To summarize my long post, Rice's safeties and CB's used to get beat deep because: (1) they lacked athleticism; (2) scheme; and (3) technique. Now #1 has improved for safeties and #2 and #3 have improved for CB's. The result is CB's that are playing better than 6 years ago (even without the talent of Gaines/Callahan) and safeties that get beat by 1-3 yards instead of 3-5 yards. Also, "bad" passing teams have a much harder time exploiting Rice's secondary than 5 years ago, but "good" passing teams can still take advantage without much problem.

As noted by others, an effective pass rush can help minimize the problems.

(11-02-2015 06:19 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Just my personal take on Rice's problems stopping deep passes in the Bailiff era:
(1) With Driesbach as the DC, Rice's pass defense was terrible in every imaginable way. To my uneducated eyes, it looked like a lot of soft zone coverage where the secondary gave the receivers a large cushion off the line of scrimmage. This resulted in easy short completions (because of the cushion), easy medium completions (because of the soft zone), and easy long completions (due lack of speed in the secondary).
(2) When Thurmond was hired as CB coach, the CB play improved markedly. Sure, it helped to have Gaines and Callahan. But both of those guys saw big improvements with Thurmond as CB coach. Rice safeties were still getting beat deep, but the CB's were not. And the CB's improved enough that they were also limiting short and medium routes.
(3) With Driesbach gone and Thurmond as DC and CB coach, the way the safeties were utilized began to mimic the way the CB's were utilized. The CB's often jammed receivers at the line and were tasked with man-to-man coverage. The safeties were generally further off the line, but still ended up in man-to-man coverage on quite a few occasions. While the speed in the secondary was improving, up until 2013 it was still a bad idea (from an athleticism standpoint) to allow a Rice safety to get matched up on an opponent's speedy receiver. So still lots of deep completions against Rice safeties. But the more aggressive play by the secondary really improved things against short and medium throws (against safeties or CB's) and deep balls against CB's.
(4) The athleticism of Rice safeties has gradually increased. Honestly, I think anyone who expects more athleticim than Hill/White last year is crazy. I'm not sure about this guys, but my impression is that they are plenty fast. Speed is not the problem. To my eyes, and I welcome someone with more knowledge to correct me, but I see safeties that can keep up with receivers, but get burned due to technique and schematic reasons. Thurmond has the safeties quite close to the line, relative to other teams (all the Rice safeties are often <12 yards from the LOS). This results in very little deep help (i.e., no margin for error on deep throws). And the safeties still end up in a lot of man-to-man coverage. So if the safety doesn't get his hips turned fast enough, then a fast receiver is already a step past him, regardless of whether the safety's speed. If the safety bites on a double-move, then the receiver is past him, regardless of the safety's speed. And Rice doesn't have anyone sitting way back, playing "centerfield" to help when there is a breakdown. And knowing Rice is weak against the deep ball (for what I believe to be schematic and technique reasons), teams challenge Rice a lot and good teams end up beating Rice a lot.

Again, I just do NOT believe this is an athleticism issue. I think the safeties play too close to the line, do not get their hips soon enough, bite too often on short/medium routes (and play-action), and then do not have deep help due to the scheme.

But again, I haven't played football and these are my uneducated opinions. Where is nightowl24 when we need him?

I may have blocked out the WKU game, but I only remember one play wherein we had a player that was just completely burned: the deep td against Texas at the start of the 2nd half.

So, for what it's worth, I agree: athleticism isn't the problem. What I've seen are plays such as against Texas where Banks is running stride for stride with the receiver but doesn't get himself into position to make a good play on the ball. And I'm not picking on Banks. I think that he is very talented but also still learning the position. That is really a function of coaching and ball location reps.

Furthermore, I don't recall that Banks played Corner in highschool. My recollection is that he was a Safety on defense. I would love for him to make the switch to free safety if Bickham and Douglas demonstrate that they can hold down the corner positions. Then you could move Ibe to SS or Kat and consider moving Destri White to offense.

