Note to Coach Fisch

Donate To GopherHole
P

PlymouthGopherFan

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
100
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Weak O-line should = quick passes

If our line is weak, we need to do some quick passes...slants, outs, etc. 3 step drop and pass.

OR

Screen pass. Let them through and throw it. I didn't see that much today. A shuttle pass worked okay in the first half.

Either way, if you are Weber (or Gray) you need to have a clock in your head...you have about 3 seconds to make a decision, then either run it or throw it away.
 

Maybe Jebidiah should study more game film instead of staring at a picture of Ivan Drago......I mean Jon Gruden.....that is taped to his mirror.:cool02:
 



PlymouthGopherFan said:
Weak O-line should = quick passes

If our line is weak, we need to do some quick passes...slants, outs, etc. 3 step drop and pass.

OR

Screen pass. Let them through and throw it. I didn't see that much today. A shuttle pass worked okay in the first half.

Either way, if you are Weber (or Gray) you need to have a clock in your head...you have about 3 seconds to make a decision, then either run it or throw it away.
Click to expand...

You obviously did not watch the game today. Weber had 15-20 seconds on every single snap except a few.
 



ha ha

Ha ha...take out your watch and time 10-15 seconds. Let's see if you can even sit still that long.

Most QBs only have a short window to make a decision, I think our O-line gives our QBs even less time than average. A 3 step drop would force a quick decision from Mr. Weber.
 

PlymouthGopherFan said:
Ha ha...take out your watch and time 10-15 seconds. Let's see if you can even sit still that long.

Most QBs only have a short window to make a decision, I think our O-line gives our QBs even less time than average. A 3 step drop would force a quick decision from Mr. Weber.
Click to expand...

What's important here is making Adam decide more quickly. I know little about the in's and out's of line play but it seemed like they did their job most plays today giving us time to make a play. Weber can't sit back and go through every progression and then look surprised when someone's running into him. Long way of saying ya I'd be all for a 3 step drop and quick slants, but not because our line is failing us.
 

Near average

My take was that Weber had a goodly amount of time on most of plays. There were times when it seemed that every defender came and everyone got through. While that is attention getting there were other plays where it seemed like Weber had a near eternity.

It did seem to me that the kitchen sink approach was found to be effective by ILL, when they attempted it.

PlymouthGopherFan said:
Ha ha...take out your watch and time 10-15 seconds. Let's see if you can even sit still that long.

Most QBs only have a short window to make a decision, I think our O-line gives our QBs even less time than average. A 3 step drop would force a quick decision from Mr. Weber.
Click to expand...
 



Shuttle pass

Help me out...What is the pass called when the QB pitches the ball forward to the running back?
 


Found this on a site...

I searched shuttle pass...I was very wrong. Here is what I found on a site:

A SHOVEL PASS is a very short forward pass usually to a receiver who is still in the offensive backfield and moving sideways. (Imagine using your hands like a shovel to pass the ball.)

A SHUTTLE PASS is what happens when a dumbass Quarterback is falling backward (due to tripping, sacks, etc.), but instead of trying to hang on to the ball, he launches it straight up in the air like the flipping Space Shuttle - only to be caught by the Defense.

A SHUFFLE PASS is where a dumbass receiver is paying more attention to the music - doing dance steps to look cool - instead of trying to catch the damn ball.

Writing about football using the words SHUTTLE PASS and SHUFFLE PASS is what happens when a dumbass poster doesn't know what a SHOVEL PASS is - and they are trying to sound like they know what they are talking about.
 

PlymouthGopherFan said:
I searched shuttle pass...I was very wrong. Here is what I found on a site:

A SHOVEL PASS is a very short forward pass usually to a receiver who is still in the offensive backfield and moving sideways. (Imagine using your hands like a shovel to pass the ball.)

A SHUTTLE PASS is what happens when a dumbass Quarterback is falling backward (due to tripping, sacks, etc.), but instead of trying to hang on to the ball, he launches it straight up in the air like the flipping Space Shuttle - only to be caught by the Defense.

A SHUFFLE PASS is where a dumbass receiver is paying more attention to the music - doing dance steps to look cool - instead of trying to catch the damn ball.

Writing about football using the words SHUTTLE PASS and SHUFFLE PASS is what happens when a dumbass poster doesn't know what a SHOVEL PASS is - and they are trying to sound like they know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

Oops you were serious. I decided to post in this thread as it seemed light and humorous. My fault.
 



Weber had adequate time today most of the time. IMHO the O Line was very good today, Weber was incapable of handling his progressions.
 

Not serious

No problem Monk. My point was serious, but I don't care if I got the name of the play wrong. I searched "shuttle pass" and found that answer...pretty funny stuff.
 

PlymouthGopherFan said:
I searched shuttle pass...I was very wrong. Here is what I found on a site:

A SHOVEL PASS is a very short forward pass usually to a receiver who is still in the offensive backfield and moving sideways. (Imagine using your hands like a shovel to pass the ball.)

