We lost that game due to a poor offensive gameplan...

B

bugboy

Damn Good Rat
Joined
Dec 2, 2001
Messages
1,136
How many deep passes did we throw yesterday? I've never seen so many. What on Earth possessed our coaches to think that was the way for OUR OFFENSE to attack FSU?

We have not been good at hitting long passes all year. Our strength lies in short passes and running the ball. Yet, we came out with a bombs away attack. That was a ridiculous game plan, in my opinion. We simply don't have the passing game (QB or receivers) for that type of attack.

It was obvious to me that FSU absolutely could not stop our running game. But we wouldn't stick with the run. We just wouldn't do it. They couldn't stop our running game if their lives depended on it...but we kept heaving it deep.

One thing that Fridge would do when he was the coordinator...if something worked, he'd stick with it. God, how I wish we'd just said "to hell with it" and ran the ball down their throats. BOB/CG...guys...if something is working, run it until it doesn't work.

That's why we lost, IMO.

Kudos to the defense. Once again, they were our strength. We just need to focus on Dook now and let's get 7-4 before we go into Athens. That loss yesterday was really hard to take.
 
I agree. Good coaches always take the talent they've got and maximize their strengths and minimize their weakness. Throwing deep on a consistent basis yesterday did neither.
 
Bugboy that is what I keep screaming. I think the had all the tools they needed to win the game but the coaches threw it all away
 
I think you guys are crazy. The gameplan Sat was great it was execution that killed us. If the long ball is open you have to take a shot. The QB has to put it where the WR can make a play and the WR has to come up with it. We moved the ball well against FSU but couldn't put it in the endzone. If you want to complain about calls in the red zone that's one thing, but overall we did a very good job keeping them off balance.
 
ncjacket,

I agree that it comes down to execution but I guess my point is that AJ hasn't shown the ability to throw the ball over 20 yards accurately with any consistency. Therefore, forcing him to do something that is low percentage for him is not smart coaching. I agree with trying to throw the ball deep early to see if AJ had it in him but it was obvious that he didn't and thus we should have stayed with an offensive game plan that maximized his strength. Which is the short pass and running the ball.

Overall we called a great game but it was the over reliance on the deep ball that I think killed a few drives that may have ended in points if we chose to execute the plays that had been successful the past two weeks leading up to this game.

Either way we need to move forward and take care of business in our next two games.
 
What I'm saying is that if the D dares you to go deep you have to. If all you try to do is the short passes you giving up most of the field. You have to at least keep them honest. I agree that AJ hasn't shown the consistentcy but he hasn't really on the short passes either. If we come up with just one of the deeper routes it changes the complexion of the game.
 
The game plan early was fine. Our WRs had the
FSU DBs beaten on several plays, but the ball was
not thrown well or pass interference was not
called.

I would have like to see a shift towards more of
a power game as the game got tight, but overall I
think the coaches did a good job of mixing things
up.
 
Got to disagree. The play calling the past 3 Saturday's since BO'B moved back upstairs has been the best since last years Stanford game and 2000 when Fridge was here.

We moved the ball up and down the field on two of the best defenses in the ACC and country. If there is any area of weakness, it would be the play calling inside the 10 yard line.

However, I think some of this is due to a patched up offesive line, having 4th and 5th string running backs, and a QB that is either not reading defense, going through the progressions, or not having time to deliver.

But, to think that the gameplan and play calling of the past 3 weeks is bad, especially considering the competition we have played, is beyond me. I think it is more about execution, and that is a result of injuries.
 
BTW, this weak offensive game plan put up TWICE as many first downs as the great FSU offense.
TWICE AS MANY!!

Isn't that the team that everyone says we should be gunning for?
 
My point is this: Our early game plan (and we stuck with it a long time) did not utilize our strengths. AJ is simply not a long ball passer. He's not that accurate. He's proven that time and again this year. To structure an offense around the long pass this late in the season is silly, IMO. The reason we moved the ball well was because of alot of good running plays and some good option, etc. Given the flow of the game, it was obvious that running the ball more (alot more) would have won it. We should have run it about 60 times, with about 30 passes instead of the near even split. The fact that we had only 211 yards of passing on 45 passes shows how ineffective our passing game was.

The execution was off on the long passes because that's not our strength. We shouldn't be running those types of plays all night. If you'd told me before the game, "Tech will throw the long ball about 15-20 times"...I'd have said "you're crazy".

It was a bad game plan. That's just the way I see it. On top of that, as the game progressed, we didn't run it enough when it was obvious FSU couldn't stop it. That turned out to be our undoing.

FSU didn't beat us. We beat ourselves.
 
bugboy, first I didn't see the first half so don't know about the number of "long" passes. But I saw enough to doubt we went long 15-20 times.

Just for the record, I took a look at the play by play to see what changes we made as the game went on. It doesn't show option vs power runs etc., but it does shed some light on what we perceive versus reality sometimes.

In the Q1 we threw it 7 times (3 times on the opening possession) and ran it 7 times.
Q2 - 11 and 16 (threw it the last 4 plays of the half)
Q3 - 11-5
Q4 - 10-16

It looks to me we were trying to be balanced in the first half and it worked pretty well. In the third quarter we ran it but didn't have it very long. In the fourth we were balanced (8-9) until our last drive (2-7) trying to catch up.

