"...Offensively, there wasn't a whole lot of positives to what we did. When we did run the football, we ran it well. So, in retrospect, in hindsight, obviously should have run the ball more in that ball game. I think we had a game plan going in that obviously wasn't the right game plan or one that was effective at all. But we wanted to be aggressive, and we wanted to attack. We wanted to throw the ball quite a bit. And that ended up backfiring for us early..." -Dimel
So, you, the head coach had an obviously bad game plan that even you recognize wasn't the right game plan. That is you, the head coach being wrong on the most basic thing a head coach does. You wanted to pass. "... in retrospect, in hindsight, obviously should have run the ball more in that ball game...". This is called making adjustments, I think, and it is what a head coach does. You win the damned game not hold to an wrong game plan that is so obvious everyone else knows what to do but you don't do it. It didn't take retrospect or hindsight. It takes not being brain dead. Dimel needs to hand the reins over to anyone in the stands with a UTEP shirt on. Let them call plays. "...We wanted to throw the ball quite a bit. And that ended up backfiring for us early...". So, you could run the ball well, your words, and early on the passing was backfiring, also your words, so you adjusted, right? No! You just kept up with the backfiring offense. Brilliant! Seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year for this brilliance. Any one of the high school head coaches in El Paso could have won that game.
The next thing Dimel doees is blame a bad call and throw his quarterback under the bus in the same sentence, "...There was a PI (pass interference) on the play and our guy got grabbed. His arm got pulled and grabbed and it was a pick six, but that's part of the game. Sometimes things get missed. That was unfortunate because it was a significant play in the game, but I think we took an undue chance there. We didn't really have to force the ball into that type of a situation."
Another admission of his stupidity or ineptitude, you pick, "And again, as I go back and look just retrospect, we probably should have played that game a whole different way offensively and tried to get the type of score that we had last year against them, a low scoring ball game that the team that executes the best wins. But what we did is we got too aggressive, and we gave them opportunities." And right into another throwing of a player under the bus with this "...But if you take out the pick six and you take out the touchdown that we got where Tyrin (Smith) fumbled right at the end zone, just those two plays changed the whole landscape of the ball game." Then another admission of his stupidity "...I didn't do a great job of managing that game and playing the type of style that gave us the best chance to win. So, live and learn from that, but not good management of a ball game there in retrospect." So, our old head ball coach is learning the basics as he goes along. Well, no hurry. "And again, in retrospect, we probably should lean more on them to run the football and control the game that way and kept it more of a close fight, less turnover type of ball game in that type of setting." Learning to coach!?
""I don't think we did a good job of taking passes that were there for us and being more patient. That was part of it. I don't think we were patient enough with our pass game, and we took a lot of shots. Our shots are usually a little bit more calculated than what they were in that game. And it's us. It's not Gavin (Hardison) taking the shots by any means but talking about us as an offensive football team. We probably took too many shots, and we didn't hit many. We usually hit some and we absolutely hit none that game except for the touchdown Tyrin (Smith) had and the one where he got to the one-yard line and fumbled. ... So really our whole game plan of our passing concepts were not anywhere close to what they needed to be, and that was what led to us not having success on offense. We just didn't have a good, calculated attack in the pass game."
Finally;
On if the run game will be emphasized more
"It should and could be for sure. It's just how we match up in the run game against Boise State will be the question. If that's how the game plays itself out, it will be attacking their strength, but obviously, again, we can't worry too much about what their strengths and weaknesses are right now. We need to work our strengths because I feel like they got a really good football team and they got a lot of good football players and we got really a lot of good football players. And we might not be playing to that level, but we have a lot of good football players so we don't have to take a backseat to anybody talent wise when we take the field. And so what we need to do is do what we do and do it the best we can do it, you know. That's the emphasis for us right now as an offensive football team. So, I'm very frustrated with the way we've been performing with our lack of production, but I know we've got the talent to do better. So that's the encouraging part."
He actually says what we all feel, that we have the talent equal to anyone's talent but it is the coaching. I have to say that at least Dimel knows it is him. He doesn't know how to fix it but he knows that he is the problem. Kind of.
So, this is Dimel. Has the talent to win but goes in with wrong game plan and refuses to adjust to what the opponent is giving to win because either he won't or can't adjust. That isn't my evaluation of him. It is Dimel's valuation of him. You can't fix stupid! He has been coaching forever and he says he is trying to learn. But it isn't like learning is lifelong, that kind of learning. No, at 60 he is trying to learn his abc's. Basic stuff. It isn't like he was outcoached by some slick coaching. It is your basic we were stupid and even when we knew what we were doing was stupid we just kept doing it. Outcoached without the other coach even having to try.
This is perfect for summing up UTEP football. Stupid doing and stupid enough to stay the course even when you are smart enough to know that it is stupid. Making it even worse.
Since 2000, we have played 264 games. We have won 37% of them and lost 63%. Now, let's look at this a little closer. I believe, that mathematically and a normal bell curve would show a normal team, normally would win big sometimes and be horrible sometimes. A normal team would win about half and lose about half of the games. Literally, you only have to win half of your games to be bowl eligible. So, really you should be going bowling about half of the time. We are 13% under just normal over a twenty-year stretch. That isn't bad luck. It isn't lack of talent. It isn't El Paso being too wild, too sleepy, too short, too fat, or any other too except too willing to allow it. Any head coach should have a 50% chance of winning going into the game. Not a game, but the game of football. Talent levels aren't the reason for losing 13% more than you win. And if it is, it is a reflection of the coaching and who they put on the team.
Saban wins with top talent, but Georgia and aTm and all the rest have just as much talent. UNM had no more better talent than the Man in the Moon. It wasn't talent that beat the Miners. It was stupid coaching that lost for the Miners. We do stupid coaching better than any other team in the country. Even the damned Aggies almost always have better coaches. You watch. The aggies playing in cusa will quickly have a better record than us once they aren't having to play a power 5 team every week. Talent level is like water and seeks its own level within the container, or in this case the conference, it is in. We play a cupcake and a power 5 team each year. Should be at 50% winning and losing there. We supposedly play a couple of equal teams. This year it was UNM and Boise. The conferences are close enough that talent shouldn't be and even Dimel said it wasn't a problem. Boise should maybe have a slight edge in talent, but so slight it isn't the type of factor that wins or loses. Coaching can make enough of a difference along with good play to overcome any talent difference at this level.
We, UTEP, lose 63% of our games because of coaching! It is that simple. Coaches losing ten games a season as accepted normal is abnormally bad coaching and coaching hiring and management. Hire bad coaches and give them lengthy extensions for not sucking horribly for one season. The standard should be that you get three years and at the end of three years you had better have won more games than you lost. Ain't rocket science. After three years you are not to fall under .500 more than once. You can have an under 50% year once per chances, but after that it is considered to be less than what we want. Too much losing for a team that wants winning. Mediocrity would be always in the middle. We are way below mediocre. Mediocre should be easy. You just have to be normal. We aren't normal. And the powers at UTEP have accepted abnormally horribly bad for ever. The thing is, it isn't because we are simple poor farmers or any of that bullshit. Dimel is making as much as the rest in Cusa. IT isn't because everyone else is paying their coaches twice as much and we are at a disadvantage. We are only at a disadvantage because of decisions made by administration. Kugler was a buddy hire, and a bad one. It wasn't like we got a bargain because he had no hc experience. It was Stull rolling the dice with the school I love's money. For his buddy. Dimel. Roll of the dice.
Since 2000
Nord 14/34 29% wins
Price 48/61 44% wins
Kugler 18/43 30% wins
Dimel 12/37 24% wins
