Is Brohm holding the team back?

[ss32000]

I know it's common to cast stones at the previous head coach as there was an obvious reason for Purdue to make a change at the head coaching spot. In the summer I found this article that looks at how football games are played and assigns a win expectancy based upon how the game went when you look at Bill Connelly's advanced football stats.

https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2...ll-coaching-underachievers-overachievers-2018

In looking at Purdue's first 3 games using the 5 factors of football (Success Rate/Efficiency, Explosiveness, Finishing Drives, Field Position and Turnovers). Here is their win expectancy:

• Northwestern - 65.1%
• Eastern Michigan - 56.5%
• Missouri - 60.8%

Now, this isn't an end all be all by any means. Stats can't account for things like coaching up a team, game planning, etc., but I thought it was interesting that given some of the angst on the board, there could potentially be some accountability looking at the coach with a new contract. Purdue has been the better team on the field for all 3 games, but hasn't pulled through. That typically points back to some bad in game decisions/coaching that put things in danger. You can argue luck on a penalty here or there too for some context. Pat Fitzgerald has been a master of winning games you shouldn't if you look at the table in the link.

Other coaches of note:

• Darrell Hazel - 6 years, -0.16 difference wins/year, 39.5% percentile
• Bill Lynch - 4 years, -0.41 difference wins/year, 20.7% percentile
• Kevin Wilson - 6 years, -1.08 difference wins/year, 1.2% percentile

 

[rgarlitz]

I think it's too early to tell. The general consensus is that Purdue way overachieved last year, so Brohm has credibility in the bank. I still think the overall trend is positive. Brohm going 7-9 (4-6) over his first 16 games is undeniable progress. There have been none of the disorganized and demoralizing beatdowns that characterized the DH2 years.

The one thing I might criticize is that Brohm is 2-7 in one-possession games. That obviously has to improve, and I think it will as the talent level rises.

 

[FirstDownB]

I have a hard time putting much stock in a metric that ranks Mack Brown (93.7%) and Tom O'Brien (93.8%) higher than Mike Leach (71.7%), Spurrier (64.2%), Art Briles (58.4%), and Gary Patterson (55.7%).

This coach has taken a program that was a punchline and put them in position to win every single game. So, no, he is not "holding the team back". With a single average Big Ten defensive end on the roster we'd probably be 3-0 or 2-1 at worst.

 

[purduepat1969]

I know it's common to cast stones at the previous head coach as there was an obvious reason for Purdue to make a change at the head coaching spot. In the summer I found this article that looks at how football games are played and assigns a win expectancy based upon how the game went when you look at Bill Connelly's advanced football stats.

https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2...ll-coaching-underachievers-overachievers-2018

In looking at Purdue's first 3 games using the 5 factors of football (Success Rate/Efficiency, Explosiveness, Finishing Drives, Field Position and Turnovers). Here is their win expectancy:

• Northwestern - 65.1%
• Eastern Michigan - 56.5%
• Missouri - 60.8%

Now, this isn't an end all be all by any means. Stats can't account for things like coaching up a team, game planning, etc., but I thought it was interesting that given some of the angst on the board, there could potentially be some accountability looking at the coach with a new contract. Purdue has been the better team on the field for all 3 games, but hasn't pulled through. That typically points back to some bad in game decisions/coaching that put things in danger. You can argue luck on a penalty here or there too for some context. Pat Fitzgerald has been a master of winning games you shouldn't if you look at the table in the link.

Other coaches of note:

• Darrell Hazel - 6 years, -0.16 difference wins/year, 39.5% percentile
• Bill Lynch - 4 years, -0.41 difference wins/year, 20.7% percentile
• Kevin Wilson - 6 years, -1.08 difference wins/year, 1.2% percentile

You're reaching when you say Purdue was the better team on the field. Just look at Missouri for example. With the exception of Rhondale Moore, their wide receivers were taller and faster by a long shot. Although their defense didn't perform all that well, their defensive line was putting pressure on our OL all night. And to say we were the better team vs Northwestern makes your credibility questionable.

Has Brohm made mistakes? Sure. But there isn't all that much talent to work with right now, especially on defense. Antonio Blackmon was getting owned by Hall over and over again every play. They put a younger Mackey in (one of Brohm's recruit's), and Hall was less of a factor.

