Will Fleck learn from watching Cignetti's aggressive play calls and creativity?

Donate To GopherHole
S

Stan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
5,118
Reaction score
4,061
Points
113
This isn't another "we need a Mark Cuban" thread, I'm genuinely curious if a coach like Fleck (or any other similar that's hit a ceiling) will study Cignetti's style, aggressive play calling, foot on the gas at all times, and creative approach? Or are they so cemented in their style of coaching that they can't evolve? I thought Cignetti's post game interview on the field was so incredibly insightful when he described exactly why they ran the QB draw on 4th and 5 and how they put that package in leading into the game and they saw the coverage they wanted the play before.

Anyway, if Cignetti doesn't go for a few 4th downs last night, they may not be Natty. Meanwhile Fleck doesn't have the same creativity or aggressive approach.

(This is not a Fleck rip post, I am truly curious if he or others will learn from the aggressive and creative approach Cignetti has, and not just settle for FGs and field position).
 

Stan said:
This isn't another "we need a Mark Cuban" thread, I'm genuinely curious if a coach like Fleck (or any other similar that's hit a ceiling) will study Cignetti's style, aggressive play calling, foot on the gas at all times, and creative approach? Or are they so cemented in their style of coaching that they can't evolve? I thought Cignetti's post game interview on the field was so incredibly insightful when he described exactly why they ran the QB draw on 4th and 5 and how they put that package in leading into the game and they saw the coverage they wanted the play before.

Anyway, if Cignetti doesn't go for a few 4th downs last night, they may not be Natty. Meanwhile Fleck doesn't have the same creativity or aggressive approach.

(This is not a Fleck rip post, I am truly curious if he or others will learn from the aggressive and creative approach Cignetti has, and not just settle for FGs and field position).
Click to expand...
Having a Heisman Trophy winning QB who is going to be the #1 pick in the draft under center makes it a lot easier to be super aggressive.

The QB draw was a gutsy play call, and if Miami doesn't miss multiple tackles there may be a very different take on that decision today.
 

I could see lower level coaches trying to emulate Cignetti's style, but I'd venture thst most major level coaches aren't going to fundamentally alter their philosophies. I imagine a lot comes down to scheming and how closely the coach trusts/works with his coordinators, too. Fleck has been successful doing things the way he sees fit, I don't think he changes a thing. He's typically been pretty low risk/play it safe, for better or worse.
 


Need the personnel to run that, if you are not built that way, 3 and outs come really fast.
I could only hit the fast forward once between plays, (15 seconds) I like that pace better than frantically clapping your hands as the play clock runs out!
 


Stan said:
This isn't another "we need a Mark Cuban" thread, I'm genuinely curious if a coach like Fleck (or any other similar that's hit a ceiling) will study Cignetti's style, aggressive play calling, foot on the gas at all times, and creative approach? Or are they so cemented in their style of coaching that they can't evolve? I thought Cignetti's post game interview on the field was so incredibly insightful when he described exactly why they ran the QB draw on 4th and 5 and how they put that package in leading into the game and they saw the coverage they wanted the play before.

Anyway, if Cignetti doesn't go for a few 4th downs last night, they may not be Natty. Meanwhile Fleck doesn't have the same creativity or aggressive approach.

(This is not a Fleck rip post, I am truly curious if he or others will learn from the aggressive and creative approach Cignetti has, and not just settle for FGs and field position).
Click to expand...
Couple things to note:
  • Cignetti kicked a FG 7 minutes later in a similar situation (up 3, 4th and 4 at Miami ~20) when a first down wins the game.
  • Indiana ran the ball 45 times (threw it 27 with a Heisman winner at QB) and had over 13:00 min advantage in TOP.
  • Indiana went for it on 4th down 18 times all season (14th most in Big 10).
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Couple things to note:
  • Cignetti kicked a FG 7 minutes later in a similar situation (up 3, 4th and 4 at Miami ~20) when a first down wins the game.
  • Indiana ran the ball 45 times (threw it 27 with a Heisman winner at QB) and had over 13:00 min advantage in TOP.
  • Indiana went for it on 4th down 18 times all season (14th most in Big 10).
Click to expand...

Good pushback, and good points.
 

