ADVERTISEMENT

He's just so predictable

Oct 25, 2021
11,627
9,478
113
In the Narduzzi press conference yesterday, he said that when it was 10-7 he told his defense they can win this game if Louisville doesn't score again.

Go back and look at what I said in the game thread (but ignore my 75 other psychotic comments). As soon as we went up 10-7, I 100% knew that Narduzzi thought that could be the final score. But why does he continue to make this mistake? How many examples do we need of teams scoring when they absolutely HAVE to before we begin to realize that things are just different in the 4th quarter?

2018:

You hold Notre Dame to 12 through the first 3 quarters, but they go 80 yards for 7 points when they need to with about 5 minutes left.

You hold Stanford to 6 through the first three quarters, but they get 7 when they need to in the 4th (78 yards).

2019:

We're the team that is held to 10 against Delaware through 3 quarters and goes 90 yards for a TD when we absolutely needed it.

Miami, after being held to 10 points through 3 quarters, goes 62 yards for the game-winning touchdown with a little under 4 minutes left.


Shoot, even look at the near misses... we almost got it in against VT in 2017 stuffed at the goal line despite not moving the ball well all day. Same with Penn State in 2019 (had it deep in their territory twice at the end despite only putting up 10 points all day).

And I wasn't even including high-scoring games, like when UNC came down and scored on us at the end of 2016, when PSU almost did, when we did that to Clemson and GT that year, the 4th quarter comebacks Pickett orchestrated (Eastern Michigan 2019, Duke 2018, Syracuse 2018, Duke 2019, UCF 2019, etc., etc.), the ones that happened on us (NC State 2020, Louisville the other night, etc.). This happens all the freaking time.

Long story short: The end of the game is not like the rest of the game. Sure, you might stop them. But, for the most part, you cannot predict how players will perform when everything is on the line in the waning minutes. You simply can't. They'll take chances they otherwise wouldn't; they'll either shine or buckle under the stress; they'll do things that wouldn't have happened during the first 90% of the game. It's irritating as hell to hear him confirm what I hypothesized. Wake up, coach. You win by lighting up the scoreboard and playing with balls.
 
Totally agree with you. How often has a fan said “Where has this offense been all game?” when a team gains half their yards in the final minutes of the 4th quarter.

Stubborn does not truly define Narduzzi.
 
Totally agree with you. How often has a fan said “Where has this offense been all game?” when a team gains half their yards in the final minutes of the 4th quarter.

Stubborn does not truly define Narduzzi.

Yeah, there are so many games that are like 7-7 through the first 50 minutes and then end up being like 24-21 or something. Everything just changes at the end, and I'm not even just talking about taking advantage of prevent defenses or something.

That Steelers/Cardinals Super Bowl, for instance, had 20 offensive points scored through the first 3 quarters and then became a track meet at the end (23 total points scored in the 4th). It just happens all the time. Not every time, but certainly often enough. Auburn vs Alabama last year... it's 10-0 Auburn going into the 4th. Bryce Young puts together a 97-yard drive in 1:11 to tie it at the end, and then they win 24-22 in OT.

I just don't know how out of touch a dude can be. Defensive stops cannot always be relied on in crunch time. And a big part of it is that teams start to have 4 downs to work with instead of 3 (although they often don't even need all 4).
 
I have come to hate the "defensive coach" mindset over the years, the WEAK ASS ATTRITION FOOTBALL, pound the rock, run the clock to rest the D, keep it close and hope we can win at the end by holding them, I always remember even in the '90s absolutely hating it, when Cowher would say "we wanted to keep it close", WHY TF would you want that? I'd rather build a GIANT LEAD by scoring FAST AND OFTEN, have a team built to win track meets. A team that can win because they can match any score the D gives up, last years team was kind of like that, Can't they get a clue, winning that title was because of great offense, the defense barely held anyone, it's 2022, build a team that racks up points like a pinball machine, forget trying to hold a 10-7 lead for half a game. The attrition football type of game reduces the offense to just a group who's main purpose is to rest the defense and not be primary to winning the game, it's ridiculous, especially now, when rules are meant to favor high scoring pass offense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duneaux Harm
I have come to hate the "defensive coach" mindset over the years, the WEAK ASS ATTRITION FOOTBALL, pound the rock, run the clock to rest the D, keep it close and hope we can win at the end by holding them, I always remember even in the '90s absolutely hating it, when Cowher would say "we wanted to keep it close", WHY TF would you want that? I'd rather build a GIANT LEAD by scoring FAST AND OFTEN, have a team built to win track meets. A team that can win because they can match any score the D gives up, last years team was kind of like that, Can't they get a clue, winning that title was because of great offense, the defense barely held anyone, it's 2022, built a team that racks up points like a pinball machine, forget trying to hold a 10-7 lead for half a game. The attrition football type of game reduces the offense to just a group who's main purpose is to rest the defense and not be primary to winning the game, it's ridiculous, especially now, when rules are meant to favor high scoring pass offense.

