Glad the coaches thanked the players and the fans...

[Bayside44]

What about the slants to Broyld that worked every time they tried them?

Broyld was short arming balls and coming up short on routes a lot this season.

 

[ssbriefcase]

Broyld was short arming balls and coming up short on routes a lot this season.

I saw them, but when did they try slants??

 

[Bayside44]

I saw them, but when did they try slants??

You have a lot of questions, you should get SWC's private line to the coaches show.

 

[ssbriefcase]

No doubt there were a lot of plays called against BC that weren't tried earlier in the season. My point is, it was never solely talent like a lot made it out to be. There was plenty learning on the job for the OC.

 

[Bayside44]

No doubt there were a lot of plays called against BC that weren't tried earlier in the season. My point is, it was never solely talent like a lot made it out to be. There was plenty learning on the job for the OC.

Agree with that, but with college kids it could be anything - playbook, practice habits, etc, etc...

 

[Millhouse]

Millhouse... So you've come out of your fetal position before 1/1/14?

i had a silent fit. i wanted to yell but it would scare the kid so instead of yelling, i escaped the room and did a silent donkey kong arms up and down tantrum

 

[anomander]

I had no problem with the final call of the game. Shafer said they saw something so had a good feeling it was going to be open. It was perfectly set up and executed.

 

[Millhouse]

I had no problem with the final call of the game. Shafer said they saw something so had a good feeling it was going to be open. It was perfectly set up and executed.

i remember deleone had the clock run out on him at the end of a first half on a stopped running play - they asked him or pasqualoni about it and they said "we thought it was going to work"

i wonder if they really understood that it was an all or nothing call. i'm not complaining, it just might be the case that throwing short of the goal line might've been the best percentage play compared to the alternative of Hunt throwing into traffic but it's impossible to know that.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

i remember deleone had the clock run out on him at the end of a first half on a stopped running play - they asked him or pasqualoni about it and they said "we thought it was going to work"

i wonder if they really understood that it was an all or nothing call. i'm not complaining, it just might be the case that throwing short of the goal line might've been the best percentage play compared to the alternative of Hunt throwing into traffic but it's impossible to know that.

I don't think Hunt with the ball and 12 guys in the end zone is really high odds. Those fade patterns are garbage as well, only guy I think that could out jump anyone would probably be Funderburke, if the pass would be even close. One call to try and win the game there wasn't bad.

 

[CusefanATL]

RE: #2

Because the clock would start on the ready and they would have burned 40 seconds more?

you are correct... but it was odd because he went OB on the play.

 

[CusefanATL]

because I thought we won the game in spite of what i thought were some bad coaching decisions all day long. i haven't read much of the board, my apologies if this has been discussed...

1) The lack of clock management at the end of the first half was comical. you can't go hurry up inside of 2 minutes on the 2 yard line. BC should have got the ball back inside of ;30 second and been forced to take a knee.

possibly the craziest thing i have ever seen... especially after watching last week's (non) sense of urgency on the last 3 drives and then again the lack of sense of urgency on our last 2 or 3 drives this week.

I couldnt believe how fast Hunt was getting the guys ready in the 1st half... and literally almost threw my remote at the TV after he ran for the 1st down and then the substitutions happened.

sorry for my excessive twittering on saturday...

 

[cuseincincy]

you are correct... but it was odd because he went OB on the play.

I did not realize the clock started because he your right he did go out of bounds. I was furious at the time. I also hated everything about the last play call except the result. No matter what you say about Hunt I think the odds favored 3 shots to the end zone with only 12 secs left. And I think we're giving Gmac2 too much credit for being inexperienced. I think he knew it was do or die and I'd venture to guess he and Shafer had even had the what if conversation earlier in the week. I used to have that conversation when I was coaching youth leagues, gotta believe they did also. west not being available likely affected that decision also.

 

[Millhouse]

I did not realize the clock started because he your right he did go out of bounds. I was furious at the time. I also hated everything about the last play call except the result. No matter what you say about Hunt I think the odds favored 3 shots to the end zone with only 12 secs left. And I think we're giving Gmac2 too much credit for being inexperienced. I think he knew it was do or die and I'd venture to guess he and Shafer had even had the what if conversation earlier in the week. I used to have that conversation when I was coaching youth leagues, gotta believe they did also. west not being available likely affected that decision also.

if it didn't work, the outrage would've been that they could've had more chances.

but this kind of thinking is wrong. think about all the other more obviously bad choices that coaches make. i'm thinking of really bad punts late in games when you're behind. even if the odds of winning are better by going for it, coaches will often kick in order to delay losing. coaches often maximize the amount of time they have any chance of winning instead of maximizing their chance of winning.

So if they really thought a do or die unexpected play maximized their chances of winning, i applaud them for daring to do it. but I'm not sure that I can give them that much credit because they can be so bad in managing the clock and make some strange playcalls.

