a few observations on the last play

[hawkfan2679]

I think the blitz was a good play call for them. They were causing Stanzi all sorts of problems all night by bringing the pressure, plus we just got done driving the field on them while they were laying back in coverage. Lets face it, if they cover on the play they win, if our receiver beat em, we win. We all know what happened.

But we were so close to the goal line, and they completely emptied out the middle of the field...not even Man free. It was strictly Cover 0, mano a mano, and you knew the ball was going to come out quick...or maybe they didn't. Maybe they expected to see a 5 step, slower developing pass play. But when you put 7 guys right on the LOS before the snap, you aren't really hiding what you are going to do.

 

[deanvogs]

Imagine they rush 4 get no pressure, and Stanzi finds an open guy. Your only a genius at play calling if it works. Like I said I understand why they did it, as that was what was most successful for them all night. Plus we ran basically the same play on 3rd down, and they defended it, I'm sure they thought they would do it again.

 

[drew003]

djk was firing up the troops by having a pity party for himself?

I don't think he was having a pity party, I think he was ****** he wasn't in the game though. But I would hope he would be ******. He is the best WR on this team and wants the ball in situations like this. I'm sure DJK felt he could get open. That fact he was celebrating like crazy after the play suggests to me that he wasn't selfish or having a pitty party, but simply thought before the play he was the best option. You want your best players to want the ball in situations like that. He just wanted to win the game.

 

[hawkfan2679]

Imagine they rush 4 get no pressure, and Stanzi finds an open guy. Your only a genius at play calling if it works. Like I said I understand why they did it, as that was what was most successful for them all night. Plus we ran basically the same play on 3rd down, and they defended it, I'm sure they thought they would do it again.

In bold is why I think it's so funny that O'Keefe is getting so much credit for the call. Sure it was a good play call, but any call is a good play call if it works. There wasn't anything special in the play call...there was just perfect execution and MSU did us a favor by giving us the look that allowed our play to work perfectly.

 

[deanvogs]

In bold is why I think it's so funny that O'Keefe is getting so much credit for the call. Sure it was a good play call, but any call is a good play call if it works. There wasn't anything special in the play call...there was just perfect execution and MSU did us a favor by giving us the look that allowed our play to work perfectly.

I was talking about Michigan St. defensive play call. I just meant to make the point that Michigan St. made the same play call 2 plays in a row basically, and so did we. We ran the slant to Stross on 3rd down, and they defended it. The next play we ran the slant to McNutt, and we know what happened on that play.

 

[Thawki]

Hey, hawkfan2679.

I would have called a rollout that would have allowed Stanzi to find multiple receivers or run the ball. By making that call you have several options, as opposed to calling maybe a corner fade, where you just have the one option you are tied into. I have always liked Stanzi on that type of play, as he is mobile and is a threat to run, but he also throws the ball well on the run.

 

[hawkfan2679]

Re: Hey, hawkfan2679.

I would have called a rollout that would have allowed Stanzi to find multiple receivers or run the ball. By making that call you have several options, as opposed to calling maybe a corner fade, where you just have the one option you are tied into. I have always liked Stanzi on that type of play, as he is mobile and is a threat to run, but he also throws the ball well on the run.

It's not that I don't like that play, but it definitely would be my first choice for a couple reasons...

1) It splits the field in half. Unless we overloaded one side with WR's, we're all but eliminating the backside as a threat. Plus, a roll-side blitz could blow the play up before Stanzi gets to the landmark where he'd like to throw the ball.

2) It allows coverage to roll to the rollout side and condense all the zones, making all throws a little tighter. If Stanzi gets to his landmark, the throws are shorter, but they have to be forced into a smaller window.

3) Being in the redzone disallows us to stretch the field vertically and open up the high/low option on the flat defender. If it's cover 2, for example, the corner can play at the goalline or a little in the field of play and still get back to be a factor on a ball thrown near the back of the goalline. Plus, since the safety is rotating over, there is a smaller window to throw, which means the throw has to be more of a "3 iron" than a "lob wedge". That gets dangerous when you start throwing low trajectory balls over defenders.

