Game Situations Vs Practice

[lighty]

Once again, it appears there are two sides to the Scarlet Nation audience:

1) The coaching staff knows more than any of us because they've seen all of the QBs in practice. They chose Laviano because he was the best

2) Laviano struggles in games. He is likely a practice warrior, but we need to see someone else get an opportunity.

** My question to everyone that has ever played organized sports (of any level) -- have you ever seen players who performed better in games than they did in practice? **

I have. Granted it was in soccer and I'm not sure if it translates to football, but I imagine there are football players who raise their level during actual games -- to a level they simply do not show in practice, for whatever reason.

That's why I would like to see someone else get an opportunity if Laviano is struggling in a game. I thought Flood made a huge mistake in never giving anyone else a shot last year. Personally, I thought Flood was worried that if anyone else did well it would look bad on his decision to go with Laviano. I hope Ash doesn't fall into the same routine.

We MAY NOT have anyone better at QB. That is definitely a possibility. But what if we do give someone a chance and they actually succeed? Is that a bad thing? Flood acted like it was. It may be a very long season if Ash is the same.

 

[miketd1]

Allen Iverson.

/thread


I kid, but you get my point.

 

[ru75]

Chris has had some good games so it seems to be more of an issue with performance versus teams that can pressure the QB. The coaches are telling us that nobody else can handle the pressure any more effectively. Odds are that they are correct but, if you are losing and with the competition always being so close, why not give somebody else a try. Why not see if bench time has a therapeutic effect on the starter? And, if a miracle happens, you might find a quick release can do more than you thought. I've said it before, Bill Parcells, couldn't decide on Phil Simms or Scott Bruner based on practice. Even Randy Dean was looking good in practice to Bill. Us NFL Strategy players sometimes see things...

 

[kupuna133]

Chris has had some good games so it seems to be more of an issue with performance versus teams that can pressure the QB. The coaches are telling us that nobody else can handle the pressure any more effectively. Odds are that they are correct but, if you are losing and with the competition always being so close, why not give somebody else a try. Why not see if bench time has a therapeutic effect on the starter? And, if a miracle happens, you might find a quick release can do more than you thought. I've said it before, Bill Parcells, couldn't decide on Phil Simms or Scott Bruner based on practice. Even Randy Dean was looking good in practice to Bill. Us NFL Strategy players sometimes see things...

Agreed a couple of series on the sideline may be beneficial. Listen to what the coaches expect in real time vs when they come to the sidelines after the series. The game is still moving way too fast for Chris.

As Chris Ash has said every position will have competition and every player will be held accountable. Laviano should be given every opportunity to succeed but not to the detriment of the team.

 

[MADHAT1]

No matter how much more a player shows in practice, if he's not producing during the game it might be best to give his back-up a chance and see if that player does better in a game then he does in practice.
Chris should be given every opportunity to succeed, but also held accountable if he isn't doing the job and whoever is his back-up given a chance to do better.

 

[slyker]

Once again, it appears there are two sides to the Scarlet Nation audience:

1) The coaching staff knows more than any of us because they've seen all of the QBs in practice. They chose Laviano because he was the best

2) Laviano struggles in games. He is likely a practice warrior, but we need to see someone else get an opportunity.

** My question to everyone that has ever played organized sports (of any level) -- have you ever seen players who performed better in games than they did in practice? **

I have. Granted it was in soccer and I'm not sure if it translates to football, but I imagine there are football players who raise their level during actual games -- to a level they simply do not show in practice, for whatever reason.

That's why I would like to see someone else get an opportunity if Laviano is struggling in a game. I thought Flood made a huge mistake in never giving anyone else a shot last year. Personally, I thought Flood was worried that if anyone else did well it would look bad on his decision to go with Laviano. I hope Ash doesn't fall into the same routine.

We MAY NOT have anyone better at QB. That is definitely a possibility. But what if we do give someone a chance and they actually succeed? Is that a bad thing? Flood acted like it was. It may be a very long season if Ash is the same.

