Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
Comments
I'm not at all sure we could assume we would have lost the game if we'd gone for it and missed. They would still have had to go 74 yards for a TD on the possession.
So, kicking them FG is the right thing if we’re not even sure they can score 1 TD, much less two TDs.
If you say so.
You said it, you just didn’t realize it. I was just summing it up for you. 😉
Thanks for the promise. Better tell CKS about it...he may not agree with your take. Two scores? Harder to score 2td’s than one TD and a FG. That was his point.
I personally would have probably gone for it. However, as I commented earlier to a related article in the Athletic:
One point that hasn’t been discussed as much is what play do you call if you go for it? The default answer for most would probably be a Swift run behind our mammoth OL. However, the run had been stuffed twice before Fromm’s 3rd down scramble, including one by Swift. If they had lined up to go for it, EVERYBODY in the stadium would have been expecting the handoff to Swift. Which ironically might have more wisely led to a play pass call. But if that had failed, imagine the second guessing then.
Another question is, what is the result if you go for it and fail? Well,
a) a significant moment shift for the Irish
b) better ND field position in the exchange
c) a need for only an Irish FG to tie on their final drive, assuming they would have still scored a prior TD as they did.
The latter point being huge as it would have certainly changed the play calls for both teams on that last ND drive, and especially so considering the shanked punt. We would have most likely been looking at overtime.
So, I can therefore live with and respect the call, even if I personally would have been very tempted to go for it. But, all’s well that ends well.
Let's share the credit when the book is published.
I'm sure Kirby was tempted to go for it, but the smart move was the almost automatic points off the foot of Hot Rod.
Too much bad downside to a failed attempt to get the yard. As you said.
Go, Dawgs!
Last season everyone wanted to see screen passes, even after Kirby explained why screen plays weren't ideal againsts the style of defense opponents played against us. All offseason some folks were saying, "I'll bet Coley opens up the offense and CALLS MORE SCREEN PASSES."
I openly doubted we would see a substantial increase in screens. Well the other folks were right about one thing on Saturday.
So my question is this: Have we now seen enough screen plays? ND played 8 and 9 in the box, but they weren't rushing 8 or 9, they just had that many near the line. They absolutely CRUSHED the screen plays we tried to run. After the first one Coley should have shelved it and thrown downfield.
If one of the interior linemen pick up the LB on that one screen, Swift probably goes for 20+. He had a whole lot of green grass in front of him. That one was on execution, not the play call. But no, I don't think screens need to be a big part of the game plan, including WR screens. Do need to call a couple a game, but that's about it. Athletic/elite defenses can stop those plays, so it's more about timing (catching them off guard) when calling them.
I like screens and hope we continue to use them when appropriate, but I have to agree with your logic here even though that screen would have worked if we got a hat on the LB. We have to exploit defenses at their weak points. When Ds stack the box with 8 guys, that leaves 3 men to defend the entire rest of the field, so the rest of the field has to be the focus imo. A screen is slow to develop and too close to the box. Assuming the WRs were clearing the back end out by going on a longer route, I think we would have been much smarter to send Swift (or Cook) on that route without the OLs and let him run. Somebody from the box has to cover him step for step. If Swift gets a couple of steps, there isn't a guy who could catch him. Fast guys running from a loaded box get open quickly, too.
I also think using drag routes behind the box would work well. Bama does that a lot. Basically, we let a fast WR like Robertson or Simmons cross the middle of the field behind the box, using raw speed to run away from the man coverage. It becomes a footrace. Bama has scored numerous TDs (including on us) with their fast WRs across the middle ~20 yards upfield and using this strategy. I can think of several other ways to burn this defensive strategy, but they all involve quickly getting guys out of the box and to another part of the field. If the guy is fast, like Swift, he just needs a step to toast the D.
Going vertical is certainly another good option, but the problem here is that 8 guys in the box with stunts and blitzes means quick pressure on Fromm. That's why this defensive strategy has been so tough for us to defeat. Coley has to keep Fromm alive long enough to let the routes develop and that is hard with that many guys in your face.
It’s just surprising and disappointing that we apparently didn’t have a plan to deal with the set ND rolled out on Saturday. Stacked boxes aren’t a new concept. Maybe the substitutions on the OL didn’t make Coley feel confident Fromm would have the time he needed. Their DE ran right around Cade Mays a couple of times.
Yes, we missed some blocks everywhere and it cost us some big plays. On the plan, I wonder if Coley thought we could run the ball against a stacked box. We have run successfully on a number of defenses who stacked the box. The rat poison can affect coaches, too. He might have thought the ND D couldn't handle the GWOG for four quarters. The other possibility is that the east west throwing we saw in the 1st half was an attempt to get the ball in playmaker's hands outside of the box. The problem with the quick throws is that the DBs are there. Let the WRs clear them out up the field and then everything between the box and the DBs is open space. Faster guys like Wolf (TEs), Cook and Swift (RBs) can exploit that by squirting out with a slower LB trying to cover them.
I think factoring in our struggles to convert when we only need very short yardage weighed heavily in Kirby's decision. This in spite of a huge, experienced OL made up of elite recruits. That to me is an underlying concern going forward.
Often as the week after a game goes along my concern tempers, in this case it is growing. I can't look at our passing stats without noticing they correspond closely to Coach Coley's 6 year averages as OC at first FSU then Miami. His teams averaged 25 td passes and 12 ints over 12 games. This team is on pace to have 24 td passes over the 12 game regular season. Fromm is on pace to finish with just 18 td passes.
Given both the eyeball test and Coley's history this has become a big concern for me. I more and more think my initial assessment of the hire was correct, we could have and probably should have hired somebody with better results whether as QB coach and passing game coordinator or OC. Add in Jake's obvious frustration with slow calls from the sideline, plus Kirby's continued desire to do more while Coley is doing less and it looks fairly damning.
I think Kirby wanted to go with someone that is familiar with this team. Bringing in someone brand new to revamp an offense, that basically has a championship or bust mentality, could’ve led to a Schotty like result. We’ll never know at this point, just hope for Coley to learn and improve week to week. He did make good halftime adjustments, so there’s some silver lining.