Paul Johnson needs to go

18in32 said:
That 2011 NC State game is not available on YouTube. But I wonder if all three of those were induced by CPJ's 'draw 'em off' play? As I mentioned in the previous post, sometimes it's hard to see the connection. Sometimes other teams do just jump offsides regardless of what we're doing. But maybe you're right. I don't remember clearly.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to go look it up, but I very clearly remember it being on the offsides play all three times because I couldn't believe how stupid they were.

Once is understandable, twice is pretty dumb, but thrice is almost unthinkable.
 
WracerX said:
I'm assuming we call the TO and save the 5 yards to slow the D on the punt. The D can try to time the snap and risk offsides on 4th and 7. On 4th and 2 they have to be more careful.
Click to expand...
I'd rather have the D try to block it and get a roughing call. Automatic FIRST DOWN (cue whistle)
 
This shit is definitely in my Top 5 Pet Peeves that fans yell near me at GT games. "This never works!" when it literally worked the previous game and gave us an extra possession that we ended up scoring a touchdown on.

I honestly wonder why more teams don't do it. The one thing I would do differently is that I'd take the delay of game and punt if I was inside the 50. I'd also like to see us run a few more plays out of that formation. Even a straight QB sneak should work, because our OL should fire out quicker than their DL.
 
18in32 said:
I'm saying that the D jumps off sides before you can tell if we're running the play we're all talking about (1st AB goes in motion, resets next to the BB, 2d AB goes in motion, resets next to the BB, QB sits under center until clock runs down, then TO called).

In the Jax St game, I think we were, based on the 1st AB slowing down and foot stamping. But the point is that we would've gotten the offside with any delayed-snap play.

In other words, other teams without this play draw the offsides penalty sometimes too. Sometimes the D is antsy and just jumps offsides. What we're trying to figure out ITT is when CPJ's special 'draw 'em off' play does that and when it doesn't.
Click to expand...
You're making a distinction where I don't think one is warranted.

The whole point of the special "draw'em off' play is to show typical a-back motion to take advantage of the "antsy" D without the risk of running the play and being stopped short. I suppose you could argue that the second a-back motion is superfluous but if you're going to call timeout (or take the delay penalty) anyway, what's the harm in adding on the extra motion for the heck of it? I mean, it's theoretically possible the defense could jump on the second motion. Plus, as we've seen on at least one or two occasions, we can, in fact, run a successful play after the two motions. Really, the only permutation we haven't seen, that I can remember, is running a play during the second a-back motion.
 
18in32 said:
That 2011 NC State game is not available on YouTube. But I wonder if all three of those were induced by CPJ's 'draw 'em off' play? As I mentioned in the previous post, sometimes it's hard to see the connection. Sometimes other teams do just jump offsides regardless of what we're doing. But maybe you're right. I don't remember clearly.
Click to expand...
Was that the GlobalWarmingHeatStrokeinOctober game? Russell Wilson at QB?
 
Still one of the worst ref jobs I've ever seen. They call it good and then reverse it on review. And it should have been confirmed.



Dammit. I can't make it play at the 1:35:00 mark. But that's the play.
 
18in32 said:
As long as we get the first down — by penalty, by snapping the ball, or after taking a TO — then I count it a success, whatever the mechanics.
Click to expand...

This was the criteria for "success" that I meant to include earlier. Left out actually snapping to ball before taking the T.O. as one of the methods.
 
BuzzLaw said:


:loser:
Click to expand...

Not following you. The sketchy memories re: the claim that Clemson jumped offsides twice in response to this play. Your video cite shows us running the play, then snapping the ball out of the new formation, and getting a 1st down. Yay for us — but whether the success owes much to the 'draw 'em off' play, I don't know.
 
andrew said:
I'm not going to go look it up, but I very clearly remember it being on the offsides play all three times because I couldn't believe how stupid they were.

Once is understandable, twice is pretty dumb, but thrice is almost unthinkable.
Click to expand...
You may be right — but my point was that you can't 'go look it up' — unless you have a secret store of game footage not on YouTube? Please share if you do.
 
gtleviathan said:
You're making a distinction where I don't think one is warranted.

The whole point of the special "draw'em off' play is to show typical a-back motion to take advantage of the "antsy" D without the risk of running the play and being stopped short. I suppose you could argue that the second a-back motion is superfluous but if you're going to call timeout (or take the delay penalty) anyway, what's the harm in adding on the extra motion for the heck of it? I mean, it's theoretically possible the defense could jump on the second motion. Plus, as we've seen on at least one or two occasions, we can, in fact, run a successful play after the two motions. Really, the only permutation we haven't seen, that I can remember, is running a play during the second a-back motion.
Click to expand...
Not following you. The distinction I was drawing is between 'D jumps offsides for some reason' and 'D jumps offsides because of our special double AB motion play'.

