Risk vs Reward

[Red Rhino]

I have been trying to understand Whittingham’s risk tolerance better. I was reading some research done about risk vs reward in football. The research says that it is the inferior team who must take the risk. I read that the only way a more dominant team loses is because they beat themselves. This research sited the old Steve Spurrier Gators team as an example of what happens when a dominant team takes too many risks. It said that though Florida blew out most their opponents, they would typically lose 1-2 games a year against inferior teams because of costly unforced errors. It suggested that they would have had more than 1 championship under Spurrior had they been a little more conservative. Those who remember the old Spurrior teams remember that they were uber fun to watch though. Whitt must believe that we are a superior team to the ones we played so far. What would you rather have, wins combined with a very conservative style of offense or exciting play calling with more risk of beating ourselves?

Also, I find it interesting to note that the style of defense that Whittingham chooses to use is a more risky man to man defense.

[ProudUte]

I am glad that Whitt is our coach. He has developed Utah football into a national brand. But, I gave up trying to understand exactly what he thinks. One thing I do know – is that he has no use for style points. This can bother some fans because they want their team to look good while winning. Oh well, Kyle does not care.

[22Ute22]

This is exactly how I feel about Whitt. Trying to dissect his mind should be a U of U college course.

As for the style points, this is true and it’s one of the reasons why many metrics and predictive models are wrong, and some can be drastically wrong. They don’t factor in injuries, garbage time, style points, and many other things. If we wanted too, we could have scored against Weber State and UCLA to make it 21-7 and 38-7. Both of those look MUCH better to people who are just check box scores.

Some models try to adjust for strength of schedule, but they can be massively wrong even after that. UCLA and Oregon State both were very high on many supposedly “SoS adjusted” models, only to get exposed against the first p5 team they played. UCLA’s highly rated offenses mustered a grant total of 7 points, and Oregon State’s highly rated defense (before WSU) gave up 38 points.

[Utegator]

I actually think we got really lucky coming out of that game with a W. We almost played too conservative and let UCLA back in the game there at the end. We were fortunate for some dropped passes.

Playing defensive ball that leads to losing games gives me nightmares of many Real Salt Lake games.

[22Ute22]

Definitely have had some luck this season, but I like to think of it as the bad luck from the injuries being good luck for us on the field. To me, it’s so strange that many UF, Baylor, and UCLA fans all claim that they are the better team, that just had bad luck on the field. I would be glad to have neutral on the field luck in exchange for being fully healthy, because if we were fully healthy, we would have beaten UF, Baylor, and UCLA by 21+.

[RedRocks]

I am getting an impression from some people on this board that seem to say “We won, so it must’ve been a good strategy.”

Kyle Whittingham is a great coach. I should be like @proudute and give up “trying to understand exactly what he thinks”.

However, it bothers me to no end that the offense has reverted to the ‘run up the middle’ approach and dedicated themselves to it when it clearly is not achieving one thing that I understand Kyle wants: TO CONTROL THE BALL.

Predictable play calling that ends drives with a punt is not controlling the ball. It is giving the other team a chance to make plays and win. How is that a good strategy?

I am not asking the team to sling the ball downfield with reckless abandon. Can we just mix up the ‘run up the middle’ plays with a few outside runs and short, ‘easy’ passes?

There is a difference between playing conservative and playing predictable.

I will continue trying to enjoy watching this offense but, man, is it a challenge to understand the approach.
If the offense keeps playing this way, Utah will lose because of it eventually. Then I am sure those who are supporting it will start complaining about the play calling.

[stbone]

While I agree with you in theory, the reality of the UCLA game dictated extreme caution in play calling. Early in the second half, Johnson threw what should have been a pick 6, and managed to fumble an exchange. After that, there was really only one choice left, and that was to run up the middle.

[RedRocks]

Except the UCLA game isn’t the only game where we’ve seen this kind of play calling.

[D T]

To that extreme, it was the only game.

[AlohaUte]

This is exactly how I feel.

[DataUte]

I mean, Whitt hasn’t been DC in quite a while, so it’s Scalley’s scheme now ;). I’ve felt that you play zone to cover up an individual talent gap but if you have the talent, you play more man on man. I could be wrong. You need some safety support, but a good passer will find the one on one and exploit it and make the defender beat your WR. Against Ohio St., we got burned badly (with DBs injured and Bernard having to cover one of the best WRs in all of football catching from one of the most accurate QBs). But, probably too late to shift completely to a zone – either way, a good offense will pick apart the gaps in a zone.

[2008 National Champ]

Utah played a lot of zone against UCLA. They were getting home with the front 4 and rarely blitzed. In fact, I think I only saw Bishop in the backfield once, maybe twice the whole game.

Reid’s pick was in zone. The last UCLA drive was zone the first 3 plays (two sacks, an underneath route on 3rd and long that still left around 12 yards on 4th). It was only the 4th down play that they brought extra numbers and were in man.

Don’t get me wrong, Scalley loves his corners to be able to play man so that he is free to mix up his coverages and rush packages. But it is overblown to assume that he has them in man the majority of the time.

[Tony (admin)]

Whit is all about the least amount of risk possible, and he uses all the numbers and stats to make most of those decisions.