 

[MilwaukeeBoilerFan]

Hell no Brohm isn't holding the team back. They are progressing, plain and simple. A few stupid penalties and potentially a bad call from 3-0 vs 0-3. Purdue must find ways to close out games, eliminate dumb penalties and continue to fight to the finish. We were gashed by QB Lock/WR Hall on the last drive. Proper pressure on QB and stick with your WR and it could look much different.
It will get no easier this week. Keep fighting thru it.

 

[Mandeville LA]

Taking a few chances to try to put your team in a great position can also backfire. Brohm knows what he is working with and I am sure he sees opportunities to take a chance. When they don't work it could be made out to be a negative.

 

[njm8845]

I know it's common to cast stones at the previous head coach as there was an obvious reason for Purdue to make a change at the head coaching spot. In the summer I found this article that looks at how football games are played and assigns a win expectancy based upon how the game went when you look at Bill Connelly's advanced football stats.

https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2...ll-coaching-underachievers-overachievers-2018

In looking at Purdue's first 3 games using the 5 factors of football (Success Rate/Efficiency, Explosiveness, Finishing Drives, Field Position and Turnovers). Here is their win expectancy:

• Northwestern - 65.1%
• Eastern Michigan - 56.5%
• Missouri - 60.8%

Now, this isn't an end all be all by any means. Stats can't account for things like coaching up a team, game planning, etc., but I thought it was interesting that given some of the angst on the board, there could potentially be some accountability looking at the coach with a new contract. Purdue has been the better team on the field for all 3 games, but hasn't pulled through. That typically points back to some bad in game decisions/coaching that put things in danger. You can argue luck on a penalty here or there too for some context. Pat Fitzgerald has been a master of winning games you shouldn't if you look at the table in the link.

Other coaches of note:

• Darrell Hazel - 6 years, -0.16 difference wins/year, 39.5% percentile
• Bill Lynch - 4 years, -0.41 difference wins/year, 20.7% percentile
• Kevin Wilson - 6 years, -1.08 difference wins/year, 1.2% percentile

I love sabermetrics. But if this stat leads you to conclude that Brohm is holding the team back, then it's obviously not an effective stat.

That's not to say he is doing everything right. He may have played too conservatively against EMU. He may not have been as disciplined with his players regarding penalties as he should have.

But anyone who has watched Purdue for more than 4 seasons realizes this is a special guy. Losing sucks, but it sucks even more when your team is out of it by halftime. It's evident that we don't have the horses to compete with many other P5 schools. That's changing next year.

Having a bad record in close games is a fluky stat. I have no doubt it will revert to the mean.

 

[Bayou Boiler]

I know it's common to cast stones at the previous head coach as there was an obvious reason for Purdue to make a change at the head coaching spot. In the summer I found this article that looks at how football games are played and assigns a win expectancy based upon how the game went when you look at Bill Connelly's advanced football stats.

https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2...ll-coaching-underachievers-overachievers-2018

In looking at Purdue's first 3 games using the 5 factors of football (Success Rate/Efficiency, Explosiveness, Finishing Drives, Field Position and Turnovers). Here is their win expectancy:

• Northwestern - 65.1%
• Eastern Michigan - 56.5%
• Missouri - 60.8%

Now, this isn't an end all be all by any means. Stats can't account for things like coaching up a team, game planning, etc., but I thought it was interesting that given some of the angst on the board, there could potentially be some accountability looking at the coach with a new contract. Purdue has been the better team on the field for all 3 games, but hasn't pulled through. That typically points back to some bad in game decisions/coaching that put things in danger. You can argue luck on a penalty here or there too for some context. Pat Fitzgerald has been a master of winning games you shouldn't if you look at the table in the link.

Other coaches of note:

• Darrell Hazel - 6 years, -0.16 difference wins/year, 39.5% percentile
• Bill Lynch - 4 years, -0.41 difference wins/year, 20.7% percentile
• Kevin Wilson - 6 years, -1.08 difference wins/year, 1.2% percentile

Did the article say anything about missed field goals, missed extra points, Touchdowns that are overruled without incontrovertible evidence, stupid penalties that extend opponents drives at critical times and a complete lack of playing experience among the defensive starters with 14 of the 22 players on the 2 deep chart being FR and SO? What percentile would that fall into I wonder?

