Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WIU Aftermath

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • WIU Aftermath

    Rather than write a whole write-up on the game, mostly because I don't have the time, I am going to focus on a few hot takes from all points in social media:

    On the officiating:
    1. The head guy that I first worked for on our way back from a frustrating loss that had a 70 yard TD run called back, a punt return for a TD called back and a clear block in the back on the oppositions final score not called, said that you had to be 14 points better and cleaner than the opposition to win on the road. I think it is easy to point to a few dubious calls or non-calls (the PI non-call, Beaver's iffy Hold, and the bear hugging of Sims) as deciders. The Griz had 4 turnovers, two costly, a bevy of other mistakes that put that game within reach with 5 minutes to go. Western Illinois isn't that good and they got some good breaks in that game that worked to their favor. The Griz weren't clean on the road, while a clearly better football team, opened the door and WIU walked right in.

    On the Offense:
    1. This isn't as much of a criticism, but a piece of reality. In my twenty years of coaching football, no team I was around ever used the full playbook. Most years we used 50% of it, and in the best years we might not approach 75% of the playbook. To me what is good for the goose, has to be good for the gander. If your criticism of Stitt was three formations or a lack of complexity, the same cricticism has to hold true for any offense. What limits playbooks, any offensive design in regards to breadth and depth is almost always personnel and secondarily opposition. Now the common trope that is used on message boards is that just change the offense. I have never bought it, because OC's aren't any different than a person who graduated college in a particular major. You have your area of expertise, and understanding, but for whatever reason we assume football is so easy schematically that they can flop from one scheme to the next without a hiccup. It would be like me moving from History to neurobiology. No one would ever presume me an expert and switch without some sort of prior preparation.

    2. I noted this on twitter, when you face teams who play the Paulson soft cover 2 a lot it really alters your game plan. Sneed wasn't especially great on deep balls when he had his chance yesterday. He had three opportunities for TD's in the 1-3rd quarters and they resulted in a tackle that was a no call, Akem had to over extend on the double move and fell, and he underthrew the other. You have to attack vertically outside the 20's, because you can't press the coverage inside the 20's. If there was and is a weakness in Sneed's game is that he doesn't throw a great deep ball and that was clearly in play yesterday. It has been pointed out before by Growler and others that he struggles with accuracy beyond 10-15 yards, and it showed yesterday. To beat soft cover 2 you have to be able to throw digs and outs, and Sneeds accuracy yesterday was decidedly less than ideal.

    On the Defense:
    1. The first two TD's passes forced a change in the scheme or at least an adjustment that presented a softer look that gave up a lot more outs, delays, hooks and digs. If there is a weakness of the 4-2-5 or the 3-3-5, is how to efficiently handle trips. WIU put on a clinic in the first quarter of how to use trips and trips open to beat a 1ish high safety with a blended coverage. The scheme philosophy asks the trips side safety, not in the weakside safety to handle the immediate vertical threat from #2 or #3. I can't say specifically what coverage they were in, but most like a C2/3/5 concept to trips, and the safety's eyes got pulled away and the guy streaked right by him. I think both of the two early touchdowns where coverage mistakes rather than positional play. The general rule is that you side step while the #2 and #3 declare their intentions rather than back pedal or make a down hill run read. Saw a lot more true two high safety over trips after the first two possessions and it opens up a lot of under of which WIU did to varying degrees take advantage of yesterday. Look most 4-2 or 3-3 teams would prefer to use a hybrid look, without a second dedicated deep safety because it allows you to get more aggressive in your rush looks and underneath coverages.

    2. Whether it is in a 4-3 or a modern multiple defense, you have to make concessions. In my years as a defensive coach, the prevailing philosophy is to allow for backs and delay TE's to catch the ball when you are in down and distance or in the redzone. You can rally to it, while adding pressure. The inherent weakness of that philosophy is that you have an offense and a coordinator who catches you in that play call with one that will kill it. On the final TD, that was a boundary pressure with a perfectly called delay swing by the back. Not all teams use it or do it, but it would have been a sure sack had the back been flipped to the other side or been asked to do a check down.

    On the Special Teams:
    1. The Punt Return for TD wasn't as much coverage mistakes as it was lack of execution. A lot of Special teams guys love boundary returns because it clogs pursuit lanes. There were maybe five guys who had a chance to make a play and didn't. As I noted on twitter, the desire (nervously so, for punters) is to get max distance over height and it flattens out the flight and increases the chance for a miss-hit. He caught that ball a bit in traffic, and most of time you the habit of returners is to bounce to open space. They guy made a great move taking it to the boundary, where there players there to make plays.

