4th Down Call

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Nov 14, 2010
2,611
1,336
743
#62
He makes it and the game is over and its a brilliant gutsy call...he doesn't make it...so you have this thread.
Agreed
We have this thread because he didn't make it

And...

He didn't make it because the play was so poorly designed it didn't have a chance

You get payed $5 million dollars a year, you have to design something that an unemployed guy on social media who can't make his house payment can't diagnose as to why it failed.
 

Rack

Federal Marshal
Oct 13, 2004
18,524
8,365
1,743
Earth
#63
Agreed. I wasn't opposed to going for it. I just thought the play call and execution were awful.
Yeah, I"m not sure why we didn't run the ball there out of the I like we have been doing on a few plays. Or the play we ran in the Cactus Bowl for the first down to the Castleman. But...Baylor made a play on defense and we didn't make that play. Got to credit Baylor for making the plays down the stretch to win...they don't execute well on that play and the offensive drive after it and we win as well. It wasn't just that one play that lost us the game...
 
Last edited:

Mfa6677

Cowboy
A/V Subscriber
Jan 15, 2016
526
545
143
41
Kansas
#64
Yeah, I"m not sure why we didn't run the ball there out of the I like we have been doing on a few plays. Or the play we ran in the Cactus Bowl for the first down to the Cattleman. But...Baylor made a play on defense and we didn't make that play. Got to credit Baylor for making the plays down the stretch to win...they don't execute well on that play and the offensive drive after it and we win as well. It wasn't just that one play that lost us the game...
No one is saying that one play lost the game. This is a message board to discuss these things. People are discussing it. Simple as that.
 
Nov 28, 2008
4,212
1,265
1,743
#66
Not gonna nitpick every call from the game, & no, I'm not saying fire Gundy, but that was an absolutely stupid call to go for it there.

Football 101 & Gundy failed it on that call.
I didn't have any problem with it. This play works a vast majority of the time. It seems like the TE got caught in the wash and didn't know what to do--due probably to his inexperience at the position (former QB). BU made a really good effort to blow it up. Our QB really should have thrown it away. That's the BIGGEST mistake of all.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
24,957
31,175
1,743
oklahoma city
#67
What I am saying is that, while I was there, we had three multi-year starters and we offered them and not Taylor Cornelius. Didn’t think he had enough zip on his passes and struggled with passes outside the hashes and downfield.
Being that he has been named the starter for a team and the offensive player of the week in a power five conference of D1 football, what exactly is the lesson we are trying to learn here?
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,968
18,019
1,743
#70
Does Yurcich know what a quick slant is? It’s either lateral pass or long ball. Zero intermediate or short routes past the line of scrimmage. My coaching experience may only be at the D2 level but that is a good way to let a defense pin their ears back and come after ya.
Just a guess, but I’ll go with yes.
 

GumbyFromPokeyLand

Wrangler
A/V Subscriber
Sep 29, 2011
93
18
558
59
Breckenridge, CO
#71
If they are in man across the board, everyone is covered, including the H either by a LB or safety.
There is a defense to defeat any play.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It couldn't have been a safety because 1 can safety was chasing Stoner and the other one would have been covering the Tight End.

That leaves the OLB to cover the H, and if he does then there is no one accounting for the quarterback and he runs for the 1st down.

Like I said, go back and watch how we set it up against Texas with a Tight End and you'll see how it works.
Please. You act like your idea of playcall is undefensible. If that play would work every time, we’d run it 75 times a game. You’re still using the benefit of hindsight of the defense and personnel Baylor had on the field. Any offensive play can be stopped with the correct well executed defense. We had play with 3 options. Baylor blew it up and/or we had bad execution. It happens. And it doesn’t make the playcall bad.

This is what is so hilarious about all the second-guessers and internet coaches. They would have everybody believe our coaches are idiots and they not only have the playcalls and gameplans that would work, but our opponents defensive coaches are also idiots and don’t know how to call defenses.

It’s truly comical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GumbyFromPokeyLand

Wrangler
A/V Subscriber
Sep 29, 2011
93
18
558
59
Breckenridge, CO
#72
He makes it and the game is over and its a brilliant gutsy call...he doesn't make it...so you have this thread.
Agreed
We have this thread because he didn't make it

And...

He didn't make it because the play was so poorly designed it didn't have a chance

You get payed $5 million dollars a year, you have to design something that an unemployed guy on social media who can't make his house payment can't diagnose as to why it failed.
Sounds like that unemployed guy is really a total idiot. He could be earning millions, instead he plays the fools game of internet keyboard jockey.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GumbyFromPokeyLand

Wrangler
A/V Subscriber
Sep 29, 2011
93
18
558
59
Breckenridge, CO
#73
It couldn't have been a safety because 1 can safety was chasing Stoner and the other one would have been covering the Tight End.

