This is what I see as the coaching staff's biggest problem

[MikeSU02]

Guess what? If those passes are completed that were WIDE open- suddenly we have an identity. These words are so over-used it's ridiculous.

Yes, but they aren't. We don't complete big hitting plays frequently and it's not in our offensive DNA. We can try all we want, but we don't do it enough to embody it.

As the saying goes, "If my aunt had ba!!s she'd be my uncle".

 

[OrangeMuskyFish]

So because two running plays were called, that means they were "ultra-conservative" and they weren't trying to get a first down?

So basically what you're saying is - coaches are only trying when they call a passing play. Otherwise, they're just playing for the punt?

This is what really bothers me about the decisions this year. I don't think it was conservative at all to run the wildcat on that big third down. After seeing games where we play the whole first quarter with our only intention being to keep the short field away from the opponent and the score close, we then all of a sudden have this urge to get cute on these crucial plays that really should be simple, do-it-in-your-sleep, bread n butter calls. When I see that it just screams to me that we have a young OC trying to put his thumbprint on a game.

 

[timkay99]

He did? Our longest pass play was 29 yards and that was a catch and run to Stevens. He didn't complete a single deep ball that game either.

The difference in that game was that the OL gave him all day to throw and nothing was rushed or thrown under duress, the WR made 3 great catches to help, and the run game was clicking.

I should have said mid range throws. Most of his misses in the Louisville game were of the 10-15 yard variety (I think he only threw 2 deep balls if 30 yards is the cutoff). Which 3 catches were the great ones? The Provo TD's were all perfect throws (throw to Provo where he had to leap was right on the money and where it had to be). The throw to West he couldn't help but catch.

Bottomline to me is, the throws he made against WV were not being made against Louisville.

 

[timkay99]

I agree and if you smash him in the mouth he has a tendency to hurry his throws and put less air on them...he had plenty of time vs wv because the running game was doing well and they bought the play fakes or they just didn't blitz. You have to get in Nassib's head and that is something Nassib HAS to improve on.

You can say that about every QB. That is how Geno looked like crap against Syracuse.

 

[timkay99]

This is what really bothers me about the decisions this year. I don't think it was conservative at all to run the wildcat on that big third down. After seeing games where we play the whole first quarter with our only intention being to keep the short field away from the opponent and the score close, we then all of a sudden have this urge to get cute on these crucial plays that really should be simple, do-it-in-your-sleep, bread n butter calls. When I see that it just screams to me that we have a young OC trying to put his thumbprint on a game.

I agree I didn't like the call. But, remember, the first 2 times the formation was run, it gained over 10 yards both times. So, you can understand why it was called (especially with Nassib struggling).

I would venture a guess that if we didn't run that play, there would have been people complaining that they should have run The Express in that situation because of its past success.

 

[kingottoiii]

This is what really bothers me about the decisions this year. I don't think it was conservative at all to run the wildcat on that big third down. After seeing games where we play the whole first quarter with our only intention being to keep the short field away from the opponent and the score close, we then all of a sudden have this urge to get cute on these crucial plays that really should be simple, do-it-in-your-sleep, bread n butter calls. When I see that it just screams to me that we have a young OC trying to put his thumbprint on a game.

That sums up why I hated that play on 3rd down. We seem to get cute at the worst time possible. There were other plays as well this year and last.

 

[kingottoiii]

I agree I didn't like the call. But, remember, the first 2 times the formation was run, it gained over 10 yards both times. So, you can understand why it was called (especially with Nassib struggling).

I would venture a guess that if we didn't run that play, there would have been people complaining that they should have run The Express in that situation because of its past success.

It was the first drive of the half. Can you really say Nassib was struggling at that point? He was 10-15 before that play. His misses included a ball he threw away to avoid a sack, two deep passes that he missed badly, the pass to West in the endzone, and a 3rd and 12 where the UL blitz made him get rid of it and miss Lemon. None of that says to me take it out of Nassib's hands on a 3rd and 2, where we will be throwing it short.

 

[SmilinBob]

You can say that about every QB. That is how Geno looked like crap against Syracuse.

I agree to a point and that's what some have to look at, how much pressure Nassib faced in this game. Some qb's can stand in there and deliver and that is a learned or natural trait good qb's have. I want the next level and this has to be improved on, Nassib's pocket presence.

 

[SmilinBob]

This is what really bothers me about the decisions this year. I don't think it was conservative at all to run the wildcat on that big third down. After seeing games where we play the whole first quarter with our only intention being to keep the short field away from the opponent and the score close, we then all of a sudden have this urge to get cute on these crucial plays that really should be simple, do-it-in-your-sleep, bread n butter calls. When I see that it just screams to me that we have a young OC trying to put his thumbprint on a game.

Hacketts fingerprints are all over this offense, not just his thumbprint. I don't always agree with his playcalling but I really think it's a reach that he's trying to get cute in key moments as his thing. I have a different feel for the flow of the game than he does but sometimes I find myself thinking I wouldn't have made a certain call and it worked for Hackett.

 

[JoeSU]

That Louisville game was so discouraging because we lost that game on our first offensive possession. The staff has a very concerning tendency to play for later in the game and not look to produce in the moment. I don't understand it. They conceded that drive.

It looked like as soon as they saw that we were going to take the ball deep in our own territory the objective wasn't to move the ball, but to avoid being pinned deep. Two ultra conservative running plays and then a bunch formation (in my opinion, the worst formation in college football for passing) on third and long screamed that they were giving up on the drive. Which sucked since we buried ourselves with a penalty. I imagine the thinking was that Louisville's offense was crappy, there's a lot of time left, so let's just play for later in the game. We've seen decisions that suggest that thinking before. It bothers me.

I don't think the players play to the level of their competition, I think the coaching staff is content to scheme around what they think the game will be. They knew they needed points to beat WFVU, so they weren't afraid to get points. Get them in a game that struggles to score though and they just don't have the same urgency.

Given the strengths of both of our defenses, I think a lot of folks, including myself, were expecting a low- scoring game. Under this assumption, I think it was reasonable to play things conservatively in our first possession, not give away easy points on a TO, and play the field position game.

Against WVA, I think the expectation was that we would be able to move the ball against the WVA defense; it was more a matter of stopping Geno Smith and the Neer offense. Completely different game management mindset.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Joe, I feel I need to deconstruct what you just said. It's going to sound harsh. I want you to know that it's directed at the philosophy you brought up and not at all directed at you as a person. I trust that it was unnecessary for me to mention this to you, but sometimes other posters get a little jumpy when it comes to this stuff. I really, really disagree with what you wrote and want to explain why in a way that makes it clear that my criticism of the ideas are in no way a criticism of another person.

Given the strengths of both of our defenses,

First off, I think what you said horribly overestimates the strength of our defense. Louisville's defense by the best objective measures we have is significantly better than our defense. We should not be relying on our defense to win games. Let's just keep in mind though going off of what you said that we are supremely confident in our defense.

I think a lot of folks, including myself, were expecting a low- scoring game.

People should never expect a low scoring game, and whenever I hear the announcers say that they talked with a coach and he said they were hoping for a low scoring game I know they're thinking like a meathead. Why would you ever coach to a low scoring game when you can coach to get the most production out of your offense?

Under this assumption, I think it was reasonable to play things conservatively in our first possession, not give away easy points on a TO, and play the field position game.

I cannot disagree more. First, let's just say you do want to battle in a low scoring game - you should play less conservatively, not more, because points in a low scoring game mean more. One of the things our offense does well is not turn the ball over - why are we that concerned about turning it over? Nassib doesn't throw picks. Ant has fumbled a few times, but overall, we don't turn it over much. Why does that scare us? This makes zero sense to me.

Now let's talk about the field position game - putting aside my general belief that playing for field position < just looking to get first downs and touchdowns, what exactly is the end game we're looking for on that drive? We go three and out, kick and give a short field, get the ball back because we trust our defense... but pinned back with a long field again. At some point if you want field position you have to earn it while you have the ball. Might as well have fought for that on our first possession, when we have L'Ville scouted and can throw something at them they haven't seen before. You know, because we're multiple after all. That's something our offense is supposed to be able to do.

Against WVA, I think the expectation was that we would be able to move the ball against the WVA defense; it was more a matter of stopping Geno Smith and the Neer offense. Completely different game management mindset.

The mindset should never change. The mindset should always be that you will move the ball against the defense. Always. I can't believe people even ever think otherwise. To do otherwise is a loser mentality, and if our mindset was different then we were rewarded with a loss just like we deserved.

 

[BlueCurtain]

The exception in the WV game was Nassib completed his deep balls.

If you mean over 20 yards, then ok. But he did not have to lead his receivers. He's good throwing ropes but that's about it.

 

[ForeverOrange]

When you think about it, L'ville did to us what we did to WV, they had Nassib VERY uncomfortable, his feet were so happy it looked like he was darn near tap dancing back there. He needs to improve his pocket pressence, his composure tends to break down pretty fast at the first signs of pressure.

 

[JoeSU]

Joe, I feel I need to deconstruct what you just said. It's going to sound harsh. I want you to know that it's directed at the philosophy you brought up and not at all directed at you as a person. I trust that it was unnecessary for me to mention this to you, but sometimes other posters get a little jumpy when it comes to this stuff. I really, really disagree with what you wrote and want to explain why in a way that makes it clear that my criticism of the ideas are in no way a criticism of another person.


The mindset should never change. The mindset should always be that you will move the ball against the defense. Always. I can't believe people even ever think otherwise. To do otherwise is a loser mentality, and if our mindset was different then we were rewarded with a loss just like we deserved.

Thanks for taking the high road with this discussion.

Suffice it to say this is one time we have to agree to disagree.

 

[timkay99]

It was the first drive of the half. Can you really say Nassib was struggling at that point? He was 10-15 before that play. His misses included a ball he threw away to avoid a sack, two deep passes that he missed badly, the pass to West in the endzone, and a 3rd and 12 where the UL blitz made him get rid of it and miss Lemon. None of that says to me take it out of Nassib's hands on a 3rd and 2, where we will be throwing it short.

I am trying to remember, so I may be mistaken. I remember heading into the 2nd half that I was thinking Nassib had to play a lot better for Cuse to have a chance. It seemed like Louisville was all over our short passes.

Honestly, I would have preferred Smith or Moore with the ball and pound, but I do understand the call, even though I do disagree with it.