I interpret that as, "you outplayed every opponent so far this year but shot yourself in the foot each game." In the end, the coaches are responsible for fixing the self inflicted wound syndrome but that takes time. The issues were related to player mistakes and not coaching decision mistakes or systematic breakdowns. They performed well enough to win overall, in absence of critical errors that I chalk up to immaturity.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, so forgive me if I'm coming across that way. It's just that you we to look at the whole picture instead of pointing fingers at the head coach. Last year the team's maturity level was evident and they overachieved. Maturity counts for a lot.

 

[FirstDownB]

Joe Tiller 36.7%
LMAO that guy must have been a terrible coach

According to this metric Hazell > Tiller
/thread

 

[SDBoiler1]

I know it's common to cast stones at the previous head coach as there was an obvious reason for Purdue to make a change at the head coaching spot. In the summer I found this article that looks at how football games are played and assigns a win expectancy based upon how the game went when you look at Bill Connelly's advanced football stats.

https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2...ll-coaching-underachievers-overachievers-2018

In looking at Purdue's first 3 games using the 5 factors of football (Success Rate/Efficiency, Explosiveness, Finishing Drives, Field Position and Turnovers). Here is their win expectancy:

• Northwestern - 65.1%
• Eastern Michigan - 56.5%
• Missouri - 60.8%

Now, this isn't an end all be all by any means. Stats can't account for things like coaching up a team, game planning, etc., but I thought it was interesting that given some of the angst on the board, there could potentially be some accountability looking at the coach with a new contract. Purdue has been the better team on the field for all 3 games, but hasn't pulled through. That typically points back to some bad in game decisions/coaching that put things in danger. You can argue luck on a penalty here or there too for some context. Pat Fitzgerald has been a master of winning games you shouldn't if you look at the table in the link.

Other coaches of note:

• Darrell Hazel - 6 years, -0.16 difference wins/year, 39.5% percentile
• Bill Lynch - 4 years, -0.41 difference wins/year, 20.7% percentile
• Kevin Wilson - 6 years, -1.08 difference wins/year, 1.2% percentile

The answer is obviously not.

 

[ss32000]

Did the article say anything about missed field goals, missed extra points, Touchdowns that are overruled without incontrovertible evidence, stupid penalties that extend opponents drives at critical times and a complete lack of playing experience among the defensive starters with 14 of the 22 players on the 2 deep chart being FR and SO? What percentile would that fall into I wonder?

I interpret that as, "you outplayed every opponent so far this year but shot yourself in the foot each game." In the end, the coaches are responsible for fixing the self inflicted wound syndrome but that takes time. The issues were related to player mistakes and not coaching decision mistakes or systematic breakdowns. They performed well enough to win overall, in absence of critical errors that I chalk up to immaturity.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, so forgive me if I'm coming across that way. It's just that you we to look at the whole picture instead of pointing fingers at the head coach. Last year the team's maturity level was evident and they overachieved. Maturity counts for a lot.

I don't take this as confrontational, it's just looking at data and making some conclusions or asking different questions. Sometimes in football, you feel like you are outplaying opponents and lose. Small things add up. If you stack the data against last year, it's not a trend in the right direction. Purdue won every game last year when they had a greater win expectancy and even defied odds when they played Arizona in the bowl game (20% win expectancy). What's important is that this is not a before game percentage, but post game to say based upon how the game played out, this was expected chance to win.

https://www.footballstudyhall.com/pages/2017-purdue-advanced-statistical-profile

I posted the data with other coaches because it gives some context. For example with Kevin Wilson, (I can only look at game by game data for 2015 and 2016). He left 2.5 wins on the table over 2015 and 2016 due to his in game coaching. Indiana only 1 won game over those 2 years where a post game win expectancy was under 50%. That single game he won was against Western Kentucky in 2015, coached by Jeff Brohm. Conversely, Wilson lost 3 games in 2015/2016 where his teams had a 70% chance or greater of winning (2015 Rutgers 74% winning chance, 2015 Duke 71% winning chance, 2016 Wake Forest 92% winning chance). My point with this data was that would you argue Wilson was a good or bad coach based upon your gut feel. It's not a good trend to lose games where you outplay your opponent. Of course this data isn't 100% fact as many factors come in to play and really, how do you account for guys making great plays. I just found it interesting when I looked at advanced data how these games looked on paper. There will always be one offs, but 3 in a row is a very odd trend and probably pretty unique nationally. I'm not saying Brohm is the wrong guy or should be fired, because it is possible to critique someone and not think they should be fired.

