Apparently. They played off on the other side too.
I'm not sure why they chose to play so soft but that does seem to have been the gameplan.
Great and better coaches play chess instead of checkers. You know your team has weaknesses ... you try to hide and disguise and protect them as much as is possible.
If you are a magician you try to create illusions, on defense you do the same thing. You try to confuse those who ARE watching.
You try to show one thing and try to distract them. [Boxer in a western movie made his ribs look bruised (with dye) simply to entice the opponent to pound on his ribs - to distract him and keep the opponent from going for the head which was his weakness.] It worked, he took blow after blow and absorbed the brunt of his opponents attack on his strongest feature. He protected other areas and let the ribs take a beating.
As one head coach put it, something along this line .... We try to hide our weaknesses as much as we possibly can for as long as we possibly can and try to entice then to attack anything but our weak spots.
By exposing one spot we protect the other more vulnerable spot.
Okay, so we were playing soft, .... was that to keep it front of us, or .... because we wanted Pitt to see that, or ... that gave us a game plan
all the kids - in order not to give the opposition a book on every CB or .... so that we could play 41 defensive players in the first game. Frankly, I have no idea!
I am hoping that Heupel, Golesh and Banks are grandmasters on the rise ... the next Bobby Fisher, so to speak.
Maybe, ours kids will be able to say, after this move and that counter and this attack and that parry, "The games over.
Yes, it is!"