It's like when Tomlin said, "We knew it would be this kind of game" against New England. Like, why? You didn't HAVE to keep pounding it into a brick wall and only score 14 points just for the sake of fulfilling a prophecy. You could have, you know, tried to score and whatnot.

I could understand aspiring to keep it close and have it come down to a play or two at the end against the Bills or something. But New England?! If that's the kind of team you want to burn clock and play a 50/50 game against, who can you actually beat soundly?
 
I have come to hate the "defensive coach" mindset over the years, the WEAK ASS ATTRITION FOOTBALL, pound the rock, run the clock to rest the D, keep it close and hope we can win at the end by holding them, I always remember even in the '90s absolutely hating it, when Cowher would say "we wanted to keep it close", WHY TF would you want that? I'd rather build a GIANT LEAD by scoring FAST AND OFTEN, have a team built to win track meets. A team that can win because they can match any score the D gives up, last years team was kind of like that, Can't they get a clue, winning that title was because of great offense, the defense barely held anyone, it's 2022, build a team that racks up points like a pinball machine, forget trying to hold a 10-7 lead for half a game. The attrition football type of game reduces the offense to just a group who's main purpose is to rest the defense and not be primary to winning the game, it's ridiculous, especially now, when rules are meant to favor high scoring pass offense.

so what did you think when Todd Graham had a 21 point 3rd quarter lead against Iowa in 2010, but rather than grind clock/keep it close he kept the left lane, hammer down and ended up losing?
 
so what did you think when Todd Graham had a 21 point 3rd quarter lead against Iowa in 2010, but rather than grind clock/keep it close he kept the left lane, hammer down and ended up losing?
I think it is "situational football". I mean, I hate to say it, but most football coaches are not going to be brain surgeons or nucleat physicists. They are so stubborn in not trying to win, but trying to win "their way".

You have to read the situation. You have a 3 TD lead late in the 3rd Q, you start shortening the game.
 
so what did you think when Todd Graham had a 21 point 3rd quarter lead against Iowa in 2010, but rather than grind clock/keep it close he kept the left lane, hammer down and ended up losing?

Oh there's definitely a time and place for getting conservative. But the fact that Narduzzi even thought there was a chance we were winning that game 10-7 just grinds my ass cheeks.

Didn't we run it on 3rd and 5 right before the field goal? There's zero doubt in my mind that he "knew" 10 points would win that game.

Not only did Louisville get those 3 back... they got sevenfreakingteen. Because the 4th quarter ain't the same, I say. It ain't!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pitt5593
so what did you think when Todd Graham had a 21 point 3rd quarter lead against Iowa in 2010, but rather than grind clock/keep it close he kept the left lane, hammer down and ended up losing?
That's a different story "had a 21 point 3rd quarter lead''. I would have still kept trying aggressively to score more TDs still be throwing the ball, but Graham had some sort of crazy thing like you had to snap the ball within the first 16 seconds of the play clock or something, if I remember correctly? That sort of thing, I'd slow down AFTER getting a big lead, but the way football is now, I think 21 points is not a big enough lead, I want to score again. Remember we lost that bowl game with a 34-13 lead and 4 minutes left.
 
I think it is "situational football". I mean, I hate to say it, but most football coaches are not going to be brain surgeons or nucleat physicists. They are so stubborn in not trying to win, but trying to win "their way".

You have to read the situation. You have a 3 TD lead late in the 3rd Q, you start shortening the game.
I think what's lost on Duzz is that other teams know that a 3 or 7 point 1st quarter lead is safe against Pitt. They can run clock and Duzz is running clock leaving all of us asleep on the couch and Duzz scratching his butt wondering why he can't win scoring 7-14 points, when he basically runs out the clock on himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pitt79
I think it is "situational football". I mean, I hate to say it, but most football coaches are not going to be brain surgeons or nucleat physicists. They are so stubborn in not trying to win, but trying to win "their way".

You have to read the situation. You have a 3 TD lead late in the 3rd Q, you start shortening the game.
Situational football and tempo. If you have a talent advantage, then speed things up to maximize possessions. If you are the underdog, then control the clock and minimize possessions. Also, speeding up the tempo when the other team is tired or on their heels.

If you are winning big late in the 3rd Quarter and on, then milk the clock more. These things should be obvious to coaches, but they aren’t.
 
Situational football and tempo. If you have a talent advantage, then speed things up to maximize possessions. If you are the underdog, then control the clock and minimize possessions. Also, speeding up the tempo when the other team is tired or on their heels.

