you have 4 scenarios:
1) Make the 2-pt conversion first time, kick a PAT. Take 1 pt lead. Odds = 46.1 %
2) Make the 2-pt conversion first time, kick and miss PAT. Tie. Odds = 1.8%
-------> OT win odds: 0.9% OT loss odds: 0.9%
3) Miss the 2-pt conversion the first time, attempt the 2-pt again and make. Tie. Odds = 24.9%
-------> OT win odds: 12.45% OT loss odds: 12.45%
4) Miss the 2-pt conversion the first time, attempt the 2-pt again and miss. Lose. Odds = 27.2%
Overall Odds of winning by going for 2 down 8: 59.45%
So in sum, Manny's method to go for win in regulation by going for 2 down 8 yields a higher likelihood of winning than playing for OT with conservative kicks.
It is worth noting, however, that Miami probably had a better than 50/50 chance to win in OT being at home and having virtually all 2nd half momentum.
Here's the math apparently for the situation. Bitter used this tweet in an article in the Athletic talking about it.
That assumes a 50% 2 point success rate, and a 100% extra point success rate. I dont think either are that high
An oversimplification using incorrect numbers (they're closer to 97% for 1 and 42% for 2), but it gets the point across I guess.
All of the numbers are oversimplifications for the sake of understanding and argument. Full numbers have to include individual proclivities for sticking to assignments based on the play call for both the offensive players and defensive players, as well as some idea of how they might perform in that instant depending on how tired or how wired they are.
Yep - Technically, they should be leaning on per play numbers (similar to SP+) to understand the likelihood of success on the 2pt conv.
I'm pretty good at math. I earned an engineering degree from VT. But I don't understand how the math says it's the right move to go for 2 when down 14. Can someone please explain to me how this is the "right" move. I can't imagine a good rationale behind this strategy unless you have zero faith in your ki...
...never mind...
It's not see my post above and the fallacies that people told themselves.
Jokes aside, I wanted to take a look at the numbers for myself. Consider the following assumptions: 2-point conversions are successful 42% of the time (by-decade averages have stayed between 41% and 43% since the '70s), PATs are successful 98% of the time (the FBS average has been growing steadily for decades and is around 97% now, and I'm assuming that the P5 has even better kickers, so giving it a slight "conservative" bump towards the more traditional strategy), and you will hold your opponent scoreless for the rest of the game and have enough time to score one more TD with a possible chance at an onside kick followed by a last-second FG attempt (essentially what would have to happen to get back into the game anyway). That would result in the following possible outcomes:
96.04%: Make both PATs, send the game to OT
1.96%: Make first PAT, miss second, need onside+FG
0.84%: Miss first PAT, make 2PC, send the game to OT
1.16%: Miss first PAT, miss 2PC, need onside+FG
96.88% chance for OT
3.12% chance of needing another score
Now let's look at what happens when you go for 2 on the first one:
41.16%: Make 2PC, make PAT, win game
0.84%: Make 2PC, miss PAT, send game to OT
24.36%: Miss first 2PC, make second, send game to OT
33.64%: Miss both 2PCs, need onside+FG
41.16% chance of winning the game in regulation
25.20% chance of sending the game to OT
33.64% chance of needing another score
If you think you have a 50% chance of winning should the game go to OT, your chances of winning by kicking the PAT are about 48%, and by going for 2 your chances are about 54%. I was adamantly questioning the decision from the moment Diaz made it until prompted to do the math myself just now, but seeing the numbers in front of me, saying that there's a tangible (if small) difference in win rate with the different decisions, changes my opinion somewhat. I still obviously wouldn't blame a coach for kicking the PAT, but there's definitely some merit to the idea, especially if you particularly believe in your offense and/or don't trust your team in overtime.
Thanks for these numbers. Love it.
I believe the "go for 2 when down 14 and score" theory came from the NFL, but could be wrong. I did read that since they moved back the PAT in the NFL, 10 PAT attempts have averaged 9.5pts and 10 2pt tries averages 10pts (so 50/50). In the NFL the numbers say go for 2 like Manny did.
That said, there is no chance the Dolphins have the same odds as the Pats to convert a 2pt conversion. You still have to take the real world into account.
This seemed to me like the gist of the Fu's comment. "Game flow" or whatever you want to call it wins over analytics for him.
Miami was the home team. That means they had a 55.9% chance to win it in OT. Which means you have a 54% chance of winning in OT. It still gives you only a 55% chance to win by going for 2. So if you are the away team this is more important!
Not banging on you or anything, but if the scenario was reversed and VT was going for the 2-pt conversion and failed then Fuente said "Well, it didn't go our way but the math says to go for it" would you have also said he's stuck in his ways by following a chart?
One of the better sayings I've learned in finance is "there is a big difference between probabilities and outcomes". It's natural to see 80% probability of success and assume success. Surely my experience won't fall in the 20% that fails. Well sometimes you will draw the short straw and it might happen when the consequences are most severe. You likely won't get 99 more trials for the reversion to the mean and the vindication for your decision making. I'm with Fuente here. The fallout from failing outweighs even favorable odds at success.
The analytics makes some sense I guess. What are the odds of making one 2pt out of 2? If they're reasonably high, then statistically it's lower risk to go for the 2 .. with higher reward. You miss the 2. You go for it again. You make the 2 and the second PAT gives you the lead. Still 96% on making the PAT (probably slightly lower to make 2 PATs) is reason enough for me not to go. That tells me that Manny D didn't have a lot of confidence that they could stop our O in OT
Diaz probably realized we'd just hit them with yet another crossing route from Keene.
While we're on the topic of going for 2, a thought just popped into my mind. Has anyone ever seen a team fake a PAT? I honestly don't think I have ever seen it. And if you're going to try such a thing, it seems that when you're down 14 is the perfect time. It's not like when you're down 8 or 11, or some other similarly obvious go-for-two margin. At 14 points behind, you have the element of surprise on your side because the opponents are probably expecting you to be happy with the PAT.
I am going to say yes because I swear I have seen this. What I didn't see until a couple weeks ago is a team kneel down a PAT. WVU did this up by 17 in the 4th against NC State. Had their PAT been blocked and returned it would have been a two score game instead of 3 scores.
I remember a few years ago there was an FCS game (I can't remember the teams) where one team scored a TD to go up by 1 with something like a minute left on the clock then went for 2 to go up by 3 to protect overtime in case the other team was able to get a FG.
Well, to talk about the ultimate backfire they fumbled on the 2 point play and the other team ran it back 100 yards to get the two points and win the game by one.
Lol, what are the odds, right
Interesting. This beauty, from Division III is the only example I found in a brief search. My God, it's beautiful!
Still a more accurate pass than 50% of Williams' throws Saturday
What are you talking about? All seven of his pass attempts were caught...
Somebody show this to Les Miles
I used to do it in EA Sports NCAA '08 almost every time.
Boise State in the late 90s and even now do the weird thing where they set an odd formation, and then all run into the middle and kick the field goal. They constantly run in for 2 instead of kicking the field goal.
That reminds me that Oregon used to go for 2 all the time as well. Weird that it doesn't seem to be a staple of the Chip Kelly era at UCLA, though admittedly I haven't been paying attention.
They are still working on getting the 6.
Aside from that WSU game, sure
Going for 2 on the first TD is more conservative than just going for it on the 2nd TD because you give yourself a chance to make the 2nd one if you miss the first. If you make the first then you are sitting pretty down by 6 with a extra point (hahahahahaha) for the win
Man, he seems so much more upbeat and in a better mood.
+1 Winning does that
First thing I noticed was no bottle of water.