Official Louisvile Postgame Thread

On a related misdirection-oriented note...

At least several times a game we line up in obvious illegal passing formations. (8 players on the line of scrimmage, typically with a slot receiver covered.) I noticed this from the first game. We consistently run out of these formations and so avoid penalties. Anyone know if we're doing this on purpose for some reason? Seems like an obvious tell to the defense of what's coming, but maybe we can take advantage of this in some way later in the season?
 
gtleviathan said:
On a related misdirection-oriented note...

At least several times a game we line up in obvious illegal passing formations. (8 players on the line of scrimmage, typically with a slot receiver covered.) I noticed this from the first game. We consistently run out of these formations and so avoid penalties. Anyone know if we're doing this on purpose for some reason? Seems like an obvious tell to the defense of what's coming, but maybe we can take advantage of this in some way later in the season?
Click to expand...

Why do you think that is illegal?
 
coit said:
Why do you think that is illegal?
Click to expand...
It's illegal if a forward pass is attempted. (In that case, only 7 can be on the line of scrimmage.) In the NFL, it's illegal whether or not a forward pass is attempted, if I understand correctly.
 
gtleviathan said:
It's illegal if a forward pass is attempted. (In that case, only 7 can be on the line of scrimmage.) In the NFL, it's illegal whether or not a forward pass is attempted, if I understand correctly.
Click to expand...

Can you snag a screenshot of what you are referring to? It seems odd to me that the refs would let this go on a regular basis.
 
CPJ had a play or two with a non eligible receiver lined up outside.
 
vapspwi said:
Not sure what to believe about some of this stuff when I hear different people state opposite things as facts.

I hear some people say that while our run blocking is suspect, our pass blocking is OK (0 sacks allowed). Could be that they’re not looking at hurries and King is doing a good job of getting the ball out and avoiding sacks.

I hear some people say that King has a somewhat weak arm on deep throws with a long wind-up and under throws (like the deep ball to Singleton Saturday where he had to slow up and wait).

I feel like we’ve got some dudes banged up - Haynes hasn’t looked 100%, King looks a little banged up sometimes, several RBs have gone MIA, even Malik has been slow to get up after catches a few times. I hope that with an extra week of rest and a (probably) less physical game against Duke, we can get some things cleaned up. These next couple of games are pretty important to our chances at a .500 or better record.

JRjr
Click to expand...

We are banged up and the bye week couldn't have come at a better time. Last Saturday we didn't have the original starting 5 OLs from the beginning of the season. The pass protection was OK against Louisville but they were getting to him faster. The glaring thing we all saw was the run blocking. That certainly suffered without the OL starters. Obviously it's the next man up mentality but the one thing that the top flight 'factory' programs have is a true 2-deep along the offensive and defensive fronts. We're starting to recruit much better along both but it's going to take a few more recruiting cycles. Good news is the transfer portal can help with that. I never like to call out names but the one transfer on the OL at T that was filling in was getting beaten regularly last Sat. Louisville has a solid defensive front and they are well coached.
 
coit said:
Can you snag a screenshot of what you are referring to? It seems odd to me that the refs would let this go on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
I'll see if I can find a timestamp on Youtube tonight. But they "let it go" because we never pass out of it, so there's no penalty. Whenever I see it I know for certain it's a run play. I'd assume our opponents can do the same.
 
JJacket said:
CPJ had a play or two with a non eligible receiver lined up outside.
Click to expand...
Yes, but he'd have an eligible receiver lined up at tackle when he did this. He was basically trying to trick the defense into "accounting" for an extra receiver that wasn't actually eligible. I don't think that's what we're doing here. If this is truly something we're doing on purpose, maybe we're hoping the defense ignores the "ineligible" receiver and then we can do a quick shift (basically the receiver just steps back one step) before the snap and make a quick pass to the uncovered receiver? I don't know, seems a bit galaxy-brained if that's what we're doing but maybe it could work...
 
gtleviathan said:
Yes, but he'd have an eligible receiver lined up at tackle when he did this. He was basically trying to trick the defense into "accounting" for an extra receiver that wasn't actually eligible. I don't think that's what we're doing here. If this is truly something we're doing on purpose, maybe we're hoping the defense ignores the "ineligible" receiver and then we can do a quick shift (basically the receiver just steps back one step) before the snap and make a quick pass to the uncovered receiver? I don't know, seems a bit galaxy-brained if that's what we're doing but maybe it could work...
Click to expand...

