The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

Besides being a great game and an awesome finish...BYU goes 91 yards (stopped at the 1 yard line) with 40-45 seconds to go and NO timeouts and damn near win the game. I watched and all I could think of was that we were on our own 35, with 40 seconds to go (or whatever it was), 3 timeouts and we don’t even try to get in field goal position? Now, I know BYU has a Heisman candidate QB but our QB and receivers are damn good too. Just insane coaching. Yet, you say in your postgame you called the onside kick because you knew your D couldn’t stop them...but you throw away a position halfway through the game? How big would an additional 3 points have looked at the end of that game?

I was equally perplexed by that at the end of the half. Made no sense to me, all you have to do is remember our Toledo game.

Lester plays "not to lose", rather than playing to win. His game management is conventional conservatism, out of the old-school football coaches manual, and he typically does when the TV analyst (who is in the booth because he was a lousy coach) says he would do. It is always the "safe" thing. It is the same with play calling. Usually a first down run. It is so counterproductive.

(12-07-2020 08:29 AM)brovol Wrote:  Lester plays "not to lose", rather than playing to win. His game management is conventional conservatism, out of the old-school football coaches manual, and he typically does when the TV analyst (who is in the booth because he was a lousy coach) says he would do. It is always the "safe" thing. It is the same with play calling. Usually a first down run. It is so counterproductive.

I'm going to disagree a bit. Myself being fairly conservative in that regard, he goes for it at times when I wouldn't. I don't think old school coaches place too much emphasis on analytics as he does. But I will agree a bit, being over-reliant on the numbers can lead to some safe situations rather than gambles. And I think great teams have to challenge themselves to come through on the gambles.

But let's be honest, we didn't lose because we didn't want to take a chance at the end of the first half, we lost because our defense couldn't force a punt after the first drive.

(12-07-2020 11:11 AM)RunningGame Wrote:  

(12-07-2020 08:29 AM)brovol Wrote:  Lester plays "not to lose", rather than playing to win. His game management is conventional conservatism, out of the old-school football coaches manual, and he typically does when the TV analyst (who is in the booth because he was a lousy coach) says he would do. It is always the "safe" thing. It is the same with play calling. Usually a first down run. It is so counterproductive.

I'm going to disagree a bit. Myself being fairly conservative in that regard, he goes for it at times when I wouldn't. I don't think old school coaches place too much emphasis on analytics as he does. But I will agree a bit, being over-reliant on the numbers can lead to some safe situations rather than gambles. And I think great teams have to challenge themselves to come through on the gambles.

But let's be honest, we didn't lose because we didn't want to take a chance at the end of the first half, we lost because our defense couldn't force a punt after the first drive.

BINGO, my friend!

(12-07-2020 11:32 AM)floridabronco Wrote:  

(12-07-2020 11:11 AM)RunningGame Wrote:  

(12-07-2020 08:29 AM)brovol Wrote:  Lester plays "not to lose", rather than playing to win. His game management is conventional conservatism, out of the old-school football coaches manual, and he typically does when the TV analyst (who is in the booth because he was a lousy coach) says he would do. It is always the "safe" thing. It is the same with play calling. Usually a first down run. It is so counterproductive.

I'm going to disagree a bit. Myself being fairly conservative in that regard, he goes for it at times when I wouldn't. I don't think old school coaches place too much emphasis on analytics as he does. But I will agree a bit, being over-reliant on the numbers can lead to some safe situations rather than gambles. And I think great teams have to challenge themselves to come through on the gambles.

But let's be honest, we didn't lose because we didn't want to take a chance at the end of the first half, we lost because our defense couldn't force a punt after the first drive.

BINGO, my friend!

I feel like players like Eskrige and Hall would've rather run some routes to get down the field with 3 timeouts. We've got elite and passionate leadership on offense.

Hopefully the only message sent to the team was "Coach Lou should not have eaten the pizza that was out all night, and he needs to get to the shitter NOW."

I do agree we should have tried to get something.

(12-07-2020 11:11 AM)RunningGame Wrote:  

(12-07-2020 08:29 AM)brovol Wrote:  Lester plays "not to lose", rather than playing to win. His game management is conventional conservatism, out of the old-school football coaches manual, and he typically does when the TV analyst (who is in the booth because he was a lousy coach) says he would do. It is always the "safe" thing. It is the same with play calling. Usually a first down run. It is so counterproductive.

I'm going to disagree a bit. Myself being fairly conservative in that regard, he goes for it at times when I wouldn't. I don't think old school coaches place too much emphasis on analytics as he does. But I will agree a bit, being over-reliant on the numbers can lead to some safe situations rather than gambles. And I think great teams have to challenge themselves to come through on the gambles.

But let's be honest, we didn't lose because we didn't want to take a chance at the end of the first half, we lost because our defense couldn't force a punt after the first drive.

The announcers on TV always say that Lester is an analytics guy, because Lester tells them he is, and every once in a while goes for it on 4th and short. The analytics commitment though looks nothing like what Lester does. He is an "analytics when convenient" guy; which is to say he is wishy-washy about it.

Lester's game management reminds me a lot of Matt Patricia's game management philosophy.