I completely understand the idea that the point of the play is to trick the D into thinking we're about to snap the ball when they're antsy. That's what makes any 'draw 'em off' play a 'draw 'em off' play. A lot of coaches just try to accomplish the same thing using the hard snap count. Since we have typical and frequent AB motion, we can use that instead. Same idea though.
 
18in32 said:
Not following you. The sketchy memories re: the claim that Clemson jumped offsides twice in response to this play. Your video cite shows us running the play, then snapping the ball out of the new formation, and getting a 1st down. Yay for us — but whether the success owes much to the 'draw 'em off' play, I don't know.
Click to expand...
Ok. I showed you the exact play I was talking about. Clemson (and the announcer) thought we were trying to make them jump offsides and weren't going to run it. I don't know what else I can do to help you out.
 
BuzzLaw said:
I think a lot of STers must smoke crack on 4th downs. The time out play has worked many times. Additionally, after motioning both A Backs on 4th down, we have gone ahead and run a play when the defense thinks we are just about to call a time out. I agree with what @beej67 said earlier, and I think both of these plays worked in the 2009 ACC CG. I seem to recall Anthony Allen running around the right end when Clemson thought we were just going to call a time out. But they've worked numerous times since then as well.
Click to expand...
Clemson jumped once, then the next drive we motioned both A backs into the wishbone and ran 3O to the boundary for like 8 yards.

There are multiple GAMES where this thing has worked multiple TIMES.

Edit:

Lol, yeah, thanks for the video link. Glad to see my memory isn't sketchy.
 
BuzzLaw said:
Ok. I showed you the exact play I was talking about. Clemson (and the announcer) thought we were trying to make them jump offsides and weren't going to run it. I don't know what else I can do to help you out.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we're apparently talking about two different things. C'est law vie.
 
18in32 said:
Not following you. The sketchy memories re: the claim that Clemson jumped offsides twice in response to this play. Your video cite shows us running the play, then snapping the ball out of the new formation, and getting a 1st down. Yay for us — but whether the success owes much to the 'draw 'em off' play, I don't know.
Click to expand...

The "draw 'em off" play has multiple components.

1. A play is called. If the defense gives a certain look then run it. That play may involve one or both A-backs doing the "fake."
2. If it isn't there do the fakes and try to draw them off. Call a TO and call a play based on the look we got. Or punt which we sometime do but rarely.
3. Run the play after the TO.

Essentially we have 3 chances to get the first down with 1 TO at risk. You can't just reduce it to how many time did we get the offsides call. It all works together. If the defense thinks its just a draw em off then we get a jump on the snap. If they get too excited maybe we can get them offsides. After the TO we generally know they will line up.
 
18in32 said:
You may be right — but my point was that you can't 'go look it up' — unless you have a secret store of game footage not on YouTube? Please share if you do.
Click to expand...

I don't. The best I can offer you is the StingTalk game thread, where people are saying it worked. The posts are coming ten+ minutes apart and referencing that it worked "again".

https://stingtalk.com/board/threads/the-official-gt-nc-state-game-thread.58103/page-23#post-895970

https://stingtalk.com/board/threads/the-official-gt-nc-state-game-thread.58103/page-27#post-896048

https://stingtalk.com/board/threads/the-official-gt-nc-state-game-thread.58103/page-31#post-896112
 
18in32 said:
Not following you. The distinction I was drawing is between 'D jumps offsides for some reason' and 'D jumps offsides because of our special double AB motion play'.

I completely understand the idea that the point of the play is to trick the D into thinking we're about to snap the ball when they're antsy. That's what makes any 'draw 'em off' play a 'draw 'em off' play. A lot of coaches just try to accomplish the same thing using the hard snap count. Since we have typical and frequent AB motion, we can use that instead. Same idea though.
Click to expand...
I guess the point I'm trying to make can be boiled down more simply...

The success of the "draw'em off" play is demonstrated when the defense jumps whether we were going to actually snap it or not, assuming the a-back motion and snap count are the same in both instances. If they jumped when we were gonna snap, they would have jumped if we weren't gonna snap.
 
andrew said:
I don't. The best I can offer you is the StingTalk game thread, where people are saying it worked. The posts are coming ten+ minutes apart and referencing that it worked "again".

https://stingtalk.com/board/threads/the-official-gt-nc-state-game-thread.58103/page-23#post-895970

https://stingtalk.com/board/threads/the-official-gt-nc-state-game-thread.58103/page-27#post-896048

https://stingtalk.com/board/threads/the-official-gt-nc-state-game-thread.58103/page-31#post-896112
Click to expand...
That’s some pretty strong research. I yield.
 
gtleviathan said:
The success of the "draw'em off" play is demonstrated when the defense jumps whether we were going to actually snap it or not, assuming the a-back motion and snap count are the same in both instances. If they jumped when we were gonna snap, they would have jumped if we weren't gonna snap.
Click to expand...
I’ve definitely lost the thread at this point. Peace —
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top