I am a Bailiff supporter, but I have had my criticisms. Aside from letting 54 seconds roll off the clock without even attempting to score points at the end of the 1st half, my main criticism has been how slow we are to evaluate where and what position someone is best suited for. For example, Sam McGuffie. I really don't care about the "McGuffie-up-the-middle" parlance. What I found frustrating was that during the 2010 season, McGuffie by far had the best hands on the team (did not drop a pass that year) and was much better suited being utilized as a slot receiving threat (remember, we had Charles Ross and Tyler Smith). Same with Nate German. He stood on the sidelines last year holding a clipboard even though it was decided that he was not the number 2 QB. Nate should have been in the WR rotation last year. And Mr.Big, you and I both agree that Cole Hunt should get a long look at Defense.

Now to be fair, the same staff did make the following excellent moves:
Nico Carlson from DL to OL
Grant Peterson from TE to DE
Every high school QB to non QB positions (jury is out on Destri White) such as
Julius White
Turner Petersen
Luke Turner
Derek Brown

Mrbig - totally agree.

And this is exactly why I am convinced that the EZF will do absolutely nothing for us. You could put Revis and Richard Sherman back there and Bailiff would find a way to let LaTech rack up 50 points

Well, that may be a bit harsh. Then, again.......




e

(11-02-2015 07:02 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Mrbig - totally agree.

And this is exactly why I am convinced that the EZF will do absolutely nothing for us. You could put Revis and Richard Sherman back there and Bailiff would find a way to let LaTech rack up 50 points

(11-02-2015 07:02 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Mrbig - totally agree.

And this is exactly why I am convinced that the EZF will do absolutely nothing for us. You could put Revis and Richard Sherman back there and Bailiff would find a way to let LaTech rack up 50 points

You may want to clarify. In his shorter summary, MrBig indicates that secondary play has actually improved in several areas from 6 years ago. It definitely was better in 2013.

Based on what you typed, I'm not sure that you think there was any improvement. (Not to mention the fact that LaTech didn't rack up 50 points this year, but what the hey, sound bites don't really need to make any sense).

(11-02-2015 07:02 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Mrbig - totally agree.

And this is exactly why I am convinced that the EZF will do absolutely nothing for us. You could put Revis and Richard Sherman back there and Bailiff would find a way to let LaTech rack up 50 points

Well we did see very good results with Gaines and Callahan in 2013, so I think that's a bit of an exaggeration.

(11-02-2015 06:56 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  I may have blocked out the WKU game, but I only remember one play wherein we had a player that was just completely burned: the deep td against Texas at the start of the 2nd half.

Not just that game.

UNT - both of Carlos Harris's TDs (33 yards and school-record 93 yards) were burned coverage.

FAU - 94 yard TD pass. Not completely burned, but trailed the receiver the whole way and couldn't catch up.

Let's not talk about the open receivers in the Baylor game. 19 completions for 366 yards. 3 TDs of 32 yards or more.

(11-02-2015 06:33 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 01:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 11:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The only way we can cover up the deficiency is by generating a good pass rush. That was what we did when we were able to stop La Tech this past week. But as soon as we gave their QB some time, Drieskel just picked us a part.

That worked for about a quarter, which is about as long as it's usually going to work. I saw it work for a half for one of Homer Rice's teams, at Arkansas. But they adjusted at the half, and I think it ended up 42-14.

What? You mean that teams are allowed to make halftime adjustments?

We led 7-0 at the half in Fayetteville because we came out in a completely new defense that they weren't prepared for. At the half I really wanted to suggest to our coaches to go back to our old defense in the second half, because Arkansas' coaches were smart enough to make the proper adjustments to our new 5-2 defense. Alas, I was but a freshman kicker and knew no one was going to listen to me. So we go out in the same defense and lost 41-16 (should have been less, but the refs famously botched a kickoff, untouched by Rice that was recovered by Arkansas in the end zone. Apparently not a single ref on that crew knew that the proper call was touchback, not touchdown for Arkansas).

Let me ask a question. We get the ball on our own 31, 0:54 left in the half, LaTech has one time out.

Suppose we throw 3 incomplete passes, and with 39 seconds left have to punt to them. We kick it 40 yards, they return it 20, so they are at midfield with 30 seconds left. They beat us deep and go in at the half 35-7. Would you then be on here saying, "Way to go Bailiff, at least you tried to win"? The odds are, that's about an equally likely result as our getting points out of that possession.