A SHUTTLE PASS is what happens when a dumbass Quarterback is falling backward (due to tripping, sacks, etc.), but instead of trying to hang on to the ball, he launches it straight up in the air like the flipping Space Shuttle - only to be caught by the Defense.

A SHUFFLE PASS is where a dumbass receiver is paying more attention to the music - doing dance steps to look cool - instead of trying to catch the damn ball.

Writing about football using the words SHUTTLE PASS and SHUFFLE PASS is what happens when a dumbass poster doesn't know what a SHOVEL PASS is - and they are trying to sound like they know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

LOL!! This is the funniest post I've ever read on this board!

:clap:
 

Amazing how ever since the PSU game the announcers praise our O-Line for giving Weber time but the posters on this board still think it's their fault.......
 

thailleagle said:
Amazing how ever since the PSU game the announcers praise our O-Line for giving Weber time but the posters on this board still think it's their fault.......
Click to expand...

How many QB hurries did Illinois have? Are those statistics even tracked?
 


monk10 said:
How many QB hurries did Illinois have? Are those statistics even tracked?
Click to expand...

A QB hurry still counts as a hurry if the QB has 5 seconds to throw but then the DL gets to the QB and hits him as he releases it.

The OL was not the problem in yesterday's game. Weber had adequate time to throw but hung in the pocket too long which resulted in sacks or "hurries".
 

This game was the first time this year where I really got down on the coaching. I know we hit the two long passes for touchdowns right away against Michigan State, but I'm not sure why we kept trying to pass long time after time in the first half. I think that kept us from getting into any sort of a rhythm.

We really didn't try to establish any sort of a running attack in the first half. I think we made two first downs in a row after a while running, and then we went away from it again. We were more successful in the second half running, but I wish they'd just let one back go for a while instead of alternating the 3 of them. Most running attacks feature one back as they wear the defense down. Maybe our backs aren't big enough to do that, but I'd think it would be hard to establish the rhythm and timing you get when an offense gets rolling if you're always subbing backs.

Along the same lines, Gray now needs some continuous plays. Coming in for one down, running one play, and heading for the sidelines isn't doing much. Again, it's no rhythm and no timing. He had someone wide open (McKnight?) and missed him badly, but I would think if he had been in for a few plays his chances of completion would have been a lot better.

I've already sputtered about the play calling on their one but having a hard time letting it go. Hoese is really running hard now. With our offense and Weber, the chances of a disastrous play are much greater passing. Why resort to a pass in that situation? I'm sure most fans might come up with some dangers of a pass play down there: motion, holding, interception, or sack anyone?

Finally, we had kicked off once out of bounds. Why go back to it when we absolutely can't afford them good field position? I know you're trying to pin the returner against a sideline but are you really playing the odds right? The game before, kicking off to the corner didn't exactly pin the Michigan State returner. Just not worth the chance of giving them the ball on the 40. Of course, with the missed tackle by Simmons I'm not sure field position makes any difference with this team.

I think Studwell was the first GHer I noticed to bring up the "no identity" criticism. It was never more apparent than in yesterday's game. With bigger running backs, an improved offensive line, and a consistent quarterback I hope we can get rid of "no identity" next year. Not calling for anyone's head, not that it makes one bit of difference what I think. But as Charles Barkley said about another sport, "It ain't rocket science," so this staff should be able to figure it out.
 

Mulligan said:
This game was the first time this year where I really got down on the coaching. I know we hit the two long passes for touchdowns right away against Michigan State, but I'm not sure why we kept trying to pass long time after time in the first half. I think that kept us from getting into any sort of a rhythm.

We really didn't try to establish any sort of a running attack in the first half. I think we made two first downs in a row after a while running, and then we went away from it again. We were more successful in the second half running, but I wish they'd just let one back go for a while instead of alternating the 3 of them. Most running attacks feature one back as they wear the defense down. Maybe our backs aren't big enough to do that, but I'd think it would be hard to establish the rhythm and timing you get when an offense gets rolling if you're always subbing backs.

Along the same lines, Gray now needs some continuous plays. Coming in for one down, running one play, and heading for the sidelines isn't doing much. Again, it's no rhythm and no timing. He had someone wide open (McKnight?) and missed him badly, but I would think if he had been in for a few plays his chances of completion would have been a lot better.

I've already sputtered about the play calling on their one but having a hard time letting it go. Hoese is really running hard now. With our offense and Weber, the chances of a disastrous play are much greater passing. Why resort to a pass in that situation? I'm sure most fans might come up with some dangers of a pass play down there: motion, holding, interception, or sack anyone?

Finally, we had kicked off once out of bounds. Why go back to it when we absolutely can't afford them good field position? I know you're trying to pin the returner against a sideline but are you really playing the odds right? The game before, kicking off to the corner didn't exactly pin the Michigan State returner. Just not worth the chance of giving them the ball on the 40. Of course, with the missed tackle by Simmons I'm not sure field position makes any difference with this team.

I think Studwell was the first GHer I noticed to bring up the "no identity" criticism. It was never more apparent than in yesterday's game. With bigger running backs, an improved offensive line, and a consistent quarterback I hope we can get rid of "no identity" next year. Not calling for anyone's head, not that it makes one bit of difference what I think. But as Charles Barkley said about another sport, "It ain't rocket science," so this staff should be able to figure it out.
Click to expand...

Amen brother...if not, there will be another staff down the road as sure as Gs make holes.
 

Big enough????

"Most running attacks feature one back as they wear the defense down. Maybe our backs aren't big enough to do that."

What the Hell!!!! We have a 235# fullback who has shown time and again that he can gain yardage. Not flashy yardage but not losses.

Brewster has been spouting off about "smashmouth" football since last year. To that end he has changed OC's (again) and keeps running those 180-200# backs instead of Hoese.

I heard him again today on the Sid and Dave show praising Hoese but that doesn't seem to translate into more carries. We get our ass kicked by Wisconsin and their 245# back and Brewster drools all over that.

We have the tools to do that but not the coaching. Brewster and his staff have taken Weber and destroyed his confidence, changed his motion and made him mostly ineffective. Brewsters game plan is also ineffective unless he can get a 2 touchdown headstart.

I'm not calling for Brewster's hide but I sure hope the players he has coming up (recruiting class and redchirts) can overcome the mess of this year.
 

Note, you should not play action on virtually every pass.

Also, it can't be that hard to constantly be in Weber's ear telling him to throw the ball away. If he won't throw it away, he should be pulled from the next series. Its not that hard.
 


Mulligan said:
This game was the first time this year where I really got down on the coaching. I know we hit the two long passes for touchdowns right away against Michigan State, but I'm not sure why we kept trying to pass long time after time in the first half. I think that kept us from getting into any sort of a rhythm.

We really didn't try to establish any sort of a running attack in the first half. I think we made two first downs in a row after a while running, and then we went away from it again. We were more successful in the second half running, but I wish they'd just let one back go for a while instead of alternating the 3 of them. Most running attacks feature one back as they wear the defense down. Maybe our backs aren't big enough to do that, but I'd think it would be hard to establish the rhythm and timing you get when an offense gets rolling if you're always subbing backs.

Along the same lines, Gray now needs some continuous plays. Coming in for one down, running one play, and heading for the sidelines isn't doing much. Again, it's no rhythm and no timing. He had someone wide open (McKnight?) and missed him badly, but I would think if he had been in for a few plays his chances of completion would have been a lot better.

I've already sputtered about the play calling on their one but having a hard time letting it go. Hoese is really running hard now. With our offense and Weber, the chances of a disastrous play are much greater passing. Why resort to a pass in that situation? I'm sure most fans might come up with some dangers of a pass play down there: motion, holding, interception, or sack anyone?

Finally, we had kicked off once out of bounds. Why go back to it when we absolutely can't afford them good field position? I know you're trying to pin the returner against a sideline but are you really playing the odds right? The game before, kicking off to the corner didn't exactly pin the Michigan State returner. Just not worth the chance of giving them the ball on the 40. Of course, with the missed tackle by Simmons I'm not sure field position makes any difference with this team.

I think Studwell was the first GHer I noticed to bring up the "no identity" criticism. It was never more apparent than in yesterday's game. With bigger running backs, an improved offensive line, and a consistent quarterback I hope we can get rid of "no identity" next year. Not calling for anyone's head, not that it makes one bit of difference what I think. But as Charles Barkley said about another sport, "It ain't rocket science," so this staff should be able to figure it out.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with everything here except with your (and 99% of others) take on the play action call on second and 1.

I really am finding it hard to fault Fisch for making that call on second down based on what he saw on 1st down. Please note I'm saying "making the call", not the execution. On the first down run, Hoese ran into the flat and had no one on him. On second down, I think we were expecting Il to sell out on the run (like they did on first down) and we'd have a wide open TE or FB in the flat/endzone. Fisch figures we do play action to get them to bite hard on the run and either get an easy TD or we throw it away. If it doesn't work out, it's 3rd and 1. I think he saw the combination of the result of first down (getting stuffed) and how they defended us on 1st down and it led him to believe that play action was the way to go.

During the first down play, even I could see that they weren't covering at least one guy (Hoese and there might have been a TE as well) and we didn't really get a good push with our OL. That's why I could agree with making the play action call on second down incase they repeated that D on second. You really can't focus on what could go wrong with play action (motion, holding, interception or sack) as there are just as many things that could go wrong on a run play (false start, holding, clipping, fumble the exchange). We just assume that a run there would have been mistake free or at least no loss of yardage.

I will absolutely say that the execution on the play was terrible. I'm not sure what the defense was showing so I'm not sure if Weber should have changed the play at the line, but obviously, we didn't see their rush coming that quick or that uneven (were 2 of their guys unblocked?). I haven't seen the replay, but from what I remember I think Weber could/should have got rid of the ball. He's got to know what's happening and know if he doesn't have time to look for the receiver (just throw it out the endzone).

I guess looking back at it, yeah, knowing we would get sacked, he should have called a run play. I just don't like how we always associate bad execution with bad play calling/coaching.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom