(10-07-2014 01:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 12:26 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 12:21 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 12:14 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 12:04 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  As I mentioned in my previous post, on the shorter, close-to-the-endzone fade pass, the defender doesn't have time to get turned around. The positioning greatly favors the receiver; especially the taller ones. And the primary reason it's thrown toward the corner of the endzone (as opposed to somewhat inside) is that it virtually eliminates the chance of an interception (since the safety or nickle back doesn't have time to come over and help out). Depending on the accuracy of the throw, it's either a TD, a pass interference penalty or an incomplete pass.

Which also begs the question of why you'd choose the more difficult pass on 4th down.

Precisely why I called it an absolutely idiotic call for that situation.

Yes, it's a low % / high reward play that is only justified if it's a free play via penalty.

It's a ridiculously low percentage play...and you can never count on the hard count drawing the opposition offsides; you still have to call a play that you're going to go with. And in that game situation, we didn't need the high reward play, but rather the first down.

Sure, and there's no indication we were counting on that alone, and wouldn't have run something differently if they didn't jump when Driphus tried to draw them off.

Quote:Sure, and there's no indication we were counting on that alone, and wouldn't have run something differently if they didn't jump when Driphus tried to draw them off.

But the moment we snapped the ball, that became irrelevant. Our 'fortunes' were now (essentially) in the hands of the officials

(10-07-2014 12:26 PM)At Ease Wrote:  Yes, it's a low % / high reward play that is only justified if it's a free play via penalty.

How'd it work?


You (and a few others) keep assuming a fact not in evidence... that it was a free play. It wasn't.... and hasn't been despite trying it a fair amount over the years. I understand perhaps it should have been and we thought it was, but it wasn't.

I am merely suggesting that because there is OBVIOUSLY some chance that the center and the official don't agree on the call... that AT LEAST on 4th and 1 on the 30 in a tight ballgame where the offense hasn't exactly been efficient, that our 'go to' play is something with a higher probability of success (on its own) than a fade into a boundary against (likely) their best cover guy. I'd note something else that COULD have happened and didn't to thwart us, that we be interfered with and not get the call or that we don't push off but get called for doing so.

I have been saying for some time that much of our offensive game plan seems predicated on the defense making mistakes... and the better/more disciplined the team we are playing, the less effective we are going to be in getting them to make mistakes and then making perfect execution ourselves. This is a perfect example... we got the mistake by them, but we didn't exploit it AND we didn't get the call. I STRONGLY prefer an offense predicated on our own success rather than the defenses failures, and if we are EVER to beat a 'good' team, we are going to have to be a BETTER team (at least on that day). That is what we were against Marshall last year.

(10-07-2014 02:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:Sure, and there's no indication we were counting on that alone, and wouldn't have run something differently if they didn't jump when Driphus tried to draw them off.

But the moment we snapped the ball, that became irrelevant. Our 'fortunes' were now (essentially) in the hands of the officials

(10-07-2014 12:26 PM)At Ease Wrote:  Yes, it's a low % / high reward play that is only justified if it's a free play via penalty.

How'd it work?


You (and a few others) keep assuming a fact not in evidence... that it was a free play. It wasn't.... and hasn't been despite trying it a fair amount over the years. I understand perhaps it should have been and we thought it was, but it wasn't.

I am merely suggesting that because there is OBVIOUSLY some chance that the center and the official don't agree on the call... that AT LEAST on 4th and 1 on the 30 in a tight ballgame where the offense hasn't exactly been efficient, that our 'go to' play is something with a higher probability of success (on its own) than a fade into a boundary against (likely) their best cover guy. I'd note something else that COULD have happened and didn't to thwart us, that we be interfered with and not get the call or that we don't push off but get called for doing so.

I have been saying for some time that much of our offensive game plan seems predicated on the defense making mistakes... and the better/more disciplined the team we are playing, the less effective we are going to be in getting them to make mistakes and then making perfect execution ourselves. This is a perfect example... we got the mistake by them, but we didn't exploit it AND we didn't get the call. I STRONGLY prefer an offense predicated on our own success rather than the defenses failures, and if we are EVER to beat a 'good' team, we are going to have to be a BETTER team (at least on that day). That is what we were against Marshall last year.

As a single output from a range of possible results, how it worked vs Hawaii is not significant.

Your offensive philosophy tangent is not a particularly apt example, as the offense is not at all relying on the defense to make a mistake, a la hoping a DB errantly jumps a route based on the looks you've set up for him.

I think the fade has high value there compared to other plays with less expected yardage (which get declined anyway because of the penalty), and that are nearly all going to be slower developing (and incur greater potential for neutralizing penalties). If others disagree, great, maybe there are better plays, but at the least it's not at all a gross display of incompetence or idiocy as has been mentioned in multiple threads.