    --
    This is a game that should have been won, no doubt. The road struggles continue. Like I noted in another post yesterday, it isn't as if this was just a Stitt problem.

    On to Sac State.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Grizfan-24 View Post
    Rather than write a whole write-up on the game, mostly because I don't have the time, I am going to focus on a few hot takes from all points in social media:

    On the officiating:
    1. The head guy that I first worked for on our way back from a frustrating loss that had a 70 yard TD run called back, a punt return for a TD called back and a clear block in the back on the oppositions final score not called, said that you had to be 14 points better and cleaner than the opposition to win on the road. I think it is easy to point to a few dubious calls or non-calls (the PI non-call, Beaver's iffy Hold, and the bear hugging of Sims) as deciders. The Griz had 4 turnovers, two costly, a bevy of other mistakes that put that game within reach with 5 minutes to go. Western Illinois isn't that good and they got some good breaks in that game that worked to their favor. The Griz weren't clean on the road, while a clearly better football team, opened the door and WIU walked right in.

    On the Offense:
    1. This isn't as much of a criticism, but a piece of reality. In my twenty years of coaching football, no team I was around ever used the full playbook. Most years we used 50% of it, and in the best years we might not approach 75% of the playbook. To me what is good for the goose, has to be good for the gander. If your criticism of Stitt was three formations or a lack of complexity, the same cricticism has to hold true for any offense. What limits playbooks, any offensive design in regards to breadth and depth is almost always personnel and secondarily opposition. Now the common trope that is used on message boards is that just change the offense. I have never bought it, because OC's aren't any different than a person who graduated college in a particular major. You have your area of expertise, and understanding, but for whatever reason we assume football is so easy schematically that they can flop from one scheme to the next without a hiccup. It would be like me moving from History to neurobiology. No one would ever presume me an expert and switch without some sort of prior preparation.

    2. I noted this on twitter, when you face teams who play the Paulson soft cover 2 a lot it really alters your game plan. Sneed wasn't especially great on deep balls when he had his chance yesterday. He had three opportunities for TD's in the 1-3rd quarters and they resulted in a tackle that was a no call, Akem had to over extend on the double move and fell, and he underthrew the other. You have to attack vertically outside the 20's, because you can't press the coverage inside the 20's. If there was and is a weakness in Sneed's game is that he doesn't throw a great deep ball and that was clearly in play yesterday. It has been pointed out before by Growler and others that he struggles with accuracy beyond 10-15 yards, and it showed yesterday. To beat soft cover 2 you have to be able to throw digs and outs, and Sneeds accuracy yesterday was decidedly less than ideal.

    On the Defense:
    1. The first two TD's passes forced a change in the scheme or at least an adjustment that presented a softer look that gave up a lot more outs, delays, hooks and digs. If there is a weakness of the 4-2-5 or the 3-3-5, is how to efficiently handle trips. WIU put on a clinic in the first quarter of how to use trips and trips open to beat a 1ish high safety with a blended coverage. The scheme philosophy asks the trips side safety, not in the weakside safety to handle the immediate vertical threat from #2 or #3. I can't say specifically what coverage they were in, but most like a C2/3/5 concept to trips, and the safety's eyes got pulled away and the guy streaked right by him. I think both of the two early touchdowns where coverage mistakes rather than positional play. The general rule is that you side step while the #2 and #3 declare their intentions rather than back pedal or make a down hill run read. Saw a lot more true two high safety over trips after the first two possessions and it opens up a lot of under of which WIU did to varying degrees take advantage of yesterday. Look most 4-2 or 3-3 teams would prefer to use a hybrid look, without a second dedicated deep safety because it allows you to get more aggressive in your rush looks and underneath coverages.

    2. Whether it is in a 4-3 or a modern multiple defense, you have to make concessions. In my years as a defensive coach, the prevailing philosophy is to allow for backs and delay TE's to catch the ball when you are in down and distance or in the redzone. You can rally to it, while adding pressure. The inherent weakness of that philosophy is that you have an offense and a coordinator who catches you in that play call with one that will kill it. On the final TD, that was a boundary pressure with a perfectly called delay swing by the back. Not all teams use it or do it, but it would have been a sure sack had the back been flipped to the other side or been asked to do a check down.

    On the Special Teams:
    1. The Punt Return for TD wasn't as much coverage mistakes as it was lack of execution. A lot of Special teams guys love boundary returns because it clogs pursuit lanes. There were maybe five guys who had a chance to make a play and didn't. As I noted on twitter, the desire (nervously so, for punters) is to get max distance over height and it flattens out the flight and increases the chance for a miss-hit. He caught that ball a bit in traffic, and most of time you the habit of returners is to bounce to open space. They guy made a great move taking it to the boundary, where there players there to make plays.