If you look at the play by play it looks like we were effective running the ball but not consistently. We would have a good gain, then a loss. Passing on first down appeared to work fairly well in opening up the defense. In the second half we suffered 3 sacks which obviously hurt the play calling plan. This won't be exact but we had approx. 37 yds in Q1, 147 in Q2, 40 in Q3 and 150 in Q4. You will see that the 2nd and 4th quarters were when we were passing more.
 
Originally posted by ncjacket:
bugboy, first I didn't see the first half so don't know about the number of "long" passes. But I saw enough to doubt we went long 15-20 times.

Just for the record, I took a look at the play by play to see what changes we made as the game went on. It doesn't show option vs power runs etc., but it does shed some light on what we perceive versus reality sometimes.

In the Q1 we threw it 7 times (3 times on the opening possession) and ran it 7 times.
Q2 - 11 and 16 (threw it the last 4 plays of the half)
Q3 - 11-5
Q4 - 10-16

It looks to me we were trying to be balanced in the first half and it worked pretty well. In the third quarter we ran it but didn't have it very long. In the fourth we were balanced (8-9) until our last drive (2-7) trying to catch up.

If you look at the play by play it looks like we were effective running the ball but not consistently. We would have a good gain, then a loss. Passing on first down appeared to work fairly well in opening up the defense. In the second half we suffered 3 sacks which obviously hurt the play calling plan. This won't be exact but we had approx. 37 yds in Q1, 147 in Q2, 40 in Q3 and 150 in Q4. You will see that the 2nd and 4th quarters were when we were passing more.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">We ran 42 times for 185 yards (including the sacks you mentioned). We passed 45 times for 211 yards. We were much more efficient with our running game. It was clear that this was our better choice as the game went along. But we kept throwing anyway. It's really hard to only get 211 yards on 45 passes. You have to really be inefficient. I'm not blaming AJ for the loss. I blame the offensive coaches. Sorry, but we won't agree on this.

Unlike some, I'm not even slamming AJ. I just think that our play-calling did not give us the best chance to win. We had some good drives going where we were getting first downs by running and short passes. Then, we'd wing it downfield and mess up and end up with 2nd and 3rd and long. How about the 1st and goal in the first half where we threw 3 passes and ended up kicking a field goal.

It's hard to get 185 yards on 42 carries even after sacks. That's a really good running attack. I wish we had run the ball more as the game went along. Offensive balance in play-calling works when you do both run/pass equally well. We do better as a run-oriented team....even with a 12th string tailback.
 
Bugboy, You are wrong if you care to know why read my post called "Can't believe what I am hearing" The run was set up by those passes. If we would have tried to run the ball down their throat we would have gotten killed. I am sure if you look at the statistics that when we ran up the middle we did not get much yardage (a few plays we did) when we ran on the edge we did get yardage and that was a direct result of trying to throw deep and down the sidelines. This is all pointed out in my post. And more stuff is pointed out about the game plan in a reply to someone's reply to the same post. WE HAD TO GO DEEP DOWN THE SIDELINES or our running game would have been nonexistant. Try taping the game one time and after it is finished watch every play with scrutany and chart them. It will take a long time, but you will see a patterns established, things being set up, those things setting other things up, and a lot more. Then take a look at the passes completed and see how many were first reads and so on. Then see the incompletions and sacks and see how many reads in the progression the QB made. There are a million things I could tell you to look for. I promise you that you will have a different out look on the coach's game plan. If you don't want to go threw the trouble keep complaining about something that was a good idea and good game plan.
 
I didnt like the long passes to start the game... but feel that the game plan on both sides of the ball were well done... we won the war statistically... so I dont think the game plan was the problem... we lost the game because:

First.. FSU has more playmakers than we do.. they made the plays when they had to make them...

Suggs got fooled by the defense on a few plays

FSU played tougher in the red zone.. we didnt capitalize on our opportunities...

I think we played a great game... and its a shame we lost... but I do not feel that we have reached the mountain yet in matching the talent that FSU has... and I am not just talking the top 22.. I am talking the top 44...
 
Originally posted by mississippi_jacket:
Bugboy, You are wrong if you care to know why read my post called "Can't believe what I am hearing" The run was set up by those passes. If we would have tried to run the ball down their throat we would have gotten killed. I am sure if you look at the statistics that when we ran up the middle we did not get much yardage (a few plays we did) when we ran on the edge we did get yardage and that was a direct result of trying to throw deep and down the sidelines. This is all pointed out in my post. And more stuff is pointed out about the game plan in a reply to someone's reply to the same post. WE HAD TO GO DEEP DOWN THE SIDELINES or our running game would have been nonexistant. Try taping the game one time and after it is finished watch every play with scrutany and chart them. It will take a long time, but you will see a patterns established, things being set up, those things setting other things up, and a lot more. Then take a look at the passes completed and see how many were first reads and so on. Then see the incompletions and sacks and see how many reads in the progression the QB made. There are a million things I could tell you to look for. I promise you that you will have a different out look on the coach's game plan. If you don't want to go threw the trouble keep complaining about something that was a good idea and good game plan.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I did not tape the game. Therefore, I can't go back and chart the game. FSU's defense is not good enough to shut down a good running game. Teams have been able to move the ball on them. I don't believe we needed to throw deep so much in order to open up the run.

If the only reason to throw the long stuff was to open up the short stuff, then fine (even though I don't buy that). But the bottom line is that we threw 45 passes and netted 211 passing yards. If AJ checked into a lot of these, then shame on him. If BOB or Chan called 45 passes, then shame on them.

I'll stand by my original comments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top