(10-07-2014 02:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  ...
I'd note something else that COULD have happened and didn't to thwart us, that we be interfered with and not get the call or that we don't push off but get called for doing so.

Another possibility for this play is that the QB gets called for illegal motion, or the like, which drastically reduces the possibility of scoring points on the drive. One thought is that the official may have thought that DJ was going to be called for that and then disregarded the offsides because he thought another official would call illegal motion (i.e. diffusion of responsibility).

(10-07-2014 03:01 PM)At Ease Wrote:  I think the fade has high value there compared to other plays with less expected yardage (which get declined anyway because of the penalty), and that are nearly all going to be slower developing (and incur greater potential for neutralizing penalties). If others disagree, great, maybe there are better plays, but at the least it's not at all a gross display of incompetence or idiocy as has been mentioned in multiple threads.

One other virtue of a timing play (fade is one variant among many) is that you've basically reduced the game to 2v1 ... for all practical purposes, the QB, Receiver, and CB are the only players on the field that matter. That is somewhat important as the 8 of the other 9 players on offense don't have a good idea of when the ball is in play. That said, the quick snap seemed to disrupt the timing of the play (from my perspective).

(10-07-2014 02:09 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 01:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 12:26 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 12:21 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 12:14 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Which also begs the question of why you'd choose the more difficult pass on 4th down.

Precisely why I called it an absolutely idiotic call for that situation.

Yes, it's a low % / high reward play that is only justified if it's a free play via penalty.

It's a ridiculously low percentage play...and you can never count on the hard count drawing the opposition offsides; you still have to call a play that you're going to go with. And in that game situation, we didn't need the high reward play, but rather the first down.

Sure, and there's no indication we were counting on that alone, and wouldn't have run something differently if they didn't jump when Driphus tried to draw them off.

Again, they ran the play that was called as there was not enough time to change the play if they had jumped. At most, there were only 2 - 3 of our 11 offensive players who would have noticed the jump offsides.

(10-07-2014 03:01 PM)At Ease Wrote:  As a single output from a range of possible results, how it worked vs Hawaii is not significant.

Wow... A few posts ago you noted that we have been trying to draw teams off for years with no success... and we finally get the reaction we've been after, and it STILL doesn't succeed... but despite that, you still think it's valid. Well, okay. We're certainly due for it to work.... but I still think lining up and running our best running play had a far better chance of success than trying to catch them in a mistake.

Quote:Your offensive philosophy tangent is not a particularly apt example, as the offense is not at all relying on the defense to make a mistake, a la hoping a DB errantly jumps a route based on the looks you've set up for him.

I don't think it's a tangent at all. How is getting them to jump offsides any different than getting them to jump a short route? Either way you're betting on their mistake as opposed to your effectiveness. You should run plays that you run well, and not run them hoping they make a future play more effective. By their nature, these plays WILL make some plays more effective, but one is a design and the other is organic. Same thing here. If we'd have run one of our most effective plays, we probably would have succeeded and the mistake by the refs (predicated by the mistake by the defense) wouldn't have mattered. If it were Clement and Dillard, maybe you go with the fade into the boundary as your highest probability play, but I just don't believe that we've demonstrated that sort of proficiency yet.

Quote:I think the fade has high value there compared to other plays with less expected yardage (which get declined anyway because of the penalty), and that are nearly all going to be slower developing (and incur greater potential for neutralizing penalties). If others disagree, great, maybe there are better plays, but at the least it's not at all a gross display of incompetence or idiocy as has been mentioned in multiple threads.

Well first, I didn't say that... but once again, WHAT PENALTY? THAT is the primary problem with the play call. There WAS no penalty.... and without the penalty, we've just run a what, 15% play on 4th and 1 in a tight game? I think the odds don't support you there, but fine.

Yes, there is a place for what you describe... but IMO, that wasn't it. It WAS a pretty crucial call at the time.


In response to the other idea about 'changing the play' once they didn't jump, I think people are basically saying... why do that? Why can't you try and draw them off with 'the best' play in the first place? It's ONE think if you have no intention of running a play (as we sometimes do) but if there is ANY chance of actually snapping the ball, why wouldn't you be ready to run your best play?

It's not even about DJ and JT, but about our center who has to quickly guess if the official will throw a flag.

(10-07-2014 04:33 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 02:09 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 01:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 12:26 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 12:21 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Precisely why I called it an absolutely idiotic call for that situation.

Yes, it's a low % / high reward play that is only justified if it's a free play via penalty.

It's a ridiculously low percentage play...and you can never count on the hard count drawing the opposition offsides; you still have to call a play that you're going to go with. And in that game situation, we didn't need the high reward play, but rather the first down.

Sure, and there's no indication we were counting on that alone, and wouldn't have run something differently if they didn't jump when Driphus tried to draw them off.

Again, they ran the play that was called as there was not enough time to change the play if they had jumped. At most, there were only 2 - 3 of our 11 offensive players who would have noticed the jump offsides.

This is unreal.

(10-07-2014 05:17 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 04:33 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 02:09 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 01:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 12:26 PM)At Ease Wrote:  Yes, it's a low % / high reward play that is only justified if it's a free play via penalty.

It's a ridiculously low percentage play...and you can never count on the hard count drawing the opposition offsides; you still have to call a play that you're going to go with. And in that game situation, we didn't need the high reward play, but rather the first down.

Sure, and there's no indication we were counting on that alone, and wouldn't have run something differently if they didn't jump when Driphus tried to draw them off.

Again, they ran the play that was called as there was not enough time to change the play if they had jumped. At most, there were only 2 - 3 of our 11 offensive players who would have noticed the jump offsides.

This is unreal.

Who's on first?

(10-07-2014 04:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 03:01 PM)At Ease Wrote:  As a single output from a range of possible results, how it worked vs Hawaii is not significant.

Wow... A few posts ago you noted that we have been trying to draw teams off for years with no success... and we finally get the reaction we've been after, and it STILL doesn't succeed... but despite that, you still think it's valid. Well, okay. We're certainly due for it to work.... but I still think lining up and running our best running play had a far better chance of success than trying to catch them in a mistake.

Quote:Your offensive philosophy tangent is not a particularly apt example, as the offense is not at all relying on the defense to make a mistake, a la hoping a DB errantly jumps a route based on the looks you've set up for him.

I don't think it's a tangent at all. How is getting them to jump offsides any different than getting them to jump a short route? Either way you're betting on their mistake as opposed to your effectiveness. You should run plays that you run well, and not run them hoping they make a future play more effective. By their nature, these plays WILL make some plays more effective, but one is a design and the other is organic. Same thing here. If we'd have run one of our most effective plays, we probably would have succeeded and the mistake by the refs (predicated by the mistake by the defense) wouldn't have mattered. If it were Clement and Dillard, maybe you go with the fade into the boundary as your highest probability play, but I just don't believe that we've demonstrated that sort of proficiency yet.

Quote:I think the fade has high value there compared to other plays with less expected yardage (which get declined anyway because of the penalty), and that are nearly all going to be slower developing (and incur greater potential for neutralizing penalties). If others disagree, great, maybe there are better plays, but at the least it's not at all a gross display of incompetence or idiocy as has been mentioned in multiple threads.

Well first, I didn't say that... but once again, WHAT PENALTY? THAT is the primary problem with the play call. There WAS no penalty.... and without the penalty, we've just run a what, 15% play on 4th and 1 in a tight game? I think the odds don't support you there, but fine.

Yes, there is a place for what you describe... but IMO, that wasn't it. It WAS a pretty crucial call at the time.


In response to the other idea about 'changing the play' once they didn't jump, I think people are basically saying... why do that? Why can't you try and draw them off with 'the best' play in the first place? It's ONE think if you have no intention of running a play (as we sometimes do) but if there is ANY chance of actually snapping the ball, why wouldn't you be ready to run your best play?

Would you agree that your "best play" is always dependent upon the situation, and is framed in the context of what the offense needs at that moment? It's hard to imagine less disparate contexts than 4th and needing to get 1, and a free play, and "best play" in those contexts should vary accordingly and as already described in this thread.

To a comment above, if a defender doesn't jump your route, you've lost the fundamental first option in your play, and it's likely to fail; there's no restart button. If a defender doesn't jump into the neutral zone, you just reset and run your best play in that situation. So I think that's a big difference.

(10-07-2014 05:17 PM)At Ease Wrote:  This is par for the course.

FIFY

Hawaii has a bad record, but they aren't a bad team. They've played good teams. I was impressed how hard they played for their coach. Chow will turn that program around.

(10-05-2014 03:26 AM)Antarius Wrote:  Super happy about the win. If any parliamentarians saw me, I was jumping and screaming like a crazy person in the 4Q.

That said
1. We showed some good moments especially on defense, something we have not done all year
2. We were very lucky to not be down by 21 on the first half. Somehow we got away without a huge deficit and that wasn't due to our play
3. The officiating was horse ****. Most blatant horse collar ever
4. Why on earth did we throw at the end? I'm glad it was a TD , but dangerous move

Anyways 2-3 now and should beat army to make it back to 500. I'll take it

It's good to know that I'm not the only maniac. I thought I was alone. I was the one with the blue owl flag. Yea, that's me.

Ticket prices were outrageous! Mine cost $30. My son's ticket was $20. He's five. They should have waited until after the stadium redo before robbing everyone. Fireworks would have been nice. The girl at the ticket window was embarrassed.

(10-07-2014 05:17 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 04:33 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 02:09 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 01:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 12:26 PM)At Ease Wrote:  Yes, it's a low % / high reward play that is only justified if it's a free play via penalty.

It's a ridiculously low percentage play...and you can never count on the hard count drawing the opposition offsides; you still have to call a play that you're going to go with. And in that game situation, we didn't need the high reward play, but rather the first down.

Sure, and there's no indication we were counting on that alone, and wouldn't have run something differently if they didn't jump when Driphus tried to draw them off.

Again, they ran the play that was called as there was not enough time to change the play if they had jumped. At most, there were only 2 - 3 of our 11 offensive players who would have noticed the jump offsides.

This is unreal.

Just think, we could have saved 3 pages of the thread if they would have just thrown the damn flag.

(10-08-2014 09:27 PM)owlatheart Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 05:17 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 04:33 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 02:09 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 01:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  It's a ridiculously low percentage play...and you can never count on the hard count drawing the opposition offsides; you still have to call a play that you're going to go with. And in that game situation, we didn't need the high reward play, but rather the first down.

Sure, and there's no indication we were counting on that alone, and wouldn't have run something differently if they didn't jump when Driphus tried to draw them off.

Again, they ran the play that was called as there was not enough time to change the play if they had jumped. At most, there were only 2 - 3 of our 11 offensive players who would have noticed the jump offsides.

This is unreal.

Just think, we could have saved 3 pages of the thread if they would have just thrown the damn flag.

LOL - +1

It would make some sense that if you did have an automatic adjustment in case of a defensive penalty, it might be to the fade. If you have a free down, might as well adjust to something that, if successful, has a high probability of scoring.

I have not seen the play, but from comments of those who have, it would appear that it was the called play and not a sight adjustment. In that regard, the fact that we max protected and sent out one receiver seems a bit strange. The reason to max protect would be to avoid the sack, but in this down and distance a sack is not really worse than an incomplete pass, and the probability of the latter with a single receiver out is probably far greater than the probability of a sack with 3 or 4 receivers out. If anything, you max protect and run the fade on third down, with the idea that you want to avoid the sack to keep the field goal in order.

So on 4th down it's not a bad idea to let one receiver run a fade, to clear out an area if nothing else. But instead of max protecting, run whatever complementary patterns with the other receivers that you think will work best against the coverage you expect. Designate one or two hot receivers--you only need a yard.

(10-08-2014 09:34 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 09:27 PM)owlatheart Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 05:17 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 04:33 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 02:09 PM)At Ease Wrote:  Sure, and there's no indication we were counting on that alone, and wouldn't have run something differently if they didn't jump when Driphus tried to draw them off.

Again, they ran the play that was called as there was not enough time to change the play if they had jumped. At most, there were only 2 - 3 of our 11 offensive players who would have noticed the jump offsides.

This is unreal.

Just think, we could have saved 3 pages of the thread if they would have just thrown the damn flag.

LOL - +1

Or if we had completed the pass.

(10-08-2014 09:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It would make some sense that if you did have an automatic adjustment in case of a defensive penalty, it might be to the fade. If you have a free down, might as well adjust to something that, if successful, has a high probability of scoring.

I have not seen the play, but from comments of those who have, it would appear that it was the called play and not a sight adjustment. In that regard, the fact that we max protected and sent out one receiver seems a bit strange. The reason to max protect would be to avoid the sack, but in this down and distance a sack is not really worse than an incomplete pass, and the probability of the latter with a single receiver out is probably far greater than the probability of a sack with 3 or 4 receivers out. If anything, you max protect and run the fade on third down, with the idea that you want to avoid the sack to keep the field goal in order.

So on 4th down it's not a bad idea to let one receiver run a fade, to clear out an area if nothing else. But instead of max protecting, run whatever complementary patterns with the other receivers that you think will work best against the coverage you expect. Designate one or two hot receivers--you only need a yard.

Well that's yet another reason that the call didn't make sense. The timing on the play is such that it's unlikely anyone could've gotten to DJ in any event... I think it's a three step drop kind of play. Now, sending a TE/flanker straight down the field out of that formation might've achieved the moderately high probability of success/high reward standard...

(10-08-2014 09:27 PM)owlatheart Wrote:  Just think, we could have saved 3 pages of the thread if they would have just thrown the damn flag.

outstanding, but misguided... it would only redirect the topic of those three pages to some other more trivial decision during the game

(10-08-2014 10:19 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 09:27 PM)owlatheart Wrote:  Just think, we could have saved 3 pages of the thread if they would have just thrown the damn flag.

outstanding, but misguided... it would only redirect the topic of those three pages to some other more trivial decision during the game

Punting!