    --
    This is a game that should have been won, no doubt. The road struggles continue. Like I noted in another post yesterday, it isn't as if this was just a Stitt problem.

    On to Sac State.
    Good post. Couple of comments. I am a fan of Bobby in general, but no reasonable football fan who watched this game can give Hauck a pass for good coaching. The fact is, poor coaching decisions cost us a win. First, I have no issue with going for it on 4th-and-one in most instances. However, considering the many factors regarding this play, we should have kicked the FG. First, our O-line has shown ZERO ability to make even one yard on 4th down this season. How many chances will Rosey give them to prove this fact??? Second, a FG puts us up by 7 points, on the road late in the game. The 7 point margin is significant, much more than if it would have only put us up by fewer points. It forces the hand of WIU to go for a TD.

    Then, why would any coach punt the ball to the stud WIU returner, who had schooled us all game long, and was a legit threat to take-it-to-the-house??? You either kick it away from him, or kick it out-of-bounds. Had we done either, we would have won the game. The game clock was our friend, but we blew it by allowing WIU to score in ten seconds on that punt return.

    And, our coaches have got to teach our WRs, especially JLM, to stop trying to be a hero after every catch to gain a couple of more yards. Both the Bingham fumble, and the JLM fumble, were caused by those players fighting for an extra yard or two after being engaged by a defender. When a WR is engaged, it is sooooo easy to strip the ball and cause a fumble. Take the f_cking gain, protect the ball, and go down!!! The hype surrounding JLM's ability to juke and occasionally break it for a longer gain may be his (and ours) worst enemy! He takes way too many liberties after the catch, as well as on punt returns. I can tell you in advance that JLM will cause a turnover on a punt by trying to run with a punt in which he should have called for a fair catch. Turnovers lose games, much more frequently than an occasional big play caused by taking a huge risk on a play.
    Last edited by growler; 09-16-2018, 12:14 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      I posted this on twitter, and while I would have kicked the field goal I think the rationale at the time was pretty sound in regards to metrics. I hated the play call. I am a quick snap guy on those stiuations inside the redzone, rather than letting the opposition anchor. I prefer the auto-call on a down and distance. If it works it works, if it doesn't kudos to the defense.

      Because OC's are so risk averse coming out of their own goal line is the reason why failing on the 4 and short made sense. You take the hard three or the chance for 7. If you go for it and fail,odds say that you'll be just as likely or more likely to score. Which we did. The only net loss is if you kick a FG or punt on the next possession.

      Your other poitns are fair criticisms, I thought at the time Bigham's fumble might have been injury related. I never saw a good look so I can say for sure. I was told there was some question, but little clarity on whether JLM actually had possession. They definitely could have taken it up stairs, but based upon the reaction that JLM knew it was a fumble.

      As for the punt, the ball was into the boundary, not midfield but your point stands and I agree. I prefer ruby or squib punts, but moving the punter in the endzone with an obvious block situation is a hard decision to make. I just prefer to have no return on a short field and allowing your defense to have a chance to stop it.

      Comment


      • #4
        I read Bobby's comments in the Missoulian today, and was dismayed that he took no credit for the loss to WIU. There is no excuse for allowing their stud athlete to even catch that punt, but rather than take ownership of the decision to kick to him, he blamed the players for poor tackling. Then, he defended his decision to go for it on 4th-and-one late in the game instead of hitting a chip-shot FG by saying that he did no think that 7 points would be enough to win the game. Really, Bob? For God's sake, if you decide to go for it, at least design a play which has a good chance of succeeding, rather than sending a slow RB with zero ability to create a seam into the middle of the line! One would think that Bobby would get it by now after several failed 4th-and-one attempts that a run up the middle will not work! I mean, Jeeeeeez, coach!

        i like head coach's who admit when they make mistakes, and not spin shit like Hauck did in this interview. Yes, the 5 turnovers were key to the loss, but we still could have won this thing if he had made better coaching decisions. If you f_ck up, own it!
        Last edited by growler; 09-17-2018, 09:56 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          I didn't disagree with 4th going for it. I just didn't think the play calling was good. Bingham looked like he got lit up to me. Also, on replay, the WIU player made a good strip. Shit happens on that play. My biggest frustration is how we just looked like we hopped off the bus early. Same stuff we have seen over last few years. Had it not been for Flowers big play, this game could have gotten ugly early. Not going to throw Semenza under the bus yet given the total shit show NFL kickers have had the first two weeks. Hell, compared to them he is golden. Kicker are what they are, they can be a hero one week and a goat the rest of the time.