That leaves the OLB to cover the H, and if he does then there is no one accounting for the quarterback and he runs for the 1st down.

Like I said, go back and watch how we set it up against Texas with a Tight End and you'll see how it works.
Gumby obviously forgot that the QB could run and was only considering the pass coverage. Once he realized it, he tried to back out by saying he's not an expert.
Uh, no. I repeated what Yurcich said, the play was designed with two options - TC run, or throw to Woods.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GumbyFromPokeyLand

Wrangler
A/V Subscriber
Sep 29, 2011
93
18
558
59
Breckenridge, CO
#74
Dude, it ain’t me that has all the answers. I leave that for all the know-it-alls. Nobody, repeat nobody that posts here or elsewhere knows near enough about the combination of our playbook, what we practice, the reads and the defenses we face to give a meaningful consistent assessment/critique of the play calls or game plans. From a fans standpoint, it either works or it doesn’t.

Carry on with your “fade”, whatever the hell that means.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You claim to not have the answers but spend your time on message boards explaining to others why they don’t have the answers by using your thoughts. Hilarious. And you know exactly what my fade means. You talk plenty about gambling and quote those fake odds put out by casinos about what money is bet Which by the way is hysterical. You really think casinos would post that info and it be accurate lol
I guess you won money on the UT game by taking Vegas’ side of the bet, huh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nov 14, 2010
2,611
1,336
743
#75
Please. You act like your idea of playcall is undefensible. If that play would work every time, we’d run it 75 times a game. You’re still using the benefit of hindsight of the defense and personnel Baylor had on the field. Any offensive play can be stopped with the correct well executed defense. We had play with 3 options. Baylor blew it up and/or we had bad execution. It happens. And it doesn’t make the playcall bad.

This is what is so hilarious about all the second-guessers and internet coaches. They would have everybody believe our coaches are idiots and they not only have the playcalls and gameplans that would work, but our opponents defensive coaches are also idiots and don’t know how to call defenses.

It’s truly comical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This post is great!

You got all high on your horse, made fun of the fans on this board, then got your ass kicked in the discussion by those same fans, and now have no idea what to do or say.

So you will keep repeating the blah blah blah that I have already disproved.

I've shown you, in detail, why the setup was bad and have explained exactly what needed to happen to make it work.

Then used the example of how we did it last week exactly as I was describing.

Meaning
Yurcich ran the play last week EXACTLY as I said it needed to be setup up for it to work this week.

I'm enjoying watching you smear egg all over your face.

The more you post, the more you smear the egg

It's great!

Keep going!

Please!
 
Last edited:

Mfa6677

Cowboy
A/V Subscriber
Jan 15, 2016
526
545
143
41
Kansas
#76
I guess you won money on the UT game by taking Vegas’ side of the bet, huh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As stated elsewhere I stayed off that game as the line was very low vs perception. I generally fade us when we are favorites so I can bet plus money. Like last year I had ou *130 ml. And hit them again live first quarter when we had the lead. 2013 I took ou +305. Knew either we’d be big 12 champs and I’d be fine losing money or I’d have 1515.00 to comfort me. However I have been known to open parlays against us when we are dogs. Such as 2015 bedlam/ole miss/Baylor ml paid enough to cover my bowl trip to the sugar bowl
 
Last edited:
Nov 28, 2008
4,212
1,265
1,743
#77
In an attempt to talk about play design...... (and get away from the personal nature of these posts)... am I right to say the "TE" typically lines up to the same side as the naked boot in these cases? It appeared to me that Woods had to come from the other side and got caught-up in the wash and -- perhaps due to inexperience at that position -- didn't know what to do.

Worse, the QB didn't either but I'm *NOT* going there with this particular post.

To reiterate: I had no problem with the naked boot b/c it works so often. I see it all the time -- in fact, in another game i was watching later that same day. BU just got the better of us in multiple ways, IMO.
 

PokeIncognito

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Aug 1, 2013
5,709
4,115
743
#78
In an attempt to talk about play design...... (and get away from the personal nature of these posts)... am I right to say the "TE" typically lines up to the same side as the naked boot in these cases? It appeared to me that Woods had to come from the other side and got caught-up in the wash and -- perhaps due to inexperience at that position -- didn't know what to do.

Worse, the QB didn't either but I'm *NOT* going there with this particular post.

To reiterate: I had no problem with the naked boot b/c it works so often. I see it all the time -- in fact, in another game i was watching later that same day. BU just got the better of us in multiple ways, IMO.
It’s common to have the H back line up opposite the bootleg side/away from the call. It’s a compliment to the inside zone split/zone read split series.