If you are winning big late in the 3rd Quarter and on, then milk the clock more. These things should be obvious to coaches, but they aren’t.

I've never seen a team snap the ball with so little time on the play clock so consistently. For the life of me, I can't figure out the advantage to that. It like has our o-linemen in a malaise instead of being the ones taking it to the d-line. Additionally, there's no way we can call out our protections properly or make any attempt at diagnosing the defense when we're getting to scrimmage with 5 seconds left on the play clock so often.

I did see that Cignetti's BC team had one of the lowest snap rates (not sure exactly what it was called, but it measured how late a team was breaking the huddle) in the country last year. But my question is... why? Doesn't Tennessee gain a competitive advantage from snapping the ball so early? I don't get what you gain from doing it late. Even if you at least break the huddle early and snap the ball a little later, that makes more sense to me than just hanging out in the huddle for apparently no reason.

There's no way that doesn't have a psychological effect on our offense and take away its rhythm and aggression. Just silly to me.
 
Last edited:
I think what's lost on Duzz is that other teams know that a 3 or 7 point 1st quarter lead is safe against Pitt. They can run clock and Duzz is running clock leaving all of us asleep on the couch and Duzz scratching his butt wondering why he can't win scoring 7-14 points, when he basically runs out the clock on himself.
I remember being at a Steelers/Vikings game, around 2001 or so, Steelers went up 21-3 early 3rd quarter, maybe 10:00 minutes left. So the way it went down was, Bettis must've been injured or something, so Fuamatu MaAfala was the RB, I remember them running Fu into the line for about 5-6 consecutive 3&Outs as the Vikings kept trying to score, finally Fu fumbles around his 20, no pass attempts at all by the Steelers since they got up 21-3. Now 21-10. TD Randy Moss! 2-point conversion no good, 21-16, Steelers get it back, run-run-run-punt, Vikes get down to the 10, taking EZ shots at Moss, luckily, they hold, so Steelers run, run, 3rd and 10, under two minutes.... So FINALLY Fu rips off a 35-yard run, and they can kneel, but personally, I would prefer to play my regular offense the whole time and TRY TO SCORE MORE? You can say they succeeded, and Cowher is a tough guy. But I see that as gutless and weak, not tough.
 
so what did you think when Todd Graham had a 21 point 3rd quarter lead against Iowa in 2010, but rather than grind clock/keep it close he kept the left lane, hammer down and ended up losing?
I am okay with it. If you have played one way an entire game and then are forced to go in the opposite direction it is giving into losing. If you have the lead going break neck then keep it up until the other team caves. If you lose you lose but you lost being who you really are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pitt79
I've never seen a team snap the ball with so little time on the play clock so consistently. For the life of me, I can't figure out the advantage to that. It like has our o-linemen in a malaise instead of being the ones taking it to the d-line. Additionally, there's no way we can call out our protections properly or make any attempt at diagnosing the defense when we're getting to scrimmage with 5 seconds left on the play clock so often.

I did see that Cignetti's BC team had one of the lowest snap rates (not sure exactly what it was called, but it measured how late a team was breaking the huddle) in the country last year. But my question is... why? Doesn't Tennessee gain a competitive advantage from snapping the ball so early? I don't get what you gain from doing it late. Even if you at least break the huddle early and snap the ball a little later, that makes more sense to me than just hanging out in the huddle for apparently no reason.

There's no way that doesn't have a psychological effect on our offense and take away its rhythm and aggression. Just silly to me.
Yeah, you don't get much "swagger" from that.
 
I am okay with it. If you have played one way an entire game and then are forced to go in the opposite direction it is giving into losing. If you have the lead going break neck then keep it up until the other team caves. If you lose you lose but you lost being who you really are.
Agreed. It of course honked me off we lost, but that happens in any loss, any way it happens. As far as I’m concerned, if we lost, the coach failed, whatever strategy he was using.

We were sold on Graham (dubious as it turned out to be) that he would bring success with a high tempo offense, and our previous coach (with our current OC!) had plateaued (and then dipped downward) with his grind it out 70’s style.

The problem with Graham was going with Tino. Tino had a preposterously low ceiling for success, particularly in an offense like that. The issue in that Iowa loss, and every other was that kid, who could not execute that offense consistently. A more suitable QB would have continued succeeding in those possessions where Tino failed, and Iowa wouldn’t have come back. Now that was Graham’s own fault; any fool coming in who watched ten minutes of tape on Tino should have realized that and dove head first into the JuCo pool, where many quarterbacks thrived on an up-tempo style. That he did not do that always perplexed me. It was his main downfall. Nobody cares about your assho1e personality if you are a winner.
 
ADVERTISEMENT