Your first problem is that you are assuming Laviano performs like some superstar warrior in practice. What you categorize as Laviano struggling may be his typical performance in practice - 60% completion rate, moves the team well at times when the Line gives him time, an interception here or there, less than perfect accuracy .... but this may still be much better than the other choices. If the coaches see Laviano perform similarly in practice as he does in these game situations.... which may be far better than the other QB's , why would they expect any better performance from the backups. And why would then then see a need to make a change? You and everyone else, just have no idea what goes on in practice. And all the talk from the Staff that the competition for QB was close, could just be coachspeak. You think Laviano would be a little more motivated to work hard if the coaches are saying publicly that there was a neck and neck battle going on?


What could happen?? You could do what Brian Kelly did at ND. It looks like he played both QB''s in their first game. One performed better and has now been named the starter. Zaire's lack of production in his time in the game may have cost them the first game. What if Kelly truly felt that Kaiser was better from the start and chose to do this in-game, live competition. If I was a fan of Notre Dame I would be pissed if I knew the coach did it this way.

 

[ru75]

Your first problem is that you are assuming Laviano performs like some superstar warrior in practice. What you categorize as Laviano struggling may be his typical performance in practice - 60% completion rate, moves the team well at times when the Line gives him time, an interception here or there, less than perfect accuracy .... but this may still be much better than the other choices. If the coaches see Laviano perform similarly in practice as he does in these game situations.... which may be far better than the other QB's , why would they expect any better performance from the backups. And why would then then see a need to make a change? You and everyone else, just have no idea what goes on in practice. And all the talk from the Staff that the competition for QB was close, could just be coachspeak. You think Laviano would be a little more motivated to work hard if the coaches are saying publicly that there was a neck and neck battle going on?


What could happen?? You could do what Brian Kelly did at ND. It looks like he played both QB''s in their first game. One performed better and has now been named the starter. Zaire's lack of production in his time in the game may have cost them the first game. What if Kelly truly felt that Kaiser was better from the start and chose to do this in-game, live competition. If I was a fan of Notre Dame I would be pissed if I knew the coach did it this way.

" You think Laviano would be a little more motivated to work hard if the coaches are saying publicly that there was a neck and neck battle going on?"

We think he might be motivated to work harder if he rode the bench some...when he came up limping it was the perfect excuse, as was last year's crushing hit that took him out for only 1 play....

 

[Scarlet Shack]

Look guys, I don't think CL is suited to run this offense simply put because I don't think he is a credible threat to run the ball 10 plus times a game, something that is a near necessity to make this offense go....

But...

it is a completely new system. ALL NEW. RIght now there are more than kist CL that are playing slower than they should because it is all new....thinking it through instead of instinct....

When all 11 are playing ths system on instinct thru lots and lots of repetition...and if CL is still struggling...then you have your answer.

But the offensive mess last Saturday was a LOT more than just CL

And that's from someone who thinks he isn't suited for this offense, but just may be the best of what we have right now...

 

[Yeah Baby]

I actually get dumber every time I read this board. That probably explains the Football IQ of many on this board. I emplore all of you to stop reading and stop posting threads like these. Good day sirs.

 

[AreYouNUTS]

Ash clearly showed he is ready, willing, and able, to make changes during the flow of a game. There is no doubt in my mind that when HE feels the time is appropriate - whether during or between games - he WILL make any and all necessary changes.

 

[ru75]

I actually get dumber every time I read this board. That probably explains the Football IQ of many on this board. I emplore all of you to stop reading and stop posting threads like these. Good day sirs.

I agree with your first point, but I struggle to understand why you getting dumber explains the football IQ of others. The third point, I totally disagree with as I find "what if" speculation to be highly entertaining. For me, these boards are boredom breakers not educational seminars. For that, I play NFL Strategy.

 

[jtung230]

I think they should just make the practice more game like. Problem solved. Don't give him the green jersey and see how he plays under real pressure.

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

Laviano is not a B1G starting QB.

Redshirt Oden but see what the other QBs have in games this season.

 

[RUinPAC10land]

I agree with your first point, but I struggle to understand why you getting dumber explains the football IQ of others. The third point, I totally disagree with as I find "what if" speculation to be highly entertaining. For me, these boards are boredom breakers not educational seminars. For that, I play NFL Strategy.

