H0T Takes from rewatching 2nd half | Syracusefan.com

H0T Takes from rewatching 2nd half

OrangeFoo

All American
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
5,259
Like
8,635
Watched the 2nd half this morning after knowing the outcome and have a few observations:
- Unfortunately the first point is negative after a win… but it’s so egregious it’s the first point. We are so lucky that Purdue scores that last td so quickly. What the heck was Babers thinking letting all that time run off the clock. Has anyone asked him what the plan was there? This is the type of stuff which killed this team in close games last year… need to clean it up moving forward.
- Purdue has nfl talent at TE, WR and QB and has a great offensive coach. They all came to play and did a great job.
- Their te in particular has gotta be a day one pick. Our back 7 are not good enough to stop him as he was a walking mismatch.
- Their receiver is very very good but so is Williams. Yes he gave up a few big plays, but he was being asked to play on an island when his line was getting very little pressure on the QB and going against nfl talent. In the first half Williams was being asked to play a soft zone which limited huge plays, but led to lots of yards. I think he did as good a job as can be expected. Even Tredevious White gets burnt every now and then.
- Our offense had many opportunities to take control of the game but didn’t execute. Play calling was generally pretty good and w better execution we might have won more comfortably.
- Purdue sold out to stop Tucker with a lot of 8 in the box and they seemed to spy him with a backer on outside stretch plays. We probably should have run some option to the strong side with a receiver in the flat… would have been open all day. When Tucker moved straight forward he had some holes and good runs
- The receivers need to step up and catch the ball but Shrader was also throwing behind players a lot.
- A lot of complaints about the o-line… in thought they did okay. Shrader generally had time to throw and they actually did open some holes for Tucker… but again they were up against a d selling out against the run
- Our D again tackled pretty well… they were getting beat by nfl talent but did enough to stay in the game.

Fun game! I think Cuse could expect to win 5/10 against Purdue.
 
Last edited:

All4SU

Still Living Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
13,333
Like
21,645
I said the same thing during the game about an option package. With teams having to sell out to stop Tucker and spy Shrader, you have to think it would open up some real, well, options. Maybe it’s a matter of not being able to consistently seal the edge. Still, have to think they work on something like that.
 

Chris02M

Football Schedule Maven
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
8,758
Like
6,953
Watched the 2nd half this morning after knowing the outcome and have a few observations:
- Unfortunately the first point is negative after a win… but it’s so egregious it’s the first point. We are so lucky that Purdue scores that last td so quickly. What the heck was Babers thinking letting all that time run off the clock. Has anyone asked him what the plan was there? This is the type of stuff which killed this team in close games last year… need to clean it up moving forward.
- Purdue has nfl talent at TE, WR and QB and has a great offensive coach. They all came to play and did a great job.
- Their te in particular has gotta be a day one pick. Our back 7 are not good enough to stop him as he was a walking mismatch.
- Their receiver is very very good but so is Williams. Yes he gave up a few big plays, but he was being asked to play on an island when his line was getting very little pressure on the QB and going against nfl talent. In the first half Williams was being asked to play a soft zone which limited huge plays, but led to lots of yards. I think he did as good a job as can be expected. Even Tredevious White gets burnt every now and then.
- Our offense had many opportunities to take control of the game but didn’t execute. Play calling was generally pretty good and w better execution we might have won more comfortably.
- Purdue sold out to stop Tucker with a lot of 8 in the box and they seemed to spy him with a backer on outside stretch plays. We probably should have run some option to the strong side with a receiver in the flat… would have been open all day. When Tucker moved straight forward he had some holes and good runs
- The receivers need to step up and catch the ball but Shrader was also throwing behind players a lot.
- A lot of complaints about the o-line… in thought they did okay. Shrader generally had time to throw and they actually did open some holes for Tucker… but again they were up against a d selling out against the run
- Our D again tackled pretty well… they were getting beat by nfl talent but did enough to stay in the game.

