coachnorm
11-09-2022, 04:26 PM
This is a follow up on a post I made last month. ORM Operational Risk Management was the title of the post. I used my past military ORM training and used the term plane crash. I assert that the Auburn game was a plane crash that we survived, but it still was a plane crash.
It appears that Auburn studied the Mississippi St vs Kentucky game and we did not. Run the same plays and get the same results and CML escapes accountability with storytelling gibberish?
This is outrageous but true. First of all, when the quarterback position is discussed, the quarterback has to be identified as a player or scheme participant. When a play is failing, a player overcomes the situation. A scheme participant just complies with the scheme check down? The X Factor distinguishes player from the pretenders. The X Factor is something a quarterback has or does not have. Coaching is simply managing a quarterback X Factor without screwing it up.
Mississippi State Football has an Air Raid manager at quarterback. The quarterback is a scheme participant. Knowing a scheme is no guarantee to win big games. Play making beats the big boys especially when the big boys have a digital and hard copy of the well-known scheme being attempted against them. Tennessee quarterback learn Air raid? Not.
Genetics are prevailing over intellect in most aspects of quarterbacking. The winners simply dumb down the play book to maintain their genetic dominance. Losers bench their superior players in favor of superior intellectuals who are inferior players without the X Factor.
I believe that there are superior quarterbacks, not scheme managers, in high school currently better than the Mississippi State Air Raid manager. They are playmakers with the X Factor. When you shift rushing production into the short passing game, stats are skewed.
I believe Nico Iamaleava from Warren HS Los Angeles, is a better potential playmaker than the Mississippi State Air Raid manager. Nico is Hendon Hookers replacement next year and an upgrade to Tennessee.
CML would have him buried in the depth chart next year in favor for a scheme participant?
I wonder how many NFL quality playmaking quarterbacks would be benched by a scheme compliant nerd in a CML environment? BTW, is the Tennessee guy who hung 52 on Alabama Mensa material or just some dude with The X Factor? Who would want to be an Air Raid guy?
I am including my past post on ORM, Operational Risk Management. The post speaks for itself and I will add to it. It is empirically verifiable that the good opposition and some bad are sitting on CML short game. Certain plays have a catastrophic result and CML has not fixed the problem. Fixing the problem requires breaching Air Raid principles that every decent coach in America knows. The Air Raid Manager consistently holds on to the ball instead of launching contested catches like quality opposition does. The deer in the head lights holds on to the ball and the offensive linemen get grief. Our opposition linemen do not have to get that grief?
If the air raid manager is consistently tossing swing passes and check downs, this is being practiced during skelly drills. This is being affirmed during skelly by CML? An ORM corrective action document would forbid the throwing of swing passes and check downs, during skelly, and mandate attempts of execution of the long game so #0 and #4 can get proper repetitions. This corrective action document would force noncompliance in regards to the Air Raid Manual. This could confuse the opposition who have studied and learned the Air Raid even though they do not feature it? Remember, every time a swing pass or check down is executed during skelly, a nail is being driven into the Mississippi State Football coffin, something else could have been practiced. If the Air Raid Manager refuses to stop holding on to the ball, another option has to be found because today and tomorrow count, not yesterday. The Air Raid Manager did not launch a meaningful pass on the last play of the first half, against Auburn, because he wanted the passing stats? That's clowning, a competitor player would have launched deep.
With all of this said CML solution is to toss chairs on the sideline? CML is supposed to mean Coach Mike Leach not Clown Mike Leach.
Operational Risk Management and Mississippi State Football
Operational Risk Management and Mississippi State Football
Because of my past employment with the US Navy F/A-18 Legacy Program I had to get trained on ORM. Because of this mandatory training as fill in supervisor, I know ORM is incorporated in the military. ORM is implemented in business, medical management, and sports management also.
I will keep this aspect, of this statement, as brief as possible. Three concepts (1) I.D. the risk, (2) assessment of risk, (3) risk mitigation. Whenever an organizational risk occurs, an assigned team forms a corrective action plan after its investigation.
I would like to discuss the Kentucky game primarily and add LSU. Under the guise of ORM an investigation team would be convened to identify what happened, this is similar to a plane crash. Risky management would be investigated. At the high school level of football, most coaching staff members will have a practice plan and assignment sheet. An SEC program will have what most high schools have on the practice field. ORM would compare the practice plans and specifics of 2021 win versus 2022 loss. If the two are dissimilar, annotations will be made to the audit report.
The investigative authority will establish why the 2021 and 2022 preparations are different and what was the justification for it. The investigative authority would review the practice video to get a clear understanding of the game preparations. If swing passes and check downs eat up too much time it will be noted on the audit report. The manager will be directed to justify this, in writing, to the investigative authority.
