Nobody was saying don't kick the fg on 4th down. Nobody. Playing safe to play for the fg clearly was what those people have complained about.
I figured I would watch it again since you are so adamant about the 11 YPC, maybe emotions were getting the best of me. Play 1: 11 Personnel split zone that ETN cuts back for 11. He's really good at that. Play 2: 11 personnel zone read, very similar to first play with zone read added in, ETN for 5. Play 3: 11 personnel zone read, again at a glance same play 3 times in a row, why stop, ETN for 3. Play 4: 11 personnel, but TE is split wide, WR motions to backfield then goes wide. Zone read, Brown keeps for big run. Play 5: 11 personnel, 3 to the short side, we run a wide zone to the short side. ETN stuffed for -1. Play 6: 21 personnel, EVERYONE bunched (Thought Jackson was a TE). Zone read, Hansen gets blown up, ETN trips over him -1. Play 6: 21 personnel, basically the exact same thing as last play, stretch play? RT, C get absolutely blown off the line, 4 yards in backfield at handoff, ETN inexplicably goes out of bounds, short gain. We went from balanced formations with at least 2 wide and motion man that was averaging 11 YPC, most of which was on a play we were essentially in 4 wide, to running bunch sets that got next to nothing. Yeah they were all runs, but our formations and spread were SIGNIFICANTLY different. BN went to his turtle ball and we got shut down. Don't believe me, watch the plays.
This is what a lot of people don’t understand. They get all “woe is me” claiming that people wanted a bunch of passes or a fake FG. That’s just disingenuous for most posters. There are ways to be creative and aggressive with the running game. We were neither on the last set of downs.
With 26 years in the Army, I would say it is the responsibility of the commander, rather than the fault, but you are right in saying the head coach is ultimately responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen under his leadership.
I suppose I mis-interpreted this. Mea culpa! My excuse is I am very disappointed and thought we would pull this one out and whip F$U next week.
Ok… but had we been more aggressive, and our backup qb made a game-ending mistake… we’d be crucifying Napier. “We we’re running thru them!” “How do you put your backup qb in that spot?” “Why not run and burn clock and make the use timeouts?” Nah… we played it right. After all… 4th and 17.
We still might go whip fsu. We bring 95% of what we did tonight we got a good shot. Brown get reps and a game plan for him opens things up. Can't wait!!
Meaning call plays designed to get a first down, instead of calling plays solely designed to force the opposing team use their timeouts. He went ultra-conservative with 2 minutes left once in FG range. Getting a 1st down in that situation would have left Missouri with at most 1 minute to drive for the FG with no TOs left. I don’t think anyone can argue that Napier didn’t go ultra-conservative after that 17 yard run by Brown.
yeah… but doesn’t this make sense? Unlike the previous drives… in the final plays… the opposition KNEW we were running and intending to burn clock/timeouts. And so it naturally became power running and power formations. No?
To me, our offense is so much stronger than our defense. One more 1st down and Missouri has little to no chance at a game winning FG. We ceded our advantage to Missouri by going into a shell. Our defense had given up chunk plays all game. Even with the 4th and 17, our defense is our weakest unit at this point. Like someone posted above, we stopped doing what got us to that point and went conservative. A first down ices the game, and we sat on the ball like we were playing for a walk off FG.
HOW IS THE WEAK PART OF THE ZONE RIGHT OVER THE MIDDLE AND WHY IS THE LB IN THE MIDDLE NOT RIGHT AT THE DOWN LINE COOK ISN'T DANIELS On the 4th and 17 conversion for Missouri: Billy Napier: “We were in weak rotation. We’ve got multiple players in the area and we’ve got four rushing and he found the soft spot in the zone there. Those are things, we’ll look back at a number of plays in this game and we’ll say, we could have done a little bit better. We had our opportunities for sure.”
Exactly. The threat of the pass spreading them out or even running the spread option was completely telegraphed by the bunched play designs and calls by Napier. He called the aggressive runs off. The runs that got us the TD and in position to win. It was all abandoned for a FG. Then you turn around and give one of the fastest offenses 2:00 to get a FG. Such a shame. You're in position to steal and outplay a top 10 team at their place and you purposely lay down. I just don't get it.
not to bang on the kid, but if ETN stays in bounds… I think we win. But who knows? The other post suggested more creative runs in that spot. I don’t think it would have mattered. The defense was obviously staking against the run…. and we were rightfully gonna run. We switched to power running and power personnel, but that was bc we were running and mizzou knew it. The only argument to be made is that we should have passed the ball. And I don’t agree.
No, it doesn't make sense. We were being very successful running the normal offense, then stopped running the normal offense. There is nothing in life that makes less sense than voluntarily stopping to do the thing that is making you successful. The hyperbolic everyone is a whiner response has no wiggle room for any nuance as to what people are actually seeing. Watching us drive down the field with relative ease running more or less the same play 4 times in a row, then poof, we just stop doing it. Opposition calls a timeout and now we are in 21 we are never going to throw the ball in a million years so penetrate and fill run gaps aggressively personnel.
Yeah- but that is bc in those situations, the threat of a pass was real and reasonable. I don’t think it makes sense to pass there… and mizzou recognized the same, regardless of what package we present.
Ok… but the “normal” offense included the threat of a pass. If you wanna argue we should’ve been open to passing there… fine. I’d disagree. Not with your backup qb in a tight, short field during crunch time.
The defense has to respect the pass, like they have to put a CB on the WR. Why bring those guys into the box? How has that made the task of running the ball easier?
Oh we never should have passed, I will never advocate for it in the situation we were in, but the threat spreads their D and opens up the lanes for ETN and Max. As stated elsewhere, going bunch and power closes all the spread option lanes that we were exploiting. Their D was confused and we were gashing them on those. They actually had to account for Max. The bunch formations started the last series of downs when Napier decided to settle for the FG. You signal you are not going for the aggressive run plays. You abandon what got you there. Missouri barely stopped those spread runs and then it completely gets taken out of the equation for a bunched formation with no WRs meaning it is a total power run.they easily shut those down. They didn't shut down the spread formation runs that were abandoned that led to the previous TD. That's what we are saying.
I think a play-action rollout was the best chance to pick up the first down. Coach Brown to run the ball if the pass wasn’t there. You get Brown outside the pocket and if they attack him, he throws the ball over their head. That would have been the perfect time for that play-action rollout pass Napier calls with Mertz. Instead, we played to our tendencies and played into the hands of the defense. They were clogging the middle, and as a legitimate question, at what point in time this year have we ran the ball well in our power formations? We had a mobile QB who got us to that point and we stopped using him.
