Risk taking vs Risk averse

[alathIN]

I am coming to believe that intelligent decisions about risk taking are the most important attribute for a football coach.
Our favorite most successful ex-coach we love to hate excelled in well-judged risk taking - attempting 4th down conversions at strategic moments, less-than-totally-predictable offensive play calling, aggressive defense - they didn't always work, but he did a good job of choosing moments when the payoff for taking a risk would be high if it worked as intended and the damage would be sustainable if it didn't.
Above all he seemed to intuitively understand that excessive risk aversion incurs its own risks that are just as bad as excessive risk-taking. He understood that if Vanderbilt football tries to play base vanilla all the time, we're going to get eaten alive, one spoonful at a time. Alabama can play vanilla when they're going up against Southeastern West Virginia Young Adults Vo-Tech and still win on sheer overwhelming talent. At Vanderbilt you can't get away with that.
The next coach, despite many things I liked about him, was perhaps the worst of both worlds - the overall mindset was excessive risk avoidance... and on the rare occasions he would take risks, they were usually ill-judged and ineffective. One example: if you have great DBs and iffy pass rush, you should play some tight man coverage and send extra pass rushers every once in a while. Deep cushion coverage is a good strategy when you have overwhelming D-line talent and an iffy secondary.... but makes no sense whatsoever the other way around.

I wouldn't bring this up, of course, if I didn't have some... ahem... concerns... about our current staff in this area.
Everyone has commented on the way we seem to get down by two scores to start every game - but then often seem to play much better once we're in a deep hole. It sure looks to me like we try to start every game playing base vanilla - then start opening things up when we're behind. And, most unfortunately, going back to vanilla once we even the score or pull ahead. This is evident on offense, defense, and special teams.
Dude, your punter is one of the few truly outstanding players on the team. Let the guy kick the dang ball instead of playing these 25 yard squib rugby dribble things hoping to avoid a big return. Harrison Smith is your best chance to flip the field - so give him a shot at it, please.
At times it has been evident that coach Lea himself has been frustrated with the vanilla play calling. He even called out his own OC in a public press conference - in his usual understated manner, of course - but it was quite clear he was unhappy with coach Lynch.

My hopeful thought is that Lea is clearly an intelligent thoughtful guy who seems to have a knack for identifying the root problem. I do still think his focus on culture and head space is correct - it's the biggest problem in this program. And he has shown he is willing to learn and change.
Coach Lea has often emphasized "throw out the scoreboard" when playing from behind - and it does seem to keep them out of the defeatist mentality.
My suggestion: go ahead and throw out the scoreboard when it's 0-0, and when you have a lead. Always play like you're two scores down - take some timely well-judged risks, be aggressive, and let the players play.

Ironically, the one risk-averse call that everyone is most up in arms about is one where I happen to agree with the call - albeit have major problems with the execution.
Prevent defense was the right call on South Carolina's last possession - don't let anyone get behind you and don't let anyone get out of bounds is exactly what the game situation called for. If they had made just one or two tackles in bounds that game is over and we win.
Unfortunately the execution was so poor that SC was able to accomplish the two things prevent D is supposed to prevent. Also, even if it's prevent D, you have to have some pressure on the QB. Send a LB or DB on a delayed blitz - but you can't just let the guy survey the field all day, waiting for a standout wide receiver to be born, go through high school football, get recruited to SC, and find an open spot. 7 back in coverage should be just as good as 8 for the prevent part - and one more pass rusher could have made it work, especially if the one more pass rusher is delayed or disguised or otherwise not-obvious.

[Nashmann]

The prevent was the right call however you can't just rush3 and give any QB that much time! Don't know if the 8 backs were playing zone r what, but they were nowhere near the receivers. Much of that was because their QB had way too much time to throw.

[OldDude]

alathIN, not sure I agree with every thing you said, but this is one of the best posts I have seen on here in a long, long time.