If scheme compliance is the justification, the investigative authority will ask the value of compliance if the opposition and the football community, even most high schools, have access and video documentation on the scheme. Also, a self-scout document will be asked to be presented to the auditors. The self-scout doc will clearly show what has been successful and its failures. If the self-scout doc data exposes that failed content has been emphasized, this goes into the audit report. BTW, a self-scout doc is your opponent's scouting report. This proves defective preparation by the head coach who has publicly stated that the team practiced poorly that week?
If scheme compliance is paramount to the organization, it needs to be investigated. Does the leadership only know its scheme and nothing else? Does the leadership know that opposition knows the scheme? If leadership has not factored in the fact that the Air Raid is well known, the auditors need a written doc from leadership justifying this lack of knowledge.
A scheme is a business plan and the auditors need to compare the business plan of 2022 to 2010 and see if the business is stagnated. If the plan has not been revised, the auditors need a written reason why. Similar business plans should be compared to the current Miss. St. plan. Are they are revised, sometimes bastardized, Air Raid businesses. Revision is sometimes seen as heresy in some mindsets. CML disciples are out producing him?
A growing discussion in football, at all levels, is the increase in pass interference and holding in the secondary. This means that all teams need to know the numbers which simply means who is generating this kind of offense production. Talking 50-50 balls and practicing 50-50 balls is two different things. The auditors need to find out if leadership has this important data. If leadership does not have the accurate data, or is indifferent to it, that has to be added to the audit. If leadership does have that data, a written doc should be presented justifying play calling that generates no penalty offense when others are feasting in match-up non scheme passing.
Penalty yardage is no mistake, it is generated with modern day techniques and receiver domination over defenders. The auditors need to discover if Miss. St. leadership understands the modern-day match-up principles causing this evolution. If leadership understand the principles but fails to incorporate them, this needs to go into the audit. Now a days receivers are winning the ball while being interfered with any ways. This is non schematic offense being generated on a large scale.
If we get blown up for 2-yard gains on swing passes on a consistent basis this means that our opposition has out prepared us to get to that point. To me, a swing pass on a CML coached team is about as threatening as a quarterback sneak because they are both evolved 2-yard plays. Does CML have that data? If not, this has to go into the audit.
Enough said, after a damage assessment report is generated by the auditors, a corrective action plan follows? This is an example of Operational Risk Management
It appears that Auburn studied the Mississippi St vs Kentucky game and we did not. Run the same plays and get the same results and CML escapes accountability with storytelling gibberish?
This is outrageous but true. First of all, when the quarterback position is discussed, the quarterback has to be identified as a player or scheme participant. When a play is failing, a player overcomes the situation. A scheme participant just complies with the scheme check down? The X Factor distinguishes player from the pretenders. The X Factor is something a quarterback has or does not have. Coaching is simply managing a quarterback X Factor without screwing it up.
Mississippi State Football has an Air Raid manager at quarterback. The quarterback is a scheme participant. Knowing a scheme is no guarantee to win big games. Play making beats the big boys especially when the big boys have a digital and hard copy of the well-known scheme being attempted against them. Tennessee quarterback learn Air raid? Not.
Genetics are prevailing over intellect in most aspects of quarterbacking. The winners simply dumb down the play book to maintain their genetic dominance. Losers bench their superior players in favor of superior intellectuals who are inferior players without the X Factor.
I believe that there are superior quarterbacks, not scheme managers, in high school currently better than the Mississippi State Air Raid manager. They are playmakers with the X Factor. When you shift rushing production into the short passing game, stats are skewed.
I believe Nico Iamaleava from Warren HS Los Angeles, is a better potential playmaker than the Mississippi State Air Raid manager. Nico is Hendon Hookers replacement next year and an upgrade to Tennessee.
CML would have him buried in the depth chart next year in favor for a scheme participant?
I wonder how many NFL quality playmaking quarterbacks would be benched by a scheme compliant nerd in a CML environment? BTW, is the Tennessee guy who hung 52 on Alabama Mensa material or just some dude with The X Factor? Who would want to be an Air Raid guy?
I am including my past post on ORM, Operational Risk Management. The post speaks for itself and I will add to it. It is empirically verifiable that the good opposition and some bad are sitting on CML short game. Certain plays have a catastrophic result and CML has not fixed the problem. Fixing the problem requires breaching Air Raid principles that every decent coach in America knows. The Air Raid Manager consistently holds on to the ball instead of launching contested catches like quality opposition does. The deer in the head lights holds on to the ball and the offensive linemen get grief. Our opposition linemen do not have to get that grief?
