passing on 1st & goal from the 1

by Jay, San Diego, Thursday, June 11, 2009, 08:01 (6258 days ago)
edited by Jay, Thursday, June 11, 2009, 08:05

It's happened 3 times from 2005-2007 (haven't checked 2008 yet).

* Stanford 06: pass to Carlson, TD
* Air Force 06: pass to Carlson, TD
* UCLA 07: sack

Broadening it to 1st & goal from inside the five, add these plays:

* MSU 05: pass to Shark, TD
* UM 06: pass to Shark, TD

Broadening it further to goal-to-go inside the five (any down):

* 19 passes called, 11 touchdowns, 1 sack.

Comparing that to all plays called inside the five over those three years

* we rushed it 39 times.

Reducing it to all first & goal at the 1 yd line:

* 7 plays total, 4 rushes, 3 passes.

------------

If the 1st & goal pass against UCLA was a "bad call", do you have to also assert that the two passes for touchdowns in the same situation were also "bad calls"? Or are basing our conclusions strictly on results? I.E., it's a "bad call" simply because it "didn't work?"

I think the risk/reward is significantly different

by Mike, Sunday, June 14, 2009, 12:12 (6254 days ago) @ Jay

when the play is called with a junior or senior Brady Quinn under center as opposed to a freshman Jimmy Clausen, particularly when that freshman has Bruce Davis coming at his blind side. You're looking at a much higher risk of a sack or interception just to gain one yard.

I don't think it can be a "bad call" if it works.

by ReginaldVelJohnson @, Thursday, June 11, 2009, 10:48 (6257 days ago) @ Jay

I'd call them inadvisable, but I would argue that's different. In fact, this is actually a better example of Weis wanting to run "his system" (contrast with the idea of him refusing to hand Golden Tate the ball 43 times a game, no matter what), instead of just doing what should be easy. Against a very good team, I think the strategy is more defensible than if we are using it against the dregs of our schedule.

only one

by Spesh ⌂ @, Los Angeles, Thursday, June 11, 2009, 08:43 (6257 days ago) @ Jay

1st & Goal against UM. Hughes scored on a stretch play.

There were nine 1st and Goals from inside the 5.

2 passes. One TD. One incompletion. Same play. Worked against Purdue, didn't work against Syracuse. It was the play action pass from a Ride/Sprint fake (hard to tell at times), and a route I have seen described as a Pop. It's what worked with Samardzija so often. The receiver fakes the block, then pops into the middle.

7 runs.

3 runs were stretch plays. All three scored, from the 2-, 2-, and 4-yard lines.

One was a toss play from the 5 (against Hawaii). This lost 7 yards.

One was an inside zone play with the back-ups in against Navy. Dever was destroyed on the right side, and Gray lost 2 yards.

Two are a different kind of run that we often run out of the Two Tites look. The QB always opens up away from the RB, then pivots toward him. It's not a counter though. It's usually some type of dive play inside the guards. One lost 1 yards, and the other picked up 3 yards and the TD as Schwapp blocked two guys on two levels. One of the best plays in his career.

Never argue with one of those mechanical monkeys with...

by domer.mq ⌂ @, Thursday, June 11, 2009, 08:41 (6257 days ago) @ Jay

the tiny little cymbals. No matter what you say, they'll just keep banging away on those tiny little cymbals.

Edited to say: I need to remember my own advice.

--
Sometimes I rhyme slow sometimes I rhyme quick.

in considering it

by Jay, San Diego, Thursday, June 11, 2009, 09:08 (6257 days ago) @ domer.mq

I'm going to go ahead and say all 3 calls were "too cute." I don't know if they were bad...because what is "bad"? But there's no reason not to pound it against Stanford from the 1.

65% runs from inside the 5 probably isn't a bad number

by Jeff (BGS) @, A starter home in suburban Tempe, Thursday, June 11, 2009, 10:32 (6257 days ago) @ Jay

The ideal mix is probably 80/20 run/pass when inside the 5, but based on our running game over the last four year, I'm not sure that 39/19 is necessarily a bad mix, nor a cute one.

My thinking on this fluctuates a lot.

by domer.mq ⌂ @, Thursday, June 11, 2009, 09:28 (6257 days ago) @ Jay

As Spesh points out, these "too cute" plays sure as hell make a defense take notice, and at the very least will put the LBs on their heels just a bit, even if it's SC vs. ND in '07.

Then again, I always go back to that whole, "3 things can happen when you pass, and 2 of them are bad" notion.

Then again, I'd really like to see a breakdown over the last 30 years in CFB of passing vs. running from within the 10, and what results in TD, what results in INT, and what results in Fumble. And then I'd like to see what happens as we approach present day, because my hunch is passing has gotten much, much better over the years, and is far more efficient today than in 79 or 89, and probably even a fair bit more efficient than in 99. The notion of "2 of them are bad" drives me a bit bonkers because it's "playing scared" of a very powerful piece of the game, and it strikes me as a bit odd for a program that revolutionized passing in the sport.

BSU's statue-of-liberty play in their BCS win a few years ago was "too cute," but it was friggin brilliant. So was the hook-and-lateral a few plays before.

Oftentimes, these discussions of "good" versus "bad" offensive tactics strikes me a bit too much like a bunch of efficiency experts talking over "best practices" in the world of business, looking to completely eliminate creativity because they fear risk. Give me grand strokes and splatters and brilliance. Just give me winning while it happens too.

--
Sometimes I rhyme slow sometimes I rhyme quick.

devil's advocate

by Spesh ⌂ @, Los Angeles, Thursday, June 11, 2009, 09:13 (6257 days ago) @ Jay

Does running a play like that against a weaker opponent make other opponents more hesitant to overplay the run? Is there a result (how goal line defenses play ND) that we the fans don't immediately see on television?

(I don't know the answer...just wondering out loud.)

powered by my little forum