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

[Orangello]

Was listening on the radio, what was the coverage on that pass to Amidon late in the 1st half? Park said it was man and Amidon ran a deep cross- where were the safeties? That late TD was huge and I didn't understand how you could be in man with no help on him. Was that the case, or was it a blown coverage?

Other comments in other threads have pointed out that there is no way we should have been playing man and bringing the safeties up in this situation. That was on Bullough. Bad bad bad D play calling in that situation.

The other one that had me screaming was when Lynch missed the contain on Retig on that long scramble in the 4th Q allowing him to turn the corner and take off to set up their last score.

 

[Millhouse]

At the least, it is an interesting question.


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.

it's funny that the play of the year combined a rollout which most of the board has begged them to try and a sideways pass which most of the board has begged them to stop

 

[Chip]

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

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

This board never has, and never will be unanimous on anything. So someone would have defended it. I might have it was just one defender and we missed a block. Which is essentially what it was, although even that defender wasn't even in position to make the play (adds to why it was such a great call).

All I do know is that that moment I said please don't throw a fade pass because it will land in the 3rd row, and I was terrified that Hunt was going to throw a ball into traffic that would have been intercepted. Could have tried back shoulder, but even though we had already completed one of those, that typically requires a QB and WR who know each other pretty well.

This is becoming a weird thread, but I guess most of them do. What good is a win if we can't talk about how negative we all would be if it was a loss. Wasn't the Pitt game reaction enough?

 

[Millhouse]

This board never has, and never will be unanimous on anything. So someone would have defended it. I might have it was just one defender and we missed a block. Which is essentially what it was, although even that defender wasn't even in position to make the play (adds to why it was such a great call).

All I do know is that that moment I said please don't throw a fade pass because it will land in the 3rd row, and I was terrified that Hunt was going to throw a ball into traffic that would have been intercepted. Could have tried back shoulder, but even though we had already completed one of those, that typically requires a QB and WR who know each other pretty well.

This is becoming a weird thread, but I guess most of them do. What good is a win if we can't talk about how negative we all would be if it was a loss. Wasn't the Pitt game reaction enough?

I don't think this thread has gotten weird yet

 

[rrlbees]

At the least, it is an interesting question. 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.

I'll reiterate. If it didn't work (and resulted in bring the last play), nobody would have defended the call.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[Chip]

At the least, it is an interesting question.


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.

I agree with you, it was something we hadn't done all year (that I can recall). I'm not really sure what dog Bees has in this fight, but I do know he's not giving ground.

The Michigan 2 point conversion is a similar case, although a twofer. Do you go for it, if you do, what do you call? I would not have gone for it, at home. I know the kicker situation, but you're throwing it all on one play and I'm just not that aggressive. If I did go for it, I might have called something that had Gardner moving (again even though he wasn't 100%). But I guess Michigan fans can't complain that he didn't throw it into the end zone.

 

[rrlbees]

I agree with you, it was something we hadn't done all year (that I can recall). I'm not really sure what dog Bees has in this fight, but I do know he's not giving ground. The Michigan 2 point conversion is a similar case, although a twofer. Do you go for it, if you do, what do you call? I would not have gone for it, at home. I know the kicker situation, but you're throwing it all on one play and I'm just not that aggressive. If I did go for it, I might have called something that had Gardner moving (again even though he wasn't 100%). But I guess Michigan fans can't complain that he didn't throw it into the end zone.

No dog. Just know our fans and if he had been tackled short of the goal, nobody would have defended the call and would all be questioning why we didn't take 3 shots in the end zone. Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[TexanMark]

This board never has, and never will be unanimous on anything. So someone would have defended it. I might have it was just one defender and we missed a block. Which is essentially what it was, although even that defender wasn't even in position to make the play (adds to why it was such a great call).

All I do know is that that moment I said please don't throw a fade pass because it will land in the 3rd row, and I was terrified that Hunt was going to throw a ball into traffic that would have been intercepted. Could have tried back shoulder, but even though we had already completed one of those, that typically requires a QB and WR who know each other pretty well.

This is becoming a weird thread, but I guess most of them do. What good is a win if we can't talk about how negative we all would be if it was a loss. Wasn't the Pitt game reaction enough?

It usually gets kinda weird when You and Millhouse arrive to threads...abject quiet from everyone, then ackward stammering n posting followed by a few...well I have to get back to work now posts with mega "Likes"..

 

[Crusty]

So, since all the OC play calls vs talent threads, doesn't this game address the OC at fault for a lot of the season? If you can call a game like this, where was it all season? This imo showed Mcd could've called slants, etc all season and players would've made it happen.

BC pass d sucks. That is why it all worked.

 

[Ottawa Orange]

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.

Well, I have always defended the call Tennessee made at the end of Super Bowl 34, throwing that slant pass to Dyson that came up half a yard short. I thought it was a great call, and was foiled only by a terrific open field tackle by the linebacker (I believe it was Jones). That was a great call and a favorable matchup for Tennessee. It just so happened that the linebacker made an absolutely outstanding play to stop it. There are no guarantees, obviously - all you can ever do as a coach is survey the situation, rule out the bad plays for the red zone (tosses, screens, anything slow developing) and make the best decision you can based on personnel and matchups...

 

[CU44SE]

Three DBs were standing 20 yards deep not guarding anyone. Maybe more worried about the run or maybe keying on the WRs.

Watched that play several times, very frustrating. Wasn't really the Safeties faults though. BC only had 1 wr on that play, we brought pressure and the safeties were responsible for the short flats, leaving Reddish 1 on 1. No doubt we should have been playing a cover 2 at worst. Never let a guy behind you up 14 with 35 seconds left. That was a killer, in total control of the game and you only go into half up 7.

 

[SmilinBob]

Reddish played peek a boo and got caught, it happens. He better learn from it from here on.

I liked the Parris call. The kid was on a roll and to be honest what worried me was that the 2 blockers didn't take the one defenders soul. He still had a chance to trip #89 and that part of the equation bugs me a little. I wanted that guy buried and on the bus back to Boston.

 

[Millhouse]

This board never has, and never will be unanimous on anything. So someone would have defended it. I might have it was just one defender and we missed a block. Which is essentially what it was, although even that defender wasn't even in position to make the play (adds to why it was such a great call).

All I do know is that that moment I said please don't throw a fade pass because it will land in the 3rd row, and I was terrified that Hunt was going to throw a ball into traffic that would have been intercepted. Could have tried back shoulder, but even though we had already completed one of those, that typically requires a QB and WR who know each other pretty well.

This is becoming a weird thread, but I guess most of them do. What good is a win if we can't talk about how negative we all would be if it was a loss. Wasn't the Pitt game reaction enough?

I totally separate the conversation from my reaction. Things that are so much fun to watch and just enjoy are less interesting to just talk about. i compartmentalize this stuff. watching it, i didn't really care what would've happened if he didn't get in. after the game, it's interesting to think about

 

[All4SU]

And why wasn't AC tried waay before the 2nd to last game? I'm not saying there was an answer behind every corner, but there certainly were answers for some ineptness, especially for the people who solely blamed talent...

Maybe he wasn't ready, and they have been trying to get him up to speed.

 

[All4SU]

No dog. Just know our fans and if he had been tackled short of the goal, nobody would have defended the call and would all be questioning why we didn't take 3 shots in the end zone. Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

I don't think we ever would have gotten off three plays in those 12 seconds.