Exactly! I googled "football IQ" and I got links for the wonderlic test. I did pretty well on them contrary to what people like FANU said. People can criticize my analysis all they want, but it's not like I am making a living doing it. So, why the f@#k do we have a QI department on this forum! LOL...

 

[ru75]

Exactly! I googled "football IQ" and I got links for the wonderlic test. I did pretty well on them contrary to what people like FANU said. People can criticize my analysis all they want, but it's not like I am making a living doing it. So, why the f@#k do we have a QI department on this forum! LOL...

We need an elbow Lost and Found more!

 

[cubuffsdoug]

Look guys, I don't think CL is suited to run this offense simply put because I don't think he is a credible threat to run the ball 10 plus times a game, something that is a near necessity to make this offense go....

But...

it is a completely new system. ALL NEW. RIght now there are more than kist CL that are playing slower than they should because it is all new....thinking it through instead of instinct....

When all 11 are playing ths system on instinct thru lots and lots of repetition...and if CL is still struggling...then you have your answer.

But the offensive mess last Saturday was a LOT more than just CL

And that's from someone who thinks he isn't suited for this offense, but just may be the best of what we have right now...

He can't run the offense this year and he couldn't run the pro offense last year, so what the hell can he run?:(

 

[miketd1]

For his life?

 

[RUsojo]

Quite honestly I expected both Laviano and Allen to get significant playing time last week during the course of the game and I was surprised when they announced Lav the outright starter. SO, It had to be Laviano's performances in practice, both definitively more efficient and consistent than Allen, in order to be the only signal caller on Sunday.

Though I disagree with declaring a starter before OOC is finished I think the circumstances with how he ended up with the role are not arguable.

 

[MADHAT1]

He can't run the offense this year and he couldn't run the pro offense last year, so what the hell can he run?:(

The question shouldn't be :"so what the hell can he run?" But ask this instead:
Can any of RU's QB run the offense Ash and Mehringer installed.
Seems like every QB besides Oden hasn't beat Chris out be it last season's pro set or
this year's O.
I won't be as hard on Laviano as others might be because: can't blame Chris if none of the other QBs were able to be the #1 in Ash's eyes.
Could be CL is RU's best QB this season of all the QBs that returned from last year's team.
As for Zach, maybe he's in the same boat as the returning QBs and hasn't proven he'll help RU win.
Being moved behind Gio makes me wonder if he can move the RU O through the air good enough too replace Chris and that's why he fell behind Gio in the depth chart.

 

[LC-88]

Once again, it appears there are two sides to the Scarlet Nation audience:

1) The coaching staff knows more than any of us because they've seen all of the QBs in practice. They chose Laviano because he was the best

2) Laviano struggles in games. He is likely a practice warrior, but we need to see someone else get an opportunity.

** My question to everyone that has ever played organized sports (of any level) -- have you ever seen players who performed better in games than they did in practice? **

I have. Granted it was in soccer and I'm not sure if it translates to football, but I imagine there are football players who raise their level during actual games -- to a level they simply do not show in practice, for whatever reason.

That's why I would like to see someone else get an opportunity if Laviano is struggling in a game. I thought Flood made a huge mistake in never giving anyone else a shot last year. Personally, I thought Flood was worried that if anyone else did well it would look bad on his decision to go with Laviano. I hope Ash doesn't fall into the same routine.

We MAY NOT have anyone better at QB. That is definitely a possibility. But what if we do give someone a chance and they actually succeed? Is that a bad thing? Flood acted like it was. It may be a very long season if Ash is the same.

Yes. Without a doubt. Same at work. Guys that can flip a switch and sell, present, etc. way better than when it's not live.

 

[mildone]

1) The coaching staff knows more than any of us because they've seen all of the QBs in practice. They chose Laviano because he was the best

It's way more than just seeing the QBs in practice. Even during games, the coaching staff is taking away more in a single quarter than the fans will comprehend all season long. They understand the game at a level most fans don't even realize exists.