Delete this post in 1 hour.
 
coit said:
Can you snag a screenshot of what you are referring to? It seems odd to me that the refs would let this go on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
IMG_2248.jpeg


Here’s one example. So, on rewatch, I think the top receiver did motion slightly to the side judge that he was off the LOS. Maybe that’s what’s happening each time I see this and I’m just missing it. But if I were judging this formation without that context I’d say there were 8 men on the LOS here.

I will say that every time it looks really close like this that I’ve noticed, it’s been a run, not a pass. Maybe that’s just a coincidence, though.
 
gtleviathan said:
IMG_2248.jpeg


Here’s one example. So, on rewatch, I think the top receiver did motion slightly to the side judge that he was off the LOS. Maybe that’s what’s happening each time I see this and I’m just missing it. But if I were judging this formation without that context I’d say there were 8 men on the LOS here.

I will say that every time it looks really close like this that I’ve noticed, it’s been a run, not a pass. Maybe that’s just a coincidence, though.
Click to expand...

He’s being defended so it must be legal and the defense is aware.
 
coit said:
He’s being defended so it must be legal and the defense is aware.
Click to expand...
i think you're correct.
also the right tackle looks defended and appears to be eligible.
maybe they will only throw it if the RT is undefended?
 
coit said:
He’s being defended so it must be legal and the defense is aware.
Click to expand...
That doesn't mean anything. Several teams will send ineligible players out wide just to draw a defender out there because the defender is unsure if the player is eligible. FSU does it on a few plays.
 
BuzzinWreck78 said:
i think you're correct.
also the right tackle looks defended and appears to be eligible.
maybe they will only throw it if the RT is undefended?
Click to expand...
It’s a good call that the right tackle is uncovered. I guess it really is basically the old CPJ formation. Credit to @JJacket .
 
gtleviathan said:
IMG_2248.jpeg


Here’s one example. So, on rewatch, I think the top receiver did motion slightly to the side judge that he was off the LOS. Maybe that’s what’s happening each time I see this and I’m just missing it. But if I were judging this formation without that context I’d say there were 8 men on the LOS here.

I will say that every time it looks really close like this that I’ve noticed, it’s been a run, not a pass. Maybe that’s just a coincidence, though.
Click to expand...
As noted earlier, not unlike a formation PJ ran with two receivers on the line. The inside guy is ineligible, so he can't catch the ball but I think he can go a couple of yards downfield. The Patriots have done it too in the past and ran out of it. You have to have at least seven men on the line of scrimmage. Is it illegal to put 10 on the line and just have the QB or a wildcat RB in the backfield?
 
swampsting said:
As noted earlier, not unlike a formation PJ ran with two receivers on the line. The inside guy is ineligible, so he can't catch the ball but I think he can go a couple of yards downfield. The Patriots have done it too in the past and ran out of it. You have to have at least seven men on the line of scrimmage. Is it illegal to put 10 on the line and just have the QB or a wildcat RB in the backfield?
Click to expand...
You can put everyone but the QB in the line. You just can't have too many off the line
 
Dirty Jacket said:
Where is Pyron under center with 4th and less than 1? Wild play calling today. Disappointing.
Click to expand...
Perhaps CPJ needs to teach our QB's how to take a snap from under the center when it's 3rd or 4th and short, taking a snap from under the center seems to be a lost art, IMHO!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top