Fun game! I think Cuse could expect to win 5/10 against Purdue.
we were in the dreaded no man zone on timeout or no as you don't want to give them extra time to get the touchdown but once they get goal to go you use the timeouts
 

HRE Otto IV

All American
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
5,191
Like
8,270
I was fine with no TO on 1st down. If he didn't take it after 2nd down, I would have had an issue. if he had taken that TO then Purdue has 37 seconds at the end instead of 7. So it worked out.
 

FrancoPizza

2018 Iggy Leading Minutes Per Game Winner
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
7,764
Like
10,833
Watched the 2nd half this morning after knowing the outcome and have a few observations:
- Unfortunately the first point is negative after a win… but it’s so egregious it’s the first point. We are so lucky that Purdue scores that last td so quickly. What the heck was Babers thinking letting all that time run off the clock. Has anyone asked him what the plan was there? This is the type of stuff which killed this team in close games last year… need to clean it up moving forward.
- Purdue has nfl talent at TE, WR and QB and has a great offensive coach. They all came to play and did a great job.
- Their te in particular has gotta be a day one pick. Our back 7 are not good enough to stop him as he was a walking mismatch.
- Their receiver is very very good but so is Williams. Yes he gave up a few big plays, but he was being asked to play on an island when his line was getting very little pressure on the QB and going against nfl talent. In the first half Williams was being asked to play a soft zone which limited huge plays, but led to lots of yards. I think he did as good a job as can be expected. Even Tredevious White gets burnt every now and then.
- Our offense had many opportunities to take control of the game but didn’t execute. Play calling was generally pretty good and w better execution we might have won more comfortably.
- Purdue sold out to stop Tucker with a lot of 8 in the box and they seemed to spy him with a backer on outside stretch plays. We probably should have run some option to the strong side with a receiver in the flat… would have been open all day. When Tucker moved straight forward he had some holes and good runs
- The receivers need to step up and catch the ball but Shrader was also throwing behind players a lot.
- A lot of complaints about the o-line… in thought they did okay. Shrader generally had time to throw and they actually did open some holes for Tucker… but again they were up against a d selling out against the run
- Our D again tackled pretty well… they were getting beat by nfl talent but did enough to stay in the game.

Fun game! I think Cuse could expect to win 5/10 against Purdue.
The problem is defenses can focus on the run when their corners can lock up our receivers. Gadsden emerging is an important development. We need another big guy to emerge, preferably I.Jones because he’s bigger and more physical.
 

storange

All American
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
6,072
Like
13,578
The problem is defenses can focus on the run when their corners can lock up our receivers. Gadsden emerging is an important development. We need another big guy to emerge, preferably I.Jones because he’s bigger and more physical.
Jones came off field holding arm or wrist, didn’t look good.
 

HRE Otto IV

All American
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
5,191
Like
8,270
The problem is defenses can focus on the run when their corners can lock up our receivers. Gadsden emerging is an important development. We need another big guy to emerge, preferably I.Jones because he’s bigger and more physical.

Jones showed promise but he might be out for awhile. Our outside WRs are still a concern IMO. Our interior WRs (slots/"TE") are plenty good. We had to move Jackson outside and he hasn't been as effective. We really needed Alford to be that guy but he hasn't been thus far.
 

orangemass

All American
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
4,590
Like
6,435
Jones showed promise but he might be out for awhile. Our outside WRs are still a concern IMO. Our interior WRs (slots/"TE") are plenty good. We had to move Jackson outside and he hasn't been as effective. We really needed Alford to be that guy but he hasn't been thus far.
With jones out queely may get the call
 