When a passing play fails, the coaching staff actually knows the real cause. The fans might think they know, but mostly they do not. They just always assume it's the QB's fault since that's the most visible, easiest thing to see. While fans are blaming the QB for everything (which is stupid, but common), the coaches are looking at it in a completely different, far more informed way.

A case in point is that the coaching staff actually knows what play was called and who was supposed to do what on any given passing play. When the play fails, most of the time the average fan has no clue what was supposed to happen. The staff knows if a WR ran the wrong route, or failed to get separation, or broke in the wrong direction, or missed some critical cue from the defensive alignment. Any of those things could lead to an incompletion or interception that the fans will think was the QBs fault.

Other than the fumbles, the coaching staff was not overly unhappy with Laviano's performance in the last game. Or at least, they understand that the rest of the offense, and perhaps the play-calling, were insufficient to give the QB a reasonable chance for success.

If the offense under-performed, and the coach's evaluation of the QB's in training camp showed them that the offense performs better with Laviano then without him, then what good would come from switching the QB to someone for whom the team performs less well? The likely outcome is that the offense will perform worse, not better.

I would think it will take more fumbles, or some really stupid decisions on throws, to 'cause them to change QB's. That might happen, Laviano ain't great with balls security.

But I don't think the coaches agree with our QB controversy addicted fans whose wishful thinking analysis tells them we must have a better game-day QB than Laviano. At least not quite yet.

But things can change. Hopefully the backups are working their asses off every day and one emerges as a better option. Or Laviano improves as the team around him improves. Or something.

 

[coldsprings]

Once again, it appears there are two sides to the Scarlet Nation audience:

** My question to everyone that has ever played organized sports (of any level) -- have you ever seen players who performed better in games than they did in practice? **

I

You don't have to play a sport to answer. Anyone who has ever practiced anything, a presentation for example, knows that practice and "game" conditions are totally different. You can do fine in practice and not have the elusive quality of "presence," when it counts, that defines winners in any field.

Here is Bill Russell describing "presence" or "flow" or being in the "zone:" “I could almost sense where the next play would develop and where the next shot would be taken, I could feel it so keenly that I’d want to shout to my teammates, ‘It’s coming there!’ except that I knew that everything would change if I did.”

Laviano seems to lack "presence" under game conditions. In my experience lack of presence is usually a result of being too concerned with the outcome and not enough with the moment by moment process. Outcomes take care of themselves if you are in the zone.

 

[coldsprings]

Anyone ever read The Legend of Bagger Vance by Steven Pressfield? (the movie version is mediocre) Pressfield uses golf to teach some universal truths. In "game" conditions there is a "field." Pressfield is not talking about the playing field but something metaphorical, something spiritual. When we are in the zone, we see the "field." (See my Bill Russell quote above as an example). When we align ourselves with the field, that's when the magic happens, that's when we play clutch.

Many of you reading this have given a presentation. When you are not in the zone, not seeing the "field," you are pretty unresponsive to the audience. The result is the proverbial canned talk. In contrast, when you see the "field" during your presentation your talk gets modified on the fly, without seeming effort on your part to meet the needs of the audience. You and your audience feel connected.

Pressfield believes to see the field you have to shrink your ego. The field is where we are all connected; our ego is where we are separate. We know from last year's taunting outburst against the fans that Laviano had a huge ego. If he has hasn't shrunk that outsized ego, there will probably always be the gap between his practice and game performance.

 

[RutgHoops]

I am a 3 handicap on the range and a 9 on the golf course. So yes, I am familiar with that syndrome.

 

[mildone]

We know from last year's taunting outburst against the fans that Laviano had a huge ego. If he has hasn't shrunk that outsized ego, there will probably always be the gap between his practice and game performance.

Sometimes, what appears to be a huge ego is actually overcompensation for self-doubt or lack of self-confidence. There's no way to actually know, based solely on that single incident, if Laviano "has a huge ego" or not.

 

[coldsprings]

Sometimes, what appears to be a huge ego is actually overcompensation for self-doubt or lack of self-confidence. There's no way to actually know, based solely on that single incident, if Laviano "has a huge ego" or not.