If the air raid manager is consistently tossing swing passes and check downs, this is being practiced during skelly drills. This is being affirmed during skelly by CML? An ORM corrective action document would forbid the throwing of swing passes and check downs, during skelly, and mandate attempts of execution of the long game so #0 and #4 can get proper repetitions. This corrective action document would force noncompliance in regards to the Air Raid Manual. This could confuse the opposition who have studied and learned the Air Raid even though they do not feature it? Remember, every time a swing pass or check down is executed during skelly, a nail is being driven into the Mississippi State Football coffin, something else could have been practiced. If the Air Raid Manager refuses to stop holding on to the ball, another option has to be found because today and tomorrow count, not yesterday. The Air Raid Manager did not launch a meaningful pass on the last play of the first half, against Auburn, because he wanted the passing stats? That's clowning, a competitor player would have launched deep.
With all of this said CML solution is to toss chairs on the sideline? CML is supposed to mean Coach Mike Leach not Clown Mike Leach.
Operational Risk Management and Mississippi State Football
Operational Risk Management and Mississippi State Football
Because of my past employment with the US Navy F/A-18 Legacy Program I had to get trained on ORM. Because of this mandatory training as fill in supervisor, I know ORM is incorporated in the military. ORM is implemented in business, medical management, and sports management also.
I will keep this aspect, of this statement, as brief as possible. Three concepts (1) I.D. the risk, (2) assessment of risk, (3) risk mitigation. Whenever an organizational risk occurs, an assigned team forms a corrective action plan after its investigation.
I would like to discuss the Kentucky game primarily and add LSU. Under the guise of ORM an investigation team would be convened to identify what happened, this is similar to a plane crash. Risky management would be investigated. At the high school level of football, most coaching staff members will have a practice plan and assignment sheet. An SEC program will have what most high schools have on the practice field. ORM would compare the practice plans and specifics of 2021 win versus 2022 loss. If the two are dissimilar, annotations will be made to the audit report.
The investigative authority will establish why the 2021 and 2022 preparations are different and what was the justification for it. The investigative authority would review the practice video to get a clear understanding of the game preparations. If swing passes and check downs eat up too much time it will be noted on the audit report. The manager will be directed to justify this, in writing, to the investigative authority.
If scheme compliance is the justification, the investigative authority will ask the value of compliance if the opposition and the football community, even most high schools, have access and video documentation on the scheme. Also, a self-scout document will be asked to be presented to the auditors. The self-scout doc will clearly show what has been successful and its failures. If the self-scout doc data exposes that failed content has been emphasized, this goes into the audit report. BTW, a self-scout doc is your opponent's scouting report. This proves defective preparation by the head coach who has publicly stated that the team practiced poorly that week?
If scheme compliance is paramount to the organization, it needs to be investigated. Does the leadership only know its scheme and nothing else? Does the leadership know that opposition knows the scheme? If leadership has not factored in the fact that the Air Raid is well known, the auditors need a written doc from leadership justifying this lack of knowledge.
A scheme is a business plan and the auditors need to compare the business plan of 2022 to 2010 and see if the business is stagnated. If the plan has not been revised, the auditors need a written reason why. Similar business plans should be compared to the current Miss. St. plan. Are they are revised, sometimes bastardized, Air Raid businesses. Revision is sometimes seen as heresy in some mindsets. CML disciples are out producing him?
A growing discussion in football, at all levels, is the increase in pass interference and holding in the secondary. This means that all teams need to know the numbers which simply means who is generating this kind of offense production. Talking 50-50 balls and practicing 50-50 balls is two different things. The auditors need to find out if leadership has this important data. If leadership does not have the accurate data, or is indifferent to it, that has to be added to the audit. If leadership does have that data, a written doc should be presented justifying play calling that generates no penalty offense when others are feasting in match-up non scheme passing.
Penalty yardage is no mistake, it is generated with modern day techniques and receiver domination over defenders. The auditors need to discover if Miss. St. leadership understands the modern-day match-up principles causing this evolution. If leadership understand the principles but fails to incorporate them, this needs to go into the audit. Now a days receivers are winning the ball while being interfered with any ways. This is non schematic offense being generated on a large scale.
If we get blown up for 2-yard gains on swing passes on a consistent basis this means that our opposition has out prepared us to get to that point. To me, a swing pass on a CML coached team is about as threatening as a quarterback sneak because they are both evolved 2-yard plays. Does CML have that data? If not, this has to go into the audit.
Enough said, after a damage assessment report is generated by the auditors, a corrective action plan follows? This is an example of Operational Risk Management