I think the deciding factor is probably that our inability to stop them means we have to take every risk to score points. But doing that is how you give up 70 instead of 42. It's an interesting question. Would be way more interesting a decision if we could play defense.

Most coaches tend to worry more about preventing the worst than do most fans. It's usually the best way to win, statistically at least.

(11-02-2015 10:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let me ask a question. We get the ball on our own 31, 0:54 left in the half, LaTech has one time out.

Suppose we throw 3 incomplete passes, and with 39 seconds left have to punt to them. We kick it 40 yards, they return it 20, so they are at midfield with 30 seconds left. They beat us deep and go in at the half 35-7. Would you then be on here saying, "Way to go Bailiff, at least you tried to win"? The odds are, that's about an equally likely result as our getting points out of that possession.

I think the deciding factor is probably that our inability to stop them means we have to take every risk to score points. But doing that is how you give up 70 instead of 42. It's an interesting question. Would be way more interesting a decision if we could play defense.

Most coaches tend to worry more about preventing the worst than do most fans. It's usually the best way to win, statistically at least.

Sometimes, it's about things other than just percentages. Maybe you do give up another TD or a FG, but by not trying, you are telling your offense AND defense that you don't trust them enough to even TRY. That's how you lose your team.

(11-02-2015 04:21 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  In the interest of getting more speed on the field, it would be interesting to think about switching to hybrid 3-4/3-3-5 defense.
Right now, this is what our defense looks like (generally speaking and using current non-injured players):
DL:
Womac, Mouch, Winship, Brown
LB:
Lyons, McGaskey
Safety:
Ibe, White, Espinosa
CB:
Banks, Pollard
With a 3-4 we could have this type of lineup:
DL:
Mouch, Winship, Gordon, (Thompson, Abercrumbia, Padgett)
LB:
Brown, Lyons, McGaskey, Espinosa (Womac, Elder, Uretsky, White)
Safety:
Thompson, Pollard (FS) (Fuhrman, Ibe)
CB:
Banks, Douglas (Bickham, Clark)
With a 3-3-5 we could have this type of lineup:
DL:
Mouch, Winship, Gordon, (Thompson, Abercrumbia, Padgett)
LB:
Brown, Lyons, McGaskey, (Womac, Ellerbee, Elder)
Safety:
Ibe, Thompson, Pollard (FS) (Espinosa, Fuhrman, White)
CB:
Banks, Douglas (Bickham, Clark)
Just random thoughts. It seems that we have an excess amount of corners and linebackers. Guys like Jorian Clark or Ryan Pollard would be suitable Free Safeties. Also, with three down linemen, we have enough talent that could keep blockers off the four linebackers thus allowing our relative speed at linebacker to be effective on run downs. Obvious passing downs would be relegated to more of a dime type personnel package, but we are already implementing said package on long passing downs. The added bonus of a 3-4 or 3-3-5 type defense is that on most plays, at least one linebacker is blitzing. Since there are three to four linebackers (depending on the scheme), we have the added benefit of confusing the blocking schemes of the offensive line. We wouldn't even have to permanently adopt this change, just utilize it until our recruiting catches up to lack of numbers at Defensive line and Safety. Granted, a wholesale change like this, even if temporary, is not something that you just roll out one year and then discard the next. My point is, however, that examining the current healthy roster, we have the personnel to adopt an odd front type of defense if we were persuaded.

Interesting. I have been playing some of the same games, but with the addition of some players currently on offense to boost depth and athleticism. I have always preferred odd fonts because you get one faster player on the field.

(11-02-2015 10:46 PM)wrysal Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 06:33 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 01:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 11:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The only way we can cover up the deficiency is by generating a good pass rush. That was what we did when we were able to stop La Tech this past week. But as soon as we gave their QB some time, Drieskel just picked us a part.

That worked for about a quarter, which is about as long as it's usually going to work. I saw it work for a half for one of Homer Rice's teams, at Arkansas. But they adjusted at the half, and I think it ended up 42-14.

What? You mean that teams are allowed to make halftime adjustments?