In my experience, lack of self-confidence is just the other side of the coin of a big ego. Our ego either falsely inflates us or falsely deprecates us. To be a "gamer" in any endeavor you have to minimize the thinking about yourself.

 

[ru75]

Now who said to kill this thread? This has been very interesting stuff. The posters are seeing the field, suppressing egos, not attacking each other, melding with the audience. How cool is that?

 

[mildone]

In my experience, lack of self-confidence is just the other side of the coin of a big ego. Our ego either falsely inflates us or falsely deprecates us. To be a "gamer" in any endeavor you have to minimize the thinking about yourself.

I agree with you that achieving peak performance in sports requires not thinking about oneself. I'd say it requires not thinking about much at all, i.e. being "left brained" or being entirely in the moment.

I am unconvinced, however, that Laviano's ego is out of the ordinary range for D1 college QBs. I'm also pretty sure we could come up with some extremely successful college and pro QBs who most people would say have outsized egos.

If we're talking about ego only as sense of self without applying a negative connotation to it, then sure, while playing, it would be best if one stops being self-conscious. But if we're talking about ego in the negative sense (e.g. that guy has a huge ego), then I'm not at all sure it matters just so long as during the competitive action, those thoughts are reduced to a sense of self-confidence, which is critical to peak performance as well.

I had no problem with Laviano's response to the crowd booing last season. I don't see it as evidence of a huge ego. I see it as self-defense mechanism. It is unreasonable, to my way of thinking, to expect a person to take abuse without responding. Although the response should be proportional to the attack in most cases. And in that case, I thought it was.

 

[LotusAggressor]

 

[coldsprings]

I agree with you that achieving peak performance in sports requires not thinking about oneself. I'd say it requires not thinking about much at all, i.e. being "left brained" or being entirely in the moment.

I am unconvinced, however, that Laviano's ego is out of the ordinary range for D1 college QBs. I'm also pretty sure we could come up with some extremely successful college and pro QBs who most people would say have outsized egos.

If we're talking about ego only as sense of self without applying a negative connotation to it, then sure, while playing, it would be best if one stops being self-conscious. But if we're talking about ego in the negative sense (e.g. that guy has a huge ego), then I'm not at all sure it matters just so long as during the competitive action, those thoughts are reduced to a sense of self-confidence, which is critical to peak performance as well.

I had no problem with Laviano's response to the crowd booing last season. I don't see it as evidence of a huge ego. I see it as self-defense mechanism. It is unreasonable, to my way of thinking, to expect a person to take abuse without responding. Although the response should be proportional to the attack in most cases. And in that case, I thought it was.

I agree with much of what you write. I'm paraphrasing an interview with tennis great Pete Sampras. A reporter is asking him why he is not emotional on the court. Sampras says he has emotions but he lets his thinking just flow right through him:

Reporter: “So if you have just as much thinking and emotion as everyone else on the tour, why doesn't it seem to affect you as much?”

Peter Sampras: “Because I don't really care what I think or what experience I'm having. A lot of these other guys - it really seems to matter to them.”

Reporter: “But if you don't care about what you think or your experience, what do you care about?”

Sampras: “Playing tennis. I care about playing tennis.”

You are correct, there are successful people with outsized egos. Perhaps they got where they are despite their ego.

 

[lighty]

I actually get dumber every time I read this board. That probably explains the Football IQ of many on this board. I emplore all of you to stop reading and stop posting threads like these. Good day sirs.

Thank you for such a well thought out and eloquent response. It's good to know people like you think every question is ridiculous. Your blind faith in leadership is noted.

 

[Doctor Worm]

To get back to OP's question: ** My question to everyone that has ever played organized sports (of any level) -- have you ever seen players who performed better in games than they did in practice? **

Answer is yes, but for two very different reasons:

1. Some guys just don't like to practice hard. They give everything they have on game day. But because of their practice habits, they may not have as much to give on game day as the next guy.
2. Practice is an imperfect indicator of game performance. Granted it's the only indicator we have, but it is imperfect. And nowhere is it less perfect than at the QB position.

I don't buy the "some guys flip the switch on game day" argument. Why is it necessary to flip the switch at all? Why not keep it permanently set to the ON position?