Again, not that I would hate that play call, but I think it limits the options a bit. I like what the Hawks did...quick 3 step drop and throw. We had a man beater to the McNutt side (and actually the trips side had a man beater as well) and a zone beater to the trips side (which also doubles as a man beater with the double slant/shoot combo). Once Stanzi saw man, he knew where to go with the ball. MSU did a poor job of disguising their intentions.

 

[hawkfan2679]

I was talking about Michigan St. defensive play call. I just meant to make the point that Michigan St. made the same play call 2 plays in a row basically, and so did we. We ran the slant to Stross on 3rd down, and they defended it. The next play we ran the slant to McNutt, and we know what happened on that play.

My bad...I guess I didn't read carefully enough! : )

I guess my point about O'Keefe still stands; however, I see your point as well. If it ain't broke, why fix it? MSU got pressure the first time so they brought it again...credit our guys for beating it.

If I was MSU, I'd be less perturbed with the goalline defense and more perturbed with the 63 yards of "defense" they played preceding that.

 

[Thawki]

Actually, hawkfan2679, I beg to differ with you.

There were a couple of things that were "special" about that call and that make it a great call by KOK.

In the first place, although it was the same pass to a different receiver on the other side of the field, we put Moeaki in motion on fourth down and that led to one-on-one coverage on McNutt.

Secondly, in post-game interviews, McNutt said that he noticed his guy played him to the outside on previous plays on this drive. The Big Ten Network show that analyzed this play during the week, Chris Martin, who did color for the game noted the DB's feet were positioned in a manner that would allow McNutt to get inside position on him. McNutt realized this in advance and told KOK during the timeout that he thought he could win with this play call. KOK had confidence in this and called the play.

What makes it a great call by KOK is that it was the same call as before, which is gutsy; but he added a wrinkle, which is smart. And he has enough intelligence, confidence in himself and humility to take a suggestions from a guy that hasn't even been playing wide receiver for more than a year.

Give the guy some credit, in the event you were trying not to. And if that wasn't the case, I apologize in advance.

 

[hawkfan2679]

Re: Actually, hawkfan2679, I beg to differ with you.

There were a couple of things that were "special" about that call and that make it a great call by KOK.

In the first place, although it was the same pass to a different receiver on the other side of the field, we put Moeaki in motion on fourth down and that led to one-on-one coverage on McNutt.

Secondly, in post-game interviews, McNutt said that he noticed his guy played him to the outside on previous plays on this drive. The Big Ten Network show that analyzed this play during the week, Chris Martin, who did color for the game noted the DB's feet were positioned in a manner that would allow McNutt to get inside position on him. McNutt realized this in advance and told KOK during the timeout that he thought he could win with this play call. KOK had confidence in this and called the play.

What makes it a great call by KOK is that it was the same call as before, which is gutsy; but he added a wrinkle, which is smart. And he has enough intelligence, confidence in himself and humility to take a suggestions from a guy that hasn't even been playing wide receiver for more than a year.

Give the guy some credit, in the event you were trying not to. And if that wasn't the case, I apologize in advance.

I wasn't necessarily trying to slight KOK...I liked the call. I don't know that it was brilliant by any means, but definitely a good call.

To be fair, McNutt was going to be singled up regardless...they brought 7 guys on the blitz, so they only had 4 against our 4 receivers. Moving Moeaki did give McNutt a lot more room to operate, however.

It's funny you mention that about McNutt...I wonder if he started to soil himself when he lined up because his man lined up on him with inside leverage. The CB's outside foot was lined head-up on McNutt's inside foot...it was the jab step that McNutt threw on him that got his feet out of place and his hips opened wide.

And I definitely gotta give him an honorable mention for the brass balls award...running a play suggested by a guy who has been playing WR for less than a year, which we basically had just run on the previous play...I like that moxie.

 

[hawkfan2679]

I actually posted my X's and O's breakdown of the entire final drive on my blog, if anyone was interested. Nothing too extravagant...

 

[deanvogs]

I thought it was brilliant that we got 4 plays off in 15 seconds. We ran the quick plays, and the slant call on 3rd down was great, it only took 3 seconds, allowing the 4th down play. Now on 4th down I thought for sure we would roll out as Hawkfan mentioned, only because time wasn't a factor then. I would have been kind of upset if we had called a rollout on 1st, 2nd, or 3rd downs though, as we wouldn't have gotten a 4th down then.