 

[SunnyFL24]

There is no doubt we would have a couple of wins this year if we padded our schedule like many teams do...........Was glad to hear Brohm hated the 3 man rush as he stated in his press conference( cant believe Holt kept using it) That being said, he is the head coach and should have squashed that himself early in the game!!!!

 

[lbodel]

I know it's common to cast stones at the previous head coach as there was an obvious reason for Purdue to make a change at the head coaching spot. In the summer I found this article that looks at how football games are played and assigns a win expectancy based upon how the game went when you look at Bill Connelly's advanced football stats.

https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2...ll-coaching-underachievers-overachievers-2018

In looking at Purdue's first 3 games using the 5 factors of football (Success Rate/Efficiency, Explosiveness, Finishing Drives, Field Position and Turnovers). Here is their win expectancy:

• Northwestern - 65.1%
• Eastern Michigan - 56.5%
• Missouri - 60.8%

Now, this isn't an end all be all by any means. Stats can't account for things like coaching up a team, game planning, etc., but I thought it was interesting that given some of the angst on the board, there could potentially be some accountability looking at the coach with a new contract. Purdue has been the better team on the field for all 3 games, but hasn't pulled through. That typically points back to some bad in game decisions/coaching that put things in danger. You can argue luck on a penalty here or there too for some context. Pat Fitzgerald has been a master of winning games you shouldn't if you look at the table in the link.

Other coaches of note:

• Darrell Hazel - 6 years, -0.16 difference wins/year, 39.5% percentile
• Bill Lynch - 4 years, -0.41 difference wins/year, 20.7% percentile
• Kevin Wilson - 6 years, -1.08 difference wins/year, 1.2% percentile

I think he's earned a lot of good will with his first season to where people are not so quick to be breathing down his neck. And truth be told, he comes across as a lot more competent than Hope/Hazell.

However, I'm really surprised at the lack of threads actually about the game. The clear one to me (which was also mentioned on the broadcasts) was that Purdue was not running the ball.

In a game where your defense is struggling to contain Mizzou's offense - and the offense doing an ok job, but maybe not keeping up with Mizzou toe-to-toe, establishing the run would have helped out tremendously.

Purdue didn't even try to establish the run. I think this is a questionable strategy by the coaching staff.

 

[Hausta01]

I think he's earned a lot of good will with his first season to where people are not so quick to be breathing down his neck. And truth be told, he comes across as a lot more competent than Hope/Hazell.

However, I'm really surprised at the lack of threads actually about the game. The clear one to me (which was also mentioned on the broadcasts) was that Purdue was not running the ball.

In a game where your defense is struggling to contain Mizzou's offense - and the offense doing an ok job, but maybe not keeping up with Mizzou toe-to-toe, establishing the run would have helped out tremendously.

Purdue didn't even try to establish the run. I think this is a questionable strategy by the coaching staff.

Why establish the run when the passing game was almost flawless? From what Brohm has said, he took what Missouri was giving him which was the passing game. And it gave us a record offensive game and 37 points (or 41 depending on who you ask).

The biggest issue is just defensive talent, or lack thereof.

 

[rgarlitz]

I wonder how the reshuffled offensive line factored into play calling.

 

[lbodel]

Why establish the run when the passing game was almost flawless? From what Brohm has said, he took what Missouri was giving him which was the passing game. And it gave us a record offensive game and 37 points (or 41 depending on who you ask).

The biggest issue is just defensive talent, or lack thereof.

Well, because we were always trying to play catch up?

If you can't quite keep up with someone offensively, keeping their offense off the field is important. If we established the run, it'd give our defense more rest - it doesn't mean you have to run the ball every single play.

Being one dimensional on offense doesn't typically bode well. Just because you can do something well, doesn't mean you should just do it over and over and over and nothing else. We also had success running the ball in our 2 previous games. Mizzou had 18 more plays on offense than we did - this is because they were more balanced in their attack.

 

[nat100]

This roster is still in need of a massive upgrade. The only reason we had a chance in the games was the work that Brohm and Co have done.
If Hazell were still here those would have been embarrassing blowouts.

 

[Hausta01]

Well, because we were always trying to play catch up?

If you can't quite keep up with someone offensively, keeping their offense off the field is important. If we established the run, it'd give our defense more rest - it doesn't mean you have to run the ball every single play.

Being one dimensional on offense doesn't typically bode well. Just because you can do something well, doesn't mean you should just do it over and over and over and nothing else. We also had success running the ball in our 2 previous games. Mizzou had 18 more plays on offense than we did - this is because they were more balanced in their attack.

They had more plays because our defense is bad and our offense had more explosive plays then they did, not because they ran the ball more. We had more balance against NW and still lost, should we have ran more there? We gained 300+ rushing yards against EMU and lost, should we have run more?

When we tried to run, it didn't go well. When we passed, it went extremely well. But you are right, keep running for 2 or 3 yards instead of throwing it for 10+ almost every pass attempt.

If the defense forces more than 2 punts and 1 turnover, maybe we wont be playing catchup the whole game and will be able to establish the run more.

 

[boilermaker75]

They had more plays because our defense is bad and our offense had more explosive plays then they did, not because they ran the ball more. We had more balance against NW and still lost, should we have ran more there? We gained 300+ rushing yards against EMU and lost, should we have run more?

When we tried to run, it didn't go well. When we passed, it went extremely well. But you are right, keep running for 2 or 3 yards instead of throwing it for 10+ almost every pass attempt.

If the defense forces more than 2 punts and 1 turnover, maybe we wont be playing catchup the whole game and will be able to establish the run more.

Exactly, if we ran more we would have done a lot more punting.

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

I think he's earned a lot of good will with his first season to where people are not so quick to be breathing down his neck. And truth be told, he comes across as a lot more competent than Hope/Hazell.

However, I'm really surprised at the lack of threads actually about the game. The clear one to me (which was also mentioned on the broadcasts) was that Purdue was not running the ball.

In a game where your defense is struggling to contain Mizzou's offense - and the offense doing an ok job, but maybe not keeping up with Mizzou toe-to-toe, establishing the run would have helped out tremendously.

Purdue didn't even try to establish the run. I think this is a questionable strategy by the coaching staff.

If we are taking the Barry Alvarez approach to this and letting the man build what he needs to do and give him time to do it, I think we would all be happy with where the program would end up.

Barry wasn't a Wisconsin guy. Born and raised in Pennsylvania but played at Nebraska. You don't think Nebraska (or other big programs) ever came calling for him at some point when he won back to back B1G and Rose Bowl Championships? He was given the time and resources to build his program the way he wanted. His first season was 1-10 and then followed that up with two 5-6 campaigns. His fourth year was 10-1-1 with a league championship and a Rose Bowl win.

2020 will be Brohm's fourth year at Purdue. You can clearly see a very similar path to what Brohm is building to what Alvarez did at Wisconsin in a program of similar standing when they only won 9 games from 1986 to 1990. No matter the end result of the W/L record, you are seeing improvement on a week to week basis and Purdue will inevitably be one of the more experienced teams next season all around when the defense returns as many as 10 starters and potentially still return 7 starters to the 2020 defense the following season from this season's defense alone.

 

[Hausta01]

Well, because we were always trying to play catch up?

If you can't quite keep up with someone offensively, keeping their offense off the field is important. If we established the run, it'd give our defense more rest - it doesn't mean you have to run the ball every single play.

Being one dimensional on offense doesn't typically bode well. Just because you can do something well, doesn't mean you should just do it over and over and over and nothing else. We also had success running the ball in our 2 previous games. Mizzou had 18 more plays on offense than we did - this is because they were more balanced in their attack.

I am making an assumption here, but I assume you are equating a good running game to winning. And I don't disagree that running the ball well can lead to winning. But winning teams generally tend to run the ball more BECAUSE they are winning. And many times that lead is built by passing the ball well and the defense getting stops.

 

[lbodel]

They had more plays because our defense is bad and our offense had more explosive plays then they did, not because they ran the ball more. We had more balance against NW and still lost, should we have ran more there? We gained 300+ rushing yards against EMU and lost, should we have run more?

When we tried to run, it didn't go well. When we passed, it went extremely well. But you are right, keep running for 2 or 3 yards instead of throwing it for 10+ almost every pass attempt.

If the defense forces more than 2 punts and 1 turnover, maybe we wont be playing catchup the whole game and will be able to establish the run more.

I'm not sure that adds up. If they have more explosive plays - wouldn't that mean they are getting down the field in fewer plays? Thus not as many plays needed on a drive. Thus fewer total offensive snaps.

You said we tried to run and it didn't go well. We ran the ball 19 times the ENTIRE game. How is that "trying"?

Purdue didn't even attempt to run the ball until 1 minute left in the first quarter - that was our first attempt!

I'm in total agreement that our defense is an issue - however, the point of establishing the run is to not drain your defense by always having them on the field. We simply didn't even try to establish the run in this game - there's no way you can argue that.

 

[Hausta01]

I'm not sure that adds up. If they have more explosive plays - wouldn't that mean they are getting down the field in fewer plays? Thus not as many plays needed on a drive. Thus fewer total offensive snaps.

You said we tried to run and it didn't go well. We ran the ball 19 times the ENTIRE game. How is that "trying"?

Purdue didn't even attempt to run the ball until 1 minute left in the first quarter - that was our first attempt!

I'm in total agreement that our defense is an issue - however, the point of establishing the run is to not drain your defense by always having them on the field. We simply didn't even try to establish the run in this game - there's no way you can argue that.

Purdue was more explosive, got a little carried away with the pronouns.

No, Purdue did not try to "establish" a run game. However it didnt work at all when it was even attempted (longest non-QB run was 8 yards) and with how well the passing game was going the run game wasnt needed.

If the defense wants more rest, get more than 3 stops all game. And time of possession wasn't terribly skewed 32min to 28min in Mizzou's favor. I think it is more energizing to a defense to see their offense score points than it is to see 3 runs that gains 8 yards, but takes up 2 whole minutes of clock.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

I'm not sure that adds up. If they have more explosive plays - wouldn't that mean they are getting down the field in fewer plays? Thus not as many plays needed on a drive. Thus fewer total offensive snaps.

You said we tried to run and it didn't go well. We ran the ball 19 times the ENTIRE game. How is that "trying"?

Purdue didn't even attempt to run the ball until 1 minute left in the first quarter - that was our first attempt!

I'm in total agreement that our defense is an issue - however, the point of establishing the run is to not drain your defense by always having them on the field. We simply didn't even try to establish the run in this game - there's no way you can argue that.

So basically we wore out our defense because we kept scoring too quickly? The offense wasn’t the problem Saturday night. Brohm is clearly a coach who will take what is given this year. We’ve run for nearly 400 yards and then passed for nearly 600 yards in consecutive games.

There is no more crucial issue with this team than the lack of a pass rush. If I could only change one thing with this team, that’s it full stop. In fact I would go so far to claim we would be 3-0 right now with one. Certainly 2-1.

 

[Born Boiler]

There’s absolutely no question that Brohm is holding the team back every single week. Then the front flaps open on the big balloon locomotive, and they all run out on the field.

 

[BoilerTom90]

I know it's common to cast stones at the previous head coach as there was an obvious reason for Purdue to make a change at the head coaching spot. In the summer I found this article that looks at how football games are played and assigns a win expectancy based upon how the game went when you look at Bill Connelly's advanced football stats.

https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2...ll-coaching-underachievers-overachievers-2018

In looking at Purdue's first 3 games using the 5 factors of football (Success Rate/Efficiency, Explosiveness, Finishing Drives, Field Position and Turnovers). Here is their win expectancy:

• Northwestern - 65.1%
• Eastern Michigan - 56.5%
• Missouri - 60.8%

Now, this isn't an end all be all by any means. Stats can't account for things like coaching up a team, game planning, etc., but I thought it was interesting that given some of the angst on the board, there could potentially be some accountability looking at the coach with a new contract. Purdue has been the better team on the field for all 3 games, but hasn't pulled through. That typically points back to some bad in game decisions/coaching that put things in danger. You can argue luck on a penalty here or there too for some context. Pat Fitzgerald has been a master of winning games you shouldn't if you look at the table in the link.

Other coaches of note:

• Darrell Hazel - 6 years, -0.16 difference wins/year, 39.5% percentile
• Bill Lynch - 4 years, -0.41 difference wins/year, 20.7% percentile
• Kevin Wilson - 6 years, -1.08 difference wins/year, 1.2% percentile

Too bad the analysis engine doesn't factor in the final score. If it did, I'd give crap like this some merit.

 

[Matt Tiger]

Football is like many things in life.You can over think it.