Scotch

Starter
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
1,198
Like
3,535
Watched the 2nd half this morning after knowing the outcome and have a few observations:
- Unfortunately the first point is negative after a win… but it’s so egregious it’s the first point. We are so lucky that Purdue scores that last td so quickly. What the heck was Babers thinking letting all that time run off the clock. Has anyone asked him what the plan was there? This is the type of stuff which killed this team in close games last year… need to clean it up moving forward.
- Purdue has nfl talent at TE, WR and QB and has a great offensive coach. They all came to play and did a great job.
- Their te in particular has gotta be a day one pick. Our back 7 are not good enough to stop him as he was a walking mismatch.
- Their receiver is very very good but so is Williams. Yes he gave up a few big plays, but he was being asked to play on an island when his line was getting very little pressure on the QB and going against nfl talent. In the first half Williams was being asked to play a soft zone which limited huge plays, but led to lots of yards. I think he did as good a job as can be expected. Even Tredevious White gets burnt every now and then.
- Our offense had many opportunities to take control of the game but didn’t execute. Play calling was generally pretty good and w better execution we might have won more comfortably.
- Purdue sold out to stop Tucker with a lot of 8 in the box and they seemed to spy him with a backer on outside stretch plays. We probably should have run some option to the strong side with a receiver in the flat… would have been open all day. When Tucker moved straight forward he had some holes and good runs
- The receivers need to step up and catch the ball but Shrader was also throwing behind players a lot.
- A lot of complaints about the o-line… in thought they did okay. Shrader generally had time to throw and they actually did open some holes for Tucker… but again they were up against a d selling out against the run
- Our D again tackled pretty well… they were getting beat by nfl talent but did enough to stay in the game.

Fun game! I think Cuse could expect to win 5/10 against Purdue.

Great post, particularly the point about the chances our offense had late in the game. We had two possessions (before the final one) where a few first downs pretty much ice it. We have to stay aggressive and execute in those situations moving forward.
 

HtownOrange

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
11,357
Like
13,302
Watched the 2nd half this morning after knowing the outcome and have a few observations:
- Unfortunately the first point is negative after a win… but it’s so egregious it’s the first point. We are so lucky that Purdue scores that last td so quickly. What the heck was Babers thinking letting all that time run off the clock. Has anyone asked him what the plan was there? This is the type of stuff which killed this team in close games last year… need to clean it up moving forward.
- Purdue has nfl talent at TE, WR and QB and has a great offensive coach. They all came to play and did a great job.
- Their te in particular has gotta be a day one pick. Our back 7 are not good enough to stop him as he was a walking mismatch.
- Their receiver is very very good but so is Williams. Yes he gave up a few big plays, but he was being asked to play on an island when his line was getting very little pressure on the QB and going against nfl talent. In the first half Williams was being asked to play a soft zone which limited huge plays, but led to lots of yards. I think he did as good a job as can be expected. Even Tredevious White gets burnt every now and then.
- Our offense had many opportunities to take control of the game but didn’t execute. Play calling was generally pretty good and w better execution we might have won more comfortably.
- Purdue sold out to stop Tucker with a lot of 8 in the box and they seemed to spy him with a backer on outside stretch plays. We probably should have run some option to the strong side with a receiver in the flat… would have been open all day. When Tucker moved straight forward he had some holes and good runs
- The receivers need to step up and catch the ball but Shrader was also throwing behind players a lot.
- A lot of complaints about the o-line… in thought they did okay. Shrader generally had time to throw and they actually did open some holes for Tucker… but again they were up against a d selling out against the run
- Our D again tackled pretty well… they were getting beat by nfl talent but did enough to stay in the game.

Fun game! I think Cuse could expect to win 5/10 against Purdue.
I thought that was by design. Purdue was pass happy, successful, and could not run the ball, TW knew they had to pass. If they passed, they had to score. If they scored, they needed a TD, a FG was insufficient for the win. If they scored a TD, we needed time to react. Force them to score immediately or stop them immediately. Even three stopped pass attempts and a score would leave more time than Purdue wanted to leave. Thus, there was no need to actually call time outs
 

Forum statistics

Threads
161,834
Messages
4,421,445
Members
5,679
Latest member
Lamizana43

Online statistics

Members online
273
Guests online
904
Total visitors
1,177




Top Bottom