I don't know what to think

Parris had to be sh!tting bricks oh god don't fall don't fall don't fall

 

[Ottawa Orange]

4) okay, while everyone is back slapping on the winning TD play...has anyone given thought to what happens if parris is tackled at the 2yard line? with no timeouts, we don't get another play off. We should have taken 3-4 shots in the end zone. players executed and bailed out their OC on that play. if parris gets tackled, i'm not sure mcdonald gets out of the dome alive. and the two blockers did whiff on the BC guy out there, parris just made him miss.

You make a number of good points, but on this particular one I'll defend the call. There's a reason why it's hard to score in the red zone - the field is compressed, and for receivers getting separation in the end zone is next to impossible. Throwing it underneath is risky, sure, but it's a much higher percentage completion. Now the gamble is that your receiver can be an athlete and get you a few YACs, which he did. It was a gutsy call, but I like those odds better than trying to jam it into a tight window in the end zone.

 

[SoBristol]

The gamble on that throw back is whether BC will fall for the roll-out to the right (they did) and whether your two linemen can get a block on the one BC defender who stayed home (they barely did). Then, whether Parris can push into the end-zone (good mobility for his size).

If you take the usual route (two throws into the endzone), who are the SU receivers who make that play? We haven't had a lot of success with that --

 

[cuseincincy]

You make a number of good points, but on this particular one I'll defend the call. There's a reason why it's hard to score in the red zone - the field is compressed, and for receivers getting separation in the end zone is next to impossible. Throwing it underneath is risky, sure, but it's a much higher percentage completion. Now the gamble is that your receiver can be an athlete and get you a few YACs, which he did. It was a gutsy call, but I like those odds better than trying to jam it into a tight window in the end zone.

The real question is how many people would be defending the call if it hadn't worked? My guess is not many. Its pretty easy to defend something after you know it worked. Even bad play calls work sometimes. And soemtimes good play calls don't work.

 

[longislandcuse]

My biggest issue was how we were completely fooled on the BC bootleg where Manziel ran it in for a TD. How the **** were we completely fooled on that? I called it, the announcers called it and im sure 90% of people at the game, not on the Syracuse coaching staff or defense, called it.

 

[SoBristol]

The real question is how many people would be defending the call if it hadn't worked? My guess is not many. Its pretty easy to defend something after you know it worked. Even bad play calls work sometimes. And soemtimes good play calls don't work.

Sure. But what is your option? A pass to whom? A red-zone example from an earlier game where we scored on the sort of play you would have called?

 

[xc84]

In the end, the play calling resulted in a win. A "W". And 20/20 hindsight is rampant.

 

[rrlbees]

The real question is how many people would be defending the call if it hadn't worked? My guess is not many. Its pretty easy to defend something after you know it worked. Even bad play calls work sometimes. And soemtimes good play calls don't work.

Not a single person would have defended it. None. Nada. Zero.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[TexanMark]

I agree with the misdirection pass playcall...trying to shove it into a tight window isn't our strong suit.

Yup missing Lemon is huge.

 

[SarasotaPaul]

You mean like the interception at the end? (Just in case you really think they always worked) They didn't work every time! It also depended on the opposition we were up against.

What about the slants to Broyld that worked every time they tried them?

 

[TheCusian]

What about the slants to Broyld that worked every time they tried them?

Except for the interception, right?

 

[xc84]

Not a single person would have defended it. None. Nada. Zero.

I would have defended it as a viable option that failed just as I would have defended other viable options they didn't try. But, I would have been drowned out by all the whiners who think they are coaches.

 

[swish7]

Agree with that, but with college kids it could be anything - playbook, practice habits, etc, etc...

At the least, it is an interesting question.

Not a single person would have defended it. None. Nada. Zero.

I would have been positive about the attempt at a misdirection play. We don't do enough of that, which plays to Hunt's weaknesses.

• If he drops it, we get another shot.
• Obviously if he gets tackled short, it's a different debate. And yeah, we'd all be screaming. If we took one or two shots to the end zone, and then called that play, would we all be screaming that we didn't take 3 shots to the end zone?
• Who knows, perhaps Hunt had an option to throw it OOB if he was covered?

Dude was wide open, and you could see that he was going to make it to the end zone from the second he caught the ball.

We overanalyze things sometimes.

a) they saw something and went for it. good call. that's why they get paid the big bucks.
b) it worked. even better call.
c) if it doesn't work, horrible call. Just like a 3 point shot.

Nobody's yet answered the question: whom would receive the fade or inside pass to the end zone to our non-Dwight Clark receiver(s) from or non-Joe Montana QB? Do we forget Hunt's FUGLY interception on the previous possession? That's 1 of the 2 types of throws he'd have to make in the red zone. Either a fade, or that tight inside stuff. Fades require touch and accuracy and great route running. The tight stuff requires incredible accuracy and receivers who can catch bullets.