12/6 @ Marshall (C-USA Championship game)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

Oh, well....then I guess we do need coaches. Only, those who know how to find weaknesses and exploit them. A talent lacking in our play-caller, obviously.

---

I had a problem with how much we were running the ball against Marshall (45 runs). Hogdawg had a problem with how much we were passing the ball (20 passes). You have a problem with not exploiting their weakness (whatever that means, kind of vague). We tried up the middle runs, we tried outside runs, we tried jet sweeps, we tried short throws, intermediate throws, deep throws. We tried play-action. The running game was effective in the 1st half, but not the 2nd half. (maybe Marshall made an adjustment?). What do you think we should have done coach? Flea flicker? Statue of Liberty? Fumblerooskie? Hook and lateral? That's about all we didn't try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T1

What do you think we should have done coach? Flea flicker? Statue of Liberty? Fumblerooskie? Hook and lateral? That's about all we didn't try.

---

You forgot the fake punt, fake field goal, and Annexation of Puerto Rico.

But, yes ... we could've tried any of those.

Seriously, I think we should have gone back to the Southern Miss offense....get the ball to Dixon in the passing game. Put him at inside receiver and let him make some plays in space, or throw that middle screen to him. But who knows if that would have worked either. We could have made some plays with other calls and just couldn't do it. I give credit to Marshall's defense after re-watching the 2nd half.

Fumblerooskie would've gone for 6.

Crossing patterns.... nuff said.

BTW, I watched highlights of the Houston-Cincy game, played in rainy conditions in Cincy, and noted all of the Coogs, including their QB, wearing gloves. Didn't seem to bother them, throwing or catching. Maybe we just had the wrong brand of gloves.

Seriously, getting Dixon the ball, especially out in space, is a good idea. I agree with that. But, alas, we never tried that vs MU. Which only supports my contention about lousy play-calling. Thanks for the help making my point. And, here's another question. Where was Conner Smith Saturday? Like Blake Martin, the Earth seems to have swallowed him up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

Crossing patterns.... nuff said.

BTW, I watched highlights of the Houston-Cincy game, played in rainy conditions in Cincy, and noted all of the Coogs, including their QB, wearing gloves. Didn't seem to bother them, throwing or catching. Maybe we just had the wrong brand of gloves.

Seriously, getting Dixon the ball, especially out in space, is a good idea. I agree with that. But, alas, we never tried that vs MU. Which only supports my contention about lousy play-calling. Thanks for the help making my point. And, here's another question. Where was Conner Smith Saturday? Like Blake Martin, the Earth seems to have swallowed him up.

---

Conner Smith and Terome Grant were filling in for Hunter Lee. Blake Martin appears to be 3rd team behind Dixon and Craft. I guess maybe 4th team since Hunter Lee got some carries against Marshall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T1

You're right, that drive is on the ESPN site. I think I fast-forwarded through the commercials too much. :D I didn't chart those 1st 2 plays.

1st and 10 at LT 34	Kenneth Dixon run for 9 yds to the LaTch 43	17	16
2nd and 1 at LT 43	Kenneth Dixon run for 3 yds to the LaTch 46 for a 1ST down
1st and 10 at LT 46	Cody Sokol pass incomplete
2nd and 10 at LT 46	Carlos Henderson run for a loss of 2 yards to the LaTch 44
3rd and 12 at LT 44	Cody Sokol pass incomplete
4th and 12 at LT 44	Logan McPherson punt for 27 yds, punt out-of-bounds at the Marsh 29

So our runs were: 4, 3, 5, 1, 9, 3, -2, 3, 4, 19, fumble, 6, 5, 0, 5, 3, -4

The 2 incompletions were both good coverage by Marshall. The first one was a play-action bomb to Henderson that Henderson almost made a play on, but couldn't. The 2nd one was the 15 yard pass to Taylor on 3rd and 12 that the Marshall DB tipped away at the last second. I don't see why you would run the ball on 3rd and 12???

Bottom line is that if you re-watch the 2nd half you will have to give credit to Marshall's defense. We couldn't run or pass on them.

---

Thank you. THAT drive chart looks much more accurate.

But to my point, the play calling was terrible (IMO) on first and 2nd down. We shouldn't have been throwing AT ALL. I certainly don't have a problem throwing on 3rd and 12 AFTER we had dug ourselves a hole. But we had just picked up 14 yards on 2 successful run plays, Marshall was puckering, and we let them off the hook!!! First, I didn't like the pass play call on the subsequent 1st down, and I HATED the "end around" trick play called in the driving RAIN on 2nd down. WTF???

Even football neophytes know that running the football sideways for 20 yards on an "end around" instead of "north and south" is never a good idea in a driving rain. Just DUMB football. And Marshall's defense had nothing to do with it. We let them off the hook.

After the first two runs for 14 yards, we should have been running DOWN HILL at that point.

Box score.

Please note that LA Tech averaged 4.4 yards per rush (including any sacks, which are really pass plays) against Marshall, while only averaging 3.6 yds per pass play.

http://espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=400609077

Team Stat Comparison

LT MAR

1st Downs	14	20
3rd down efficiency	4-17	4-15
4th down efficiency	0-0	0-1
Total Yards	268	429
Passing	72	308
Comp-Att	7-20	25-46
Yards per pass	3.6	6.7
Rushing	196	121
Rushing Attempts	45	35
Yards per rush	4.4	3.5
Penalties	4-26	9-75
Turnovers	2	4
Fumbles lost	1	3
Interceptions thrown	1	1
Possession	33:02	33:25

Our passing game sucked. Therefore my biggest complaint concerning play calling was passing on 3rd down.

We never ran enough plays to get in any kind of rhythm. Why the hell holtz couldnt run on 3rd and hopefully leave a 4th and short that we could go for.

Even i could see that mu was gonna keep chipping away our lead if we didnt keep their offense off the field. Plus the punt game played into mu's benefit too.

"Hit the road little piss ant eager eagle. Tt"

Thanks for the comment whoever sent it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hambone29

You're a stubborn smartass.
Obviously weather was the biggest issue, and Sokol couldn't throw well. Neither were Holtz's fault. But when we passed, we were doing 5 and 7 step dropbacks. I don't recall seeing any 3 step quick slants or quick outs, WR screens, swing pass to RBs, etc. That's where I think Holtz didn't do his part. As I've already stated, ultimately it comes down to player execution. But I don't think Holtz helped our struggling QB with his playcalling. It felt like last season.

---

I am neither stubborn nor a smartass. I do understand football and what Holtz was trying to do and why. Don't blame me because you don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stodgdog

I am neither stubborn nor a smartass. I do understand football and what Holtz was trying to do and why. Don't blame me because you don't.

---

Don't worry stodg! I've been called a prick, gigantic prick and an immature POS by some of the Tech faithful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eagle2180

Don't worry stodg! I've been called a prick, gigantic prick and an immature POS by some of the Tech faithful.

---

Hey, if the shoe fits ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Champ967

Hey, if the shoe fits ...

---

:laugh: You're always good for a laugh Champ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stodgdog

I am neither stubborn nor a smartass. I do understand football and what Holtz was trying to do and why. Don't blame me because you don't.

---

Good one. I won't get into a pissing match, but I understand football too. As do many others on this board. Too stubborn to accept that?
Holtz is not a good situational playcaller. His conservative playcalling in close games has cost us a few wins this season. And I don't think anyone wants to revisit last year...