cmhawks99
Well-Known Member
While I have no problem admitting it seems strange in hindsight, even poor maybe. I also commend the coaches for trying, trying trying all that they could.
here's the play that baffled me
- Thread starter NCHawker
- Start date
While I have no problem admitting it seems strange in hindsight, even poor maybe. I also commend the coaches for trying, trying trying all that they could.
Billso
Well-Known Member
I agree with that. What you're missing, and what annoys people, is that you're doing exactly what you accuse others of. You opened your manifesto with "It is truly remarkable that there are fans out there that think a play doesn't have to be blocked" - honestly, did anyone here say execution doesn't matter? - then continued with dripping condescension like "Again something people don't understand..."
Certainly, we're all aware of track stars who failed to make a dent in college or NFL play.
HawkeyeWalker
Well-Known Member
I would take 5 Steve Largents over the 5 fastest wrs ever. But I would love 5 fast Steve Largents.
Speed AND fundamentals is the dream.
Speed AND fundamentals is the dream.
1105Kickoff
Member
Follow the fullback. This was supposed to inside of Scherff, but due the safety or LB coming upfield, the path of the play did not take shape as it was supposed to. The kickout block was not a kickout, and due to going outside Weisman eliminated the opportunity for his FB to get a block. LSU had a well coached defense and they played well.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
<<LSU had a well coached defense and they played well>>
Exactly. And quite simply, we played "up" a bowl, they played "down" a bowl, what with MSU beating OSU (who still was a 2nd B1G BCS team), while Bama was a 2nd $EC BCS team, Missouri (sort of by default) got Cotton and South Carolina (as $EC East runner-up) got Cap One. LSU could easily have played "up" a bowl or two.
Still, MW managed to make it back to the LOS, give or take a half yard. That, alone, is something most of our RBs would not have been able to do on that play.
hawkfan2679
Well-Known Member
Nailed it. That was a variant on the pin and pull scheme, where the motioning TE pins the DE and Scherff pulls around. The rest of the line looked like they were zone blocking to play side. But they were essentially trying to cross block at the point of attack and the safety made a heck of a read and destroyed Scherff, making a pile in the backfield.
Here's what it looked like they were TRYING to do (isolating just the left side of the line):
....CB..................OLB
..S.................DE
.......WR.............T
...................H
.........................F
They lined up heavy to the right with just Hillyer eligible to the left and it appeared LSU switched to an under front to compensate for the extra beef to the offense's right side. They didn't do anything on the motion formationally, although the safety did shuffle outside of Hillyer, indicating he's most definitely the contain player to that side. I believe the plan was for our H to crack (or pin) the DE, Hillyer would crack the OLB, our T would pull out on the corner/safety and the F would take corner/safety (whoever was left). So the outside in players (WR and H) created the inner wall, the inside out players (T and F) created the outside wall, and Weisman was supposed to take the pitch between those walls (thus the cross block mention above). But due to the proximity of the alignment of the T and F positions, the safety blowing up Scherff really took out both blockers, leaving the CB completely free...the safety strung him out and LSU's speed did the rest.
Let's not forget the greatest WR in the history of the NFL was also "slow" Jerry Rice.
Thanks for the great info. Why the pitch? I think some see the pitch and think "space play", where the offense is trying to isolate a dynamic playmaker on a defender in space; as you described, this is not such a play. Does the pitch give a more downhill angle of attack in the alley they are trying to create?
It seems the coaches anticipated the personnel/defensive formation they would get with their 2 TE (almost 3 with Hillyer)/FB/Weisman personnel and tight formation, and they thought they could take advantage. I wonder if opposing teams change personnel/schemes based upon the tailback that Iowa has in games, or if they just focus on the # of TEs/FBs?
hawkfan2679
Well-Known Member
I have no idea why they went with the pitch to Weisman. On the pro side, you probably get the ball to the RB quicker (deeper to allow for a more downhill lane as you mentioned) in a pitch situation and it also might set up the defense to fast flow outside when they think it's a sweep. So you hope the outside defenders fly outside just in time to catch Scherff and Cox kicking out, creating the hole for Weisman (in theory). On the con side, you lose your play action game when you use the pitch as the defensive flow knows immediately where the ball is and isn't. I didn't watch it again, but it seemed like there wasn't a ton of difference between the OS Zone aiming point and this pitch play's aiming point.
In the same vein as the rest of the thread, had the safety not blown Scherff and Cox up in the backfield, the play would have netted decent yards (or so it appeared). I know, I know...newsflash, plays work well when they are blocked well. But Hillyer did a good job on the crack, as did Hamilton (?, motioning TE). We had hat-on-hat and it would have been Weisman vs. the FS.