We led 7-0 at the half in Fayetteville because we came out in a completely new defense that they weren't prepared for. At the half I really wanted to suggest to our coaches to go back to our old defense in the second half, because Arkansas' coaches were smart enough to make the proper adjustments to our new 5-2 defense. Alas, I was but a freshman kicker and knew no one was going to listen to me. So we go out in the same defense and lost 41-16 (should have been less, but the refs famously botched a kickoff, untouched by Rice that was recovered by Arkansas in the end zone. Apparently not a single ref on that crew knew that the proper call was touchback, not touchdown for Arkansas).

Yep, that was the game. The touchback rule on kickoffs had changed last year. That incident convinced me that one thing I would always have on the sideline if I were coaching would be a rule book.

We confused their blocking for a half, but they straightened it out and burned us repeatedly in the second half.

(11-02-2015 10:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let me ask a question. We get the ball on our own 31, 0:54 left in the half, LaTech has one time out.

Suppose we throw 3 incomplete passes, and with 39 seconds left have to punt to them. We kick it 40 yards, they return it 20, so they are at midfield with 30 seconds left. They beat us deep and go in at the half 35-7. Would you then be on here saying, "Way to go Bailiff, at least you tried to win"? The odds are, that's about an equally likely result as our getting points out of that possession.

I think the deciding factor is probably that our inability to stop them means we have to take every risk to score points. But doing that is how you give up 70 instead of 42. It's an interesting question. Would be way more interesting a decision if we could play defense.

Most coaches tend to worry more about preventing the worst than do most fans. It's usually the best way to win, statistically at least.

I agree that LaTech could have easily moved into position to score again. But I have three objections to that line of thinking (note completely specific to this game):

1. Driphis was throwing the ball about as well as I have ever seen him.
2. I believe that LaTech had already burned two timeouts.
3. We had the wind at our backs. A very strong wind at that.


Plus, many of LaTech's scoring drives in the first half were facilitated by short fields due in part to wind conditions and good defense by LaTech. We were not able to flip the field until the 2nd quarter.

(11-02-2015 11:28 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  I agree that LaTech could have easily moved into position to score again. But I have three objections to that line of thinking (note completely specific to this game):
1. Driphis was throwing the ball about as well as I have ever seen him.
2. I believe that LaTech had already burned two timeouts.
3. We had the wind at our backs. A very strong wind at that.
Plus, many of LaTech's scoring drives in the first half were facilitated by short fields due in part to wind conditions and good defense by LaTech. We were not able to flip the field until the 2nd quarter.

They had burned two TOs. That factors in. That's why I run the clock down to 30 seconds and then see what I can do. I probably run the ball on first down with something that has a chance to pop if they are too pass-happy on defense. I'd want to take enough time off to pretty much preclude their scoring except on a true fluke, like a pick six or punt return, than see what I could do to score with what time was left. Try to snap on second down right at 35 seconds or so, throw something that has a chance to get up around midfield. If that works, then I go into my hurry-up offense. I believe we had all 3 of our TOs left, so we should be able to get in 6-7 plays.

At 28-7, you're potentially still in it, provided you can stop their first possession of the second half (and as you note, much of their scoring in the first half had come from getting the kind of good field position that I'm trying to deny them here, not from showing the ability to make consistent long drives) and score on your first possession. At 35-7, it's probably lights out time. Bottom line, I think it's the difference between the way fans think and the way coaches think. As for those TV commentators, they aren't coaching anywhere.

(11-02-2015 10:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let me ask a question. We get the ball on our own 31, 0:54 left in the half, LaTech has one time out.

Suppose we throw 3 incomplete passes, and with 39 seconds left have to punt to them. We kick it 40 yards, they return it 20, so they are at midfield with 30 seconds left. They beat us deep and go in at the half 35-7. Would you then be on here saying, "Way to go Bailiff, at least you tried to win"? The odds are, that's about an equally likely result as our getting points out of that possession.

I think the deciding factor is probably that our inability to stop them means we have to take every risk to score points. But doing that is how you give up 70 instead of 42. It's an interesting question. Would be way more interesting a decision if we could play defense.

Most coaches tend to worry more about preventing the worst than do most fans. It's usually the best way to win, statistically at least.

My supposition does not include 3 consecutive incomplete passes. There are odds and then there are my odds.

(11-02-2015 11:52 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 10:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let me ask a question. We get the ball on our own 31, 0:54 left in the half, LaTech has one time out.
Suppose we throw 3 incomplete passes, and with 39 seconds left have to punt to them. We kick it 40 yards, they return it 20, so they are at midfield with 30 seconds left. They beat us deep and go in at the half 35-7. Would you then be on here saying, "Way to go Bailiff, at least you tried to win"? The odds are, that's about an equally likely result as our getting points out of that possession.
I think the deciding factor is probably that our inability to stop them means we have to take every risk to score points. But doing that is how you give up 70 instead of 42. It's an interesting question. Would be way more interesting a decision if we could play defense.
Most coaches tend to worry more about preventing the worst than do most fans. It's usually the best way to win, statistically at least.

My supposition does not include 3 consecutive incomplete passes. There are odds and then there are my odds.

That's why if I were coaching a football team, I'd want you for my OC. Though we might tangle over running the ball. But that's not all bad. Fred and Dinger did, and that turned out okay.

(11-02-2015 11:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 11:28 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  I agree that LaTech could have easily moved into position to score again. But I have three objections to that line of thinking (note completely specific to this game):
1. Driphis was throwing the ball about as well as I have ever seen him.
2. I believe that LaTech had already burned two timeouts.
3. We had the wind at our backs. A very strong wind at that.
Plus, many of LaTech's scoring drives in the first half were facilitated by short fields due in part to wind conditions and good defense by LaTech. We were not able to flip the field until the 2nd quarter.

They had burned two TOs. That factors in. That's why I run the clock down to 30 seconds and then see what I can do. I probably run the ball on first down with something that has a chance to pop if they are too pass-happy on defense. I'd want to take enough time off to pretty much preclude their scoring except on a true fluke, like a pick six or punt return, than see what I could do to score with what time was left. Try to snap on second down right at 35 seconds or so, throw something that has a chance to get up around midfield. If that works, then I go into my hurry-up offense. I believe we had all 3 of our TOs left, so we should be able to get in 6-7 plays.

At 28-7, you're potentially still in it, provided you can stop their first possession of the second half (and as you note, much of their scoring in the first half had come from getting the kind of good field position that I'm trying to deny them here, not from showing the ability to make consistent long drives) and score on your first possession. At 35-7, it's probably lights out time. Bottom line, I think it's the difference between the way fans think and the way coaches think. As for those TV commentators, they aren't coaching anywhere.

You can never get time back but you can always bleed it off, unless you are Mike Leach.

Start with play-action to TE over the middle for 12. Come back with slot over the middle for 15. Then run counter. Then run counter bootleg and throw 15 yard comeback to SE. Then post over the middle or corner to the slot. TD. 4 passes and one run to cover 69 yards and it would take under 50 seconds. Formations called would be based on defensive tendencies. Don't be so negative. Good fortune favors the brave.

(11-03-2015 12:06 AM)ruowls Wrote:  You can never get time back but you can always bleed it off, unless you are Mike Leach.
Start with play-action to TE over the middle for 12. Come back with slot over the middle for 15. Then run counter. Then run counter bootleg and throw 15 yard comeback to SE. Then post over the middle or corner to the slot. TD. 4 passes and one run to cover 69 yards and it would take under 50 seconds. Formations called would be based on defensive tendencies. Don't be so negative. Good fortune favors the brave.

Interesting sequence. I like the medium depth throws. We don't get that here now. I assume you've got multiple levels on all patterns, and are calling who you expect to be the open receiver. Would be interesting to see if we could execute that sequence. And again, all of that depends on what the defense is doing with rush and coverage.

One question. If they're looking pass, what are you expecting to accomplish with the play fake on first down? Or are you assuming they know Bailiff's history and will be looking run? I might start with the counter and counter boot plays, my idea of getting to midfield with 30 seconds left and then going full attack.

We're two hours ahead of you. It's getting close to bedtime for me. Will catch you later.