Indiana has NFL talent at every level on both sides of the ball.

IU winning the title goes far beyond aggressive play calling.
 

mngg11 said:
I could see lower level coaches trying to emulate Cignetti's style, but I'd venture thst most major level coaches aren't going to fundamentally alter their philosophies. I imagine a lot comes down to scheming and how closely the coach trusts/works with his coordinators, too. Fleck has been successful doing things the way he sees fit, I don't think he changes a thing. He's typically been pretty low risk/play it safe, for better or worse.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Fleck's model is more like Ferentz which makes some sense when you are 1-8 against a particular coach. We play Indiana relatively rarely so whatever dominance they may achieve during Cignetti's tenure doesn't hurt as much.
 



scools12 said:
Indiana has NFL talent at every level on both sides of the ball.

IU winning the title goes far beyond aggressive play calling.
Click to expand...
Yep. Mendoza threw for over 300 yards 1 time (299 in one other game). They were just ridiculously efficient with their passing game as he had 6 games with over 80% completion percentage.

They won by having top end talent all over the field, a great defense and a really balanced offensive attack.
 

Stan said:
This isn't another "we need a Mark Cuban" thread, I'm genuinely curious if a coach like Fleck (or any other similar that's hit a ceiling) will study Cignetti's style, aggressive play calling, foot on the gas at all times, and creative approach? Or are they so cemented in their style of coaching that they can't evolve? I thought Cignetti's post game interview on the field was so incredibly insightful when he described exactly why they ran the QB draw on 4th and 5 and how they put that package in leading into the game and they saw the coverage they wanted the play before.

Anyway, if Cignetti doesn't go for a few 4th downs last night, they may not be Natty. Meanwhile Fleck doesn't have the same creativity or aggressive approach.

(This is not a Fleck rip post, I am truly curious if he or others will learn from the aggressive and creative approach Cignetti has, and not just settle for FGs and field position).
Click to expand...
Are you saying 3rd and 5 in the redzone where a first down ends the game you want to run inside zone for one then kick a field goal to go up 6 and give them one final possession?

Because that’s what they did in crunch time last night
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Couple things to note:
  • Cignetti kicked a FG 7 minutes later in a similar situation (up 3, 4th and 4 at Miami ~20) when a first down wins the game.
  • Indiana ran the ball 45 times (threw it 27 with a Heisman winner at QB) and had over 13:00 min advantage in TOP.
  • Indiana went for it on 4th down 18 times all season (14th most in Big 10).
Click to expand...
I still don’t understand why people assume good = aggressive and bad = conservative


People are still scarred from the RUTM era I guess
 




Some guy said:
I still don’t understand why people assume good = aggressive and bad = conservative


People are still scarred from the RUTM era I guess
Click to expand...
To some people a run play that doesn't work was a bad play call when if fact it might have been the perfect call it just wasn't executed.

On the 4th down QB draw there was a Miami defender who could have blown up the play but failed to make the play so the play becomes an aggressive genius playcall to some. If the tackle gets made it suddenly becomes a conservative horrible decision (should have thrown).
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Couple things to note:
  • Cignetti kicked a FG 7 minutes later in a similar situation (up 3, 4th and 4 at Miami ~20) when a first down wins the game.
  • Indiana ran the ball 45 times (threw it 27 with a Heisman winner at QB) and had over 13:00 min advantage in TOP.
  • Indiana went for it on 4th down 18 times all season (14th most in Big 10).
Click to expand...

Indiana also ran the ball on 3rd and long at least three times and 4th and long at least once (Mendoza's TD). Fans on Gopherhole would be apoplectic.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Couple things to note:
  • Cignetti kicked a FG 7 minutes later in a similar situation (up 3, 4th and 4 at Miami ~20) when a first down wins the game.
  • Indiana ran the ball 45 times (threw it 27 with a Heisman winner at QB) and had over 13:00 min advantage in TOP.
  • Indiana went for it on 4th down 18 times all season (14th most in Big 10).
Click to expand...
This. It was very Fleck-like where it was conservative except for one or two calls. Very reminiscent of when Fleck went for it on 4th down deep in our own territory against Ohio St a few years back. Mo ended up breaking off a big one and people celebrated the call but would have been a different story if they didn't convert.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom