I' m no football expert, and maybe it's just me, but why did we get away from what worked so well against Arkansas? The screen pass and short pass game were gone Saturday. Without the pass threat IS loaded the box nearly every down, yet we continued to try to run the middle. Almost as if everything that worked against the Hawgs got set aside. I was expecting to add Kareem to what seemed to be a great game plan, but instead it was as if he became the game plan. I can only imagine the damage our running backs could do if we are able to spread the defense.
I'm an amateur as well. My take?
You take what the defense gives you. The defense was committed to stopping the run. This left open a lot of mid-range and deeper throws that Ely threw quite well. The receivers let us down.
Now, if most of those throws were completed, the running lanes would have opened up as the defense would have had to put the LBs into deeper coverage.
I was surprised we didn't call more screens just as an extension of the run game. Give the ball to Hunt with some space and allow him to beat his man.
I agree that if our dropped passes were caught we'd have much better running lanes.
I don't recall a lot of mid-range and still am not on board that his throws were all that perfect, not when I tabulated on re-watch. I agree that we did get away from what worked and weren't using what the defense was giving in the passing game. Going deep didn't have the effect desired so the spread should have been laterally, mid-range.
Maybe I'll get another re-watch in and check. I doze off in the middle sometimes.
Hunt has rarely been used as a receiver. Campbell pretty much said what FLR said. Ely made all the passes and he has to have faith in the receivers so they continued to throw and receivers continued to be open and continued to drop very catchable balls. I think we tried to make that work so we could open paths for Hunt. The couple screens I recall were sniffed out quickly and weren't big gainers but I can only think of two or three.
I recall a couple really critical catches that ISU receivers made where the receiver didn't have anybody within 10 yards of him.
So, what does that tell you?
(09-21-2015 11:05 AM)FtLauderdaleRocket Wrote: [ -> ]I'm an amateur as well. My take?
You take what the defense gives you. The defense was committed to stopping the run. This left open a lot of mid-range and deeper throws that Ely threw quite well. The receivers let us down.
Now, if most of those throws were completed, the running lanes would have opened up as the defense would have had to put the LBs into deeper coverage.
yup, if russell doesn't catch ball like fozzy bear, and the refs don't blow that blatant off-sides where ely got picked (thinking he had a free play) we score 2 or 3 more tds and are ranked right now. the drops and calls made it an OT game. period.
(09-21-2015 10:44 PM)Toledo Football 1st Wrote: [ -> ]I recall a couple really critical catches that ISU receivers made where the receiver didn't have anybody within 10 yards of him.
So, what does that tell you?
It seemed to me on the plays in which that happened the qb had all day and then some to throw -- no secondary can keep great coverage if the qb is able to extend the play 5 or 10 seconds. That's on the d line.
Actually, if Toledo would scored a TD after the blocked punt, from the one yard line no less, instead of settling for a FG, the Rockets would have been in cruise control. Instead of leading 17-3 before half ISU was fired up from the goal line stand, went downfield and got a TD, and felt good about being down only 13-10. That piss poor series from the one after an electrifying blocked punt turned the emotional tables against us.
When you add people to stop the run, screens and throws to RBs normally don't work. They have more bodies at the point of where the ball is thrown.
(09-22-2015 06:21 AM)Nick in Cleveland Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, if Toledo would scored a TD after the blocked punt, from the one yard line no less, instead of settling for a FG, the Rockets would have been in cruise control. Instead of leading 17-3 before half ISU was fired up from the goal line stand, went downfield and got a TD, and felt good about being down only 13-10. That piss poor series from the one after an electrifying blocked punt turned the emotional tables against us.
Completely agree. This was a game we should have won by 2 TDs in regulation, and that failure to get a TD after the block was critical. The good news is we played a very uneven game throughout 4 quarters and still won in OT. Room for improvement, and if it happens, good things will result.
(09-22-2015 05:42 AM)adunifon Wrote: [ -> ] (09-21-2015 10:44 PM)Toledo Football 1st Wrote: [ -> ]I recall a couple really critical catches that ISU receivers made where the receiver didn't have anybody within 10 yards of him.
So, what does that tell you?
It seemed to me on the plays in which that happened the qb had all day and then some to throw -- no secondary can keep great coverage if the qb is able to extend the play 5 or 10 seconds. That's on the d line.
I don't mean to discount what you said, but to me they looked like designed plays that we were 100% unprepared for. Completely clueless. Faked out of our jocks. So, if they can do that, why can't we? Has our play calling become too predictable?
(09-22-2015 02:40 AM)pono Wrote: [ -> ]the drops and calls made it an OT game. period.
That is spot on.
(09-23-2015 06:23 PM)owen Wrote: [ -> ] (09-22-2015 02:40 AM)pono Wrote: [ -> ]the drops and calls made it an OT game. period.
That is spot on.
Yep, that is true....and we even had to get lucky to get that OT chance at all. Very exciting to be there and see the win in person, but we were fairly disappointed during the drive home. Winning ugly, getting lucky, whatever, I sure don't want too many repeats of these types of games! While we won, I'm not sure it was deserved, that's why it is so bitter and much less sweet. Good thing is that most that just read the scores don't have the same feeling that we had that night. They just see 2-0 against the big boys. Time to improve, or Campbell's stock will not stay sky high like it is, if we cant beat the supposed lesser competition. We have a lot of hard games left no doubt. Only cure is a big successful win against ASU. This game will be as tough as ISU me thinks...
(09-21-2015 10:32 AM)UTLAW Wrote: [ -> ]I' m no football expert, and maybe it's just me, but why did we get away from what worked so well against Arkansas? The screen pass and short pass game were gone Saturday. Without the pass threat IS loaded the box nearly every down, yet we continued to try to run the middle. Almost as if everything that worked against the Hawgs got set aside. I was expecting to add Kareem to what seemed to be a great game plan, but instead it was as if he became the game plan. I can only imagine the damage our running backs could do if we are able to spread the defense.
I think the play calling was actually excellent last week. There was ONE HUGE problem, we couldn't catch the ball. If we had caught the ball like the veteran group we have is supposed to , we would have blown ISU out.