(11-02-2015 06:19 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Just my personal take on Rice's problems stopping deep passes in the Bailiff era:
(1) With Driesbach as the DC, Rice's pass defense was terrible in every imaginable way. To my uneducated eyes, it looked like a lot of soft zone coverage where the secondary gave the receivers a large cushion off the line of scrimmage. This resulted in easy short completions (because of the cushion), easy medium completions (because of the soft zone), and easy long completions (due lack of speed in the secondary).
(2) When Thurmond was hired as CB coach, the CB play improved markedly. Sure, it helped to have Gaines and Callahan. But both of those guys saw big improvements with Thurmond as CB coach. Rice safeties were still getting beat deep, but the CB's were not. And the CB's improved enough that they were also limiting short and medium routes.
(3) With Driesbach gone and Thurmond as DC and CB coach, the way the safeties were utilized began to mimic the way the CB's were utilized. The CB's often jammed receivers at the line and were tasked with man-to-man coverage. The safeties were generally further off the line, but still ended up in man-to-man coverage on quite a few occasions. While the speed in the secondary was improving, up until 2013 it was still a bad idea (from an athleticism standpoint) to allow a Rice safety to get matched up on an opponent's speedy receiver. So still lots of deep completions against Rice safeties. But the more aggressive play by the secondary really improved things against short and medium throws (against safeties or CB's) and deep balls against CB's.
(4) The athleticism of Rice safeties has gradually increased. Honestly, I think anyone who expects more athleticim than Hill/White last year is crazy. I'm not sure about this guys, but my impression is that they are plenty fast. Speed is not the problem. To my eyes, and I welcome someone with more knowledge to correct me, but I see safeties that can keep up with receivers, but get burned due to technique and schematic reasons. Thurmond has the safeties quite close to the line, relative to other teams (all the Rice safeties are often <12 yards from the LOS). This results in very little deep help (i.e., no margin for error on deep throws). And the safeties still end up in a lot of man-to-man coverage. So if the safety doesn't get his hips turned fast enough, then a fast receiver is already a step past him, regardless of whether the safety's speed. If the safety bites on a double-move, then the receiver is past him, regardless of the safety's speed. And Rice doesn't have anyone sitting way back, playing "centerfield" to help when there is a breakdown. And knowing Rice is weak against the deep ball (for what I believe to be schematic and technique reasons), teams challenge Rice a lot and good teams end up beating Rice a lot.
Again, I just do NOT believe this is an athleticism issue. I think the safeties play too close to the line, do not get their hips soon enough, bite too often on short/medium routes (and play-action), and then do not have deep help due to the scheme.
But again, I haven't played football and these are my uneducated opinions. Where is nightowl24 when we need him?

Don't give us the "dumb old country boy" schtick. I've seen pretty much what you've seen there. As far as the athleticism thing, two points: 1) the more athletic, the easier to overcome scheme and execution errors, and 2) part of my objective is to create more athletic depth, to avoid the falloff if starter has to come out.

One thing that I see is that it looks like our read and react speeds are very slow. This has seemed to be a bigger problem under Driesbach, but it still seems to persist. I'm not sure whether we are trying to play too complex a system, or not trained well enough what to read, or what. As Mike Leach says, "If a fast guy has to stop and think, he becomes a slow guy."

(11-03-2015 12:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-03-2015 12:06 AM)ruowls Wrote:  You can never get time back but you can always bleed it off, unless you are Mike Leach.
Start with play-action to TE over the middle for 12. Come back with slot over the middle for 15. Then run counter. Then run counter bootleg and throw 15 yard comeback to SE. Then post over the middle or corner to the slot. TD. 4 passes and one run to cover 69 yards and it would take under 50 seconds. Formations called would be based on defensive tendencies. Don't be so negative. Good fortune favors the brave.

Interesting sequence. I like the medium depth throws. We don't get that here now. I assume you've got multiple levels on all patterns, and are calling who you expect to be the open receiver. Would be interesting to see if we could execute that sequence. And again, all of that depends on what the defense is doing with rush and coverage.

One question. If they're looking pass, what are you expecting to accomplish with the play fake on first down? Or are you assuming they know Bailiff's history and will be looking run? I might start with the counter and counter boot plays, my idea of getting to midfield with 30 seconds left and then going full attack.

We're two hours ahead of you. It's getting close to bedtime for me. Will catch you later.

The defense still has to respect the run, even if it is only marginally. They can't be exclusively looking for pass based on down and distance. They would be fools to go man under with safety help deep on first down as that would open up the possibility of getting gashed on a first down run or a QB scramble/run. And the play action will hold the interior LBs just enough to let the TE's route get over the top of them since they have gap responsibility in the run game. It would do so even if they did go to a pass exclusive defensive call.