Brewster/Holtz Philosophies

[Duluthguy]

Brewster's game plan every week is to pound the rock, win at TOP, and try to keep the game close going into the fourth quarter so you have a chance to win. Many guys on this board seem to like this approach, at least in theory, and it no doubt would be more successful if we weren't something like 8th in the conference in rushing.

Hotlz, on the other hand, would frequently say after a game, "We thought going into the game, based on their offense and our defense, that we would have to score at least X points in order to win the game."

Which philosophy do you think is best and which is best for this particular team? Does continuing trying to pound the rock give this team the best chance to win, or should they open up the offense at least a little? Would we do better with a more balanced attack or run just as much but be less predictable?

 

[Unregistered User]

The philosophy of Holtz was to cheat, and then leave for the next job when the investigators were on the doorstep.

 

[Duluthguy]

Geez, I thought I asked a fairly rational football question. To make it clear, I don't care what anyone thinks of Holtz as a person or what he did or didn't do for this program. I mentioned him as simply representative of another philosophy because he's one of the few coaches I can remember approaching a game with a clear idea of how many points the team would need to score to win.

 

[Section2]

The answer is obviously the one who won a national championship, not the one who can't beat South Dakota. Brew doesn't know the difference between confidence and foolishness.

 

[alphagopher]

Holtz is a goofy, strange, bizarre little man. But, he's one hell of a football coach-doubt him at your peril. He's Gordon Gekko to Brew's Bud Fox.

 

[metrolax]

Holtz could flat-out coach. All of his players knew that. That's why they bought into
his system quickly at every stop he made, no matter what kind of physical hell he put
them through.

As a lacrosse coach, I often tell my captains at certain points of the game, "It looks
like we'll need at least 12 to seal this away", or something like that. That's nothing more
than knowing what your team needs to do.

Holtz' philosophy was less an offensive system than it was a complete system for a football
program based on intensity, focus, and positivity. One could always spot a Holtz-coached
team by their intensity...all the time.

 

[Wheaton]

It seems to me that Holtz has the better idea because no team is alike and you need to adjust.

Also, (and I'm not trying to be negative or dog you Duluthguy) Brewster's Philosophy is to "Keep it close in the fourth quarter to have a chance to win." Why not have a lead going into the fourth quarter?

Brewster's most recent silver lining from a bad game came when he said I think 5 of our last 6 games we were the last team to score, as if that was somewhat relevant. That is like saying we were winning at halftime so that matters somehow.

 

[Ogee Ogilthorpe]

It seems to me that Holtz has the better idea because no team is alike and you need to adjust.

Also, (and I'm not trying to be negative or dog you Duluthguy) Brewster's Philosophy is to "Keep it close in the fourth quarter to have a chance to win." Why not have a lead going into the fourth quarter?

Brewster's most recent silver lining from a bad game came when he said I think 5 of our last 6 games we were the last team to score, as if that was somewhat relevant. That is like saying we were winning at halftime so that matters somehow.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken I only recall pulling out that statement for a strategy in the games they were clearly overmatched going in; USC and Wisconsin.

 

[Rosemountian]

Defense wins championships is the common cliche thrown out there.

In reality, scoring more points than the other team wins championships.

 

[Gold Rush]

Holtz could flat-out coach. All of his players knew that. That's why they bought into
his system quickly at every stop he made, no matter what kind of physical hell he put
them through.

As a lacrosse coach, I often tell my captains at certain points of the game, "It looks
like we'll need at least 12 to seal this away", or something like that. That's nothing more
than knowing what your team needs to do.

Holtz' philosophy was less an offensive system than it was a complete system for a football
program based on intensity, focus, and positivity. One could always spot a Holtz-coached
team by their intensity...all the time.

Good post. Holtz found ways to win, Brewster found ways to lose. Holtz had an offense in mind (the option) and coaches who were loyal to him and knew how to run it, and Brewster THOUGHT he had an offense in mind (the spread) then changed it around each year with assistants who bailed each year on him. Holtz could study a team's weaknesses and make adjustments to exploit them, while Brewster's team could get fooled by a team on a play and not make adjustments, only to get exploited by the same play time and time again.

Each opponent is different and a good coach knows how to exploit their weaknesses on defense and find ways to stop a play that is working for them. Just because we can pass or run on a certain team does not mean that same play will work the next week, or even the next half. We would be better off pounding the rock when we can and passing when we can - basically finding plays that work in the right situations and taking what the defense gives us. I know this is extremely basic football knowledge, but this same knowledge has seemed to confound this coaching staff the last 4 years.

 

[Wheaton]

Brewster's game plan every week is to pound the rock, win at TOP, and try to keep the game close going into the fourth quarter so you have a chance to win. Many guys on this board seem to like this approach, at least in theory, and it no doubt would be more successful if we weren't something like 8th in the conference in rushing.

Hotlz, on the other hand, would frequently say after a game, "We thought going into the game, based on their offense and our defense, that we would have to score at least X points in order to win the game."

Which philosophy do you think is best and which is best for this particular team? Does continuing trying to pound the rock give this team the best chance to win, or should they open up the offense at least a little? Would we do better with a more balanced attack or run just as much but be less predictable?

The way I read the initial post was that this is how he always plays.

 

[tshefchik]

I think the problem is that the philosophy changes every year. I realize that the personnel changes constantly in college and you need to adjust. With the Gophers though, it's new coordinators and new playbooks every year. That's no way to be successful in the Big 10.

 

[Great Plains Gopher]

Holtz called his own plays and liked play action after running a lot of option. All of a sudden, Foggie would uncork a long throw and it often went for a score. His defenses (Peter Najarian) were tenacious and the offenses played to score not for time of posession. I prefer Holtz's approach over Brew's. I don't like minimalist football (though some coaches have been very successful with it, such as Dan Devine - check out his record at three schools: lots of very close games, 9-7, 7-6, 6-0, 12-7, etc. But overall, he was a 70 to 75% winner). I liked Nebraska at its peak under Devaney: lots of passing, but lots of running, too - and good defense. Ditto Bear Bryant - balanced attack and always seeking to score.