Fourth down call - Could they have run a play call worse than that?

#101
#101
McDad said:
I see no reason why the data wouldn't translate to college, do you?

eta: I can think of one reason. I'll share after your reply.
Click to expand...

I think the data would be even more in favor of the college game. More QB's of the dual threat variety than the typical pro pocket passer, but that is changing rapidly as well.

In most instances.....football is football, IMO. The line of scrimmage usually tells the tale. (and I have a feeling this is where you are going with your 'one reason')
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArdentVol, hog88 and McDad
#102
#102
Doberman said:
I think the data would be even more in favor of the college game. More QB's of the dual threat variety than the typical pro pocket passer, but that is changing rapidly as well.

In most instances.....football is football, IMO. The line of scrimmage usually tells the tale. (and I have a feeling this is where you are going with your 'one reason')
Click to expand...

I can see that. I thought after my initial reply, I thought maybe favorable to NFL due to NFL prejudicial in favor of QBs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doberman
#103
#103
JK Vol said:
We have to have a “ heavy” package somewhere that puts the ball into a player like Beckwith’s hands and let’s him pound it for a yard.
Click to expand...
I kept thinking the same thing like they used to use Crouch for. Beckwith came to mind, or give the the ball to somebody like Simmons. I bet he could have got the yardage we needed. Like the Fridge back in the day for the Bears.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JK Vol
#104
#104
McDad said:
I can see that. I thought after my initial reply, I thought maybe favorable to NFL due to NFL prejudicial in favor of QBs.
Click to expand...

I thought your 'one thing' would be ......disparities in team "level". Say.....UT has a better chance to convert a QB sneak vs BG, than vice versa due to caliber of athlete. Because of that fact, BG may feel like they have a better chance at passing, or something else, for a first down on 4th and short, due to not matching up physically at the LOS.

Which would have been a fine argument, and impossible to disagree with.

But for our purposes UT/Pitt is even steven, and I think you'd agree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#105
#105
A.J. said:
I kept thinking the same thing like they used to use Crouch for. Beckwith came to mind, or give the the ball to somebody like Simmons. I bet he could have got the yardage we needed. Like the Fridge back in the day for the Bears.
Click to expand...

These gimmicks usually end up in a fumble. Big guys have no hands, and don't get the reps for that. I realize it has been done successfully on some occasions, however.
 
#106
#106
Doberman said:
I thought your 'one thing' would be ......disparities in team "level". Say.....UT has a better chance to convert a QB sneak vs BG, than vice versa due to caliber of athlete. Because of that fact, BG may feel like they have a better chance at passing, or something else, for a first down on 4th and short, due to not matching up physically at the LOS.

Which would have been a fine argument, and impossible to disagree with.

But for our purposes UT/Pitt is even steven, and I think you'd agree.
Click to expand...
I would agree it is even steven. Unfortunately, Pitt dominated our center and guards on that play. Hard for me to say it wouldn't be the same with a sneak. I've heard others make a case why it could be different but I am not sure it would, assuming the same personnel are used and we didn't have a 'jumbo' package.
 
#107
#107
Doberman said:
These gimmicks usually end up in a fumble. Big guys have no hands, and don't get the reps for that. I realize it has been done successfully on some occasions, however.
Click to expand...
We need Refrigerator Perry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A.J.
#108
#108
McDad said:
I would agree it is even steven. Unfortunately, Pitt dominated our center and guards on that play. Hard for me to say it wouldn't be the same with a sneak. I've heard others make a case why it could be different but I am not sure it would, assuming the same personnel are used and we didn't have a 'jumbo' package.
Click to expand...

We'll never know.

But if my middle is going to collapse, I'd rather be under center with a 7 yard head start. Maybe I could fall in a gap, or slither in the pile.

Getting blown up 3 yards in the backfield will never happen on a QB sneak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Delmar
#110
#110
Doberman said:
We'll never know.

But if my middle is going to collapse, I'd rather be under center with a 7 yard head start. Maybe I could fall in a gap, or slither in the pile.

Getting blown up 3 yards in the backfield will never happen on a QB sneak.
Click to expand...

Another poster, Berry4Heisman, watched UCF games. CJH has a jumbo alignment. Surely, he didn't leave it in Orlando. I hope we can have a sneak or power run option on the table in the future (if it wasn't available for Pitt).
 
#111
#111
McDad said:
Another poster, Berry4Heisman, watched UCF games. CJH has a jumbo alignment. Surely, he didn't leave it in Orlando. I hope we can have a sneak or power run option on the table in the future (if it wasn't available for Pitt).
Click to expand...

Scary if that play was unavailable. Mano e Mano. Hat on hat. Drive forward. I think I could draw that one up.
 
#112
#112
It wouldn't have mattered what we called there because the OL got completely smashed. They were pushed back a full yard as soon as the ball was snapped. We ran from the shotgun successfully there earlier in the game and scored. Sometimes your players just have to beat their man and they didn't on that play. I watched a high school back rush off tackle for 3 tds from the shotgun from inside the 5 Friday night. His OL took care of business.
 
#113
#113
SPRINGHILLVOL said:
The fourth down call was horrible.. Snap the ball five yards deep then slowly had the ball off to 175 pound running back up the middle. Why do our coaches do this ?. What is the success rate for a quarterback sneak with six inches to make. Heupel must have got trained under the Butch Jones school of quarterback play... A touchdown ties the game !!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Can you tell us what the play call was? If it was a straight dive then Pitt anticipated it and stuffed it. If there was a pull option for Hooker then he simply blew it. This has nothing to do with Butch Jones. You are just looking for reasons to tag Heupel with a failure. Let Heupel prove himself. Jones isn't his baggage to carry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HalfullVol
#114
#114
CountVolcula said:
I saw 4 passes in the Swamp from 4th and goal by Butch Jones

This was a Butch Jones type move
Click to expand...
Not just 4th and goal but 4th and goal from inside the 2 yard line. It might have even been on the 1 but it’s hard to remember. 4 passes though I was so pissed. I was Saturday too. I though Heupel had a decent game plan. That was a dud of a play at a critical time though.
 
#115
#115
sjt18 said:
Can you tell us what the play call was? If it was a straight dive then Pitt anticipated it and stuffed it. If there was a pull option for Hooker then he simply blew it. This has nothing to do with Butch Jones. You are just looking for reasons to tag Heupel with a failure. Let Heupel prove himself. Jones isn't his baggage to carry.
Click to expand...
Heupel mentioned in the post game presser, Hooker didn't have an option on that play. Not knowing how they call the play or if they give the QB a second option after he looks of the defense's alignment, I don't know if the "didn't have and option" is referencing the option to keep or a pre-snap change of play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sjt18
#116
#116
TucsonVol said:
Time to start looking for a new coaching staff! Oh "Danny Boy" needs to man up....
Click to expand...

No, no, no. I do not trust anybody associated with UT to make a competent hire that would be any better than Heupel. Keep him as long as he wants the job. I cannot - I WILL NOT - suffer under another embarrassment like Pruitt.
 
#118
#118
Mccage said:
My point being there are several attempted sneaks each year that fail. There are several snaps from the gun each year that succeed. Vice versa to both. If Hooker keeps it we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Click to expand...
Okay but I still don’t agree with going shotgun there and I never will on any 4th and inches. I would rather get stuffed on the sneak than dropped for a loss 2-3 yards in the backfield.
 
#122
#122
901 Orange said:
U are a very smart football fan. All of it is on Hooker. These are the quick decisions that you hear the coaches talking about. Hooker saw the Saftey come down and a edge rusher squeeze, but at the snap it looked like they were both coming for him. He had his mind made up to give it to Wright. IMHO, Hooker was supposed to ride the back then pull. Had he done that he would have easily gotten the 1st down and may have scored if he could beat the Saftey 1 on 1. If the 1st option was to run right at the defense they would have put a bigger back in the game.
Click to expand...
If “if’s and but’s” were candy and nuts, we’d all have a big freaking party wouldn’t we? You simply call a QB sneak and get the 6 inches and then call whatever you like for the next 4 plays to get in the end zone. Too much can and did go wrong on a shotgun snap in that situation. You just don’t do it.
 
#123
#123
landscapingvol said:
No it isn’t, they aren’t a pro style offense and the line isn’t remotely good enough to run power football. Running from the spread gives our oline the best chance for success whether you agree with it or not
Click to expand...
It’s good enough to get 6 inches on a quarterback sneak.
 
#125
#125
YNWAvols said:
None of what I said matters? So you don’t have the luxury of hindsight being 20/20? What would you be saying if the exact play had worked?
Click to expand...
But it didn’t work, now did it? The result of that is you get second guessed all day, every day when you don’t call the obvious QB sneak.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top