          Comment


          • #6
            I only got to listen to the game unfortunately, saving up some cash to get debt paid off so we can move back to MT so not going to pay for satellite TV. I don't have any intelligent insight to provide as I couldn't watch.

            Just desperately hoping that the O-line figures out how to fucking run block. Easiest way to win football games=running the ball effectively and stopping the run. Appears we can do neither @ this point.

            Up with Montana boys, watch the tape, learn from the mistakes and get back to it. I'm expecting a grueling first couple days of practice.

            Comment


            • #7
              The fact this team didn’t collapse after going down 14-0 early on the road was miraculous. Credit Hauck. This team actually looks like they want to compete.


              Think it was a mistake to go for it on the 4th and 1 up by 4. You take the points there – WIU was worn out and really any score at that point in the game would have KO’d them. But, I like the mindset.


              WR. Can we please drop the “one of best groups in the country" BS? They aren’t. Not even arguably. There isn’t one guy that has the balls go attack a ball across the middle.

              Notice how other teams/coaches/announcers aren’t talking up JLM like he is all world anymore? That’s because if you let him dance and trust your pursuit, he instantly becomes a slightly above average slot receiver who runs shitty routes and doesn’t like contact.

              JLM’s fumble. I don’t think he should have taken what was he given and be happy with the 1s t down. Get that loser noise outta here. He should have protected the gawd damn ball with both hands while aggressively fighting for some YAC. Griz needed a couple of big time plays at that point.

              And what’s up with Ooey McGoo running around like he has to take the biggest shit of his life? makes me want to change the channel its looks so awkward.


              If Sulser is healthy, get him on the field and put the ball in his hands. Start him. Get him at least 5 carries, 7 targets, a pass attempt, and maybe see if he can punt too. Then red-shirt him.


              On the bright side, I don’t think Kurran had any drops. And he's finally a senior. Great news. But for real, his positive attitude over the last 10 years is commendable. Sorry, real leaders make plays.


              SNEED – Love the dude and his attitude, can’t say enough about it but he has missed on multiple key throws. Any of you guys watch Cam Humphrey during camp? I’d play him against SacState. Sneed can handle it and it may be the added fire Sneed thrives on. It's nice to have a QB people aren’t going to war for to protect his ego and make sure any feelings aren’t harmed. Guys can always go to Fullgertsonville Community College and tear shit up if they don’t want to compete.


              Robby Hauck is going to be a hell of a player.


              5 turnovers on the road will lose you games. This team has to learn to embrace individual ownership for their 1/11th and expect to make big plays in big moments.


              This team isn’t as deep or talented as many think.


              Can they compete and make a little noise in the playoffs? I guess, but only losers care about that shit.


              Bottom line. its obvious that HAUCK is back. Hell yes. Good times ahead.

              Comment


              • #8
                5700, you made some good points, but I think you wrote this post after swilling quite a bit of alcohol. One point I vehemently disagree on is this one...."JLM’s fumble. I don’t think he should have taken what was he given and be happy with the 1s t down. Get that loser noise outta here. He should have protected the gawd damn ball with both hands while aggressively fighting for some YAC. Griz needed a couple of big time plays at that point."

                We did NOT need any big plays at that point. To the contrary, the clock was our friend, and all we needed was to burn clock, giving WIU no time to stage a comeback. JLM had already made the first down when he fumbled, which meant that we could have burned a MINIMUM of 2:00 more of game clock. There might be a time and place for a WR to take the risk of fighting for extra yards or a big play, but that was NOT THE TIME! It cost us the game.

                Comment


                • #9
                  No, I was maybe a little discombobulated after your wife put mustard in my tuna melt. Again.



                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by growler View Post
                    One point I vehemently disagree on is this one...."JLM’s fumble. I don’t think he should have taken what was he given and be happy with the 1s t down. Get that loser noise outta here. He should have protected the gawd damn ball with both hands while aggressively fighting for some YAC. Griz needed a couple of big time plays at that point."

                    We did NOT need any big plays at that point. To the contrary, the clock was our friend, and all we needed was to burn clock, giving WIU no time to stage a comeback. JLM had already made the first down when he fumbled, which meant that we could have burned a MINIMUM of 2:00 more of game clock. There might be a time and place for a WR to take the risk of fighting for extra yards or a big play, but that was NOT THE TIME! It cost us the game.
                    All this team needed to do was burn clock? Ha.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 5 7 0 0 View Post

                      All this team needed to do was burn clock? Ha.
                      We had a first down when JLM fumbled, near mid-field. Even if we had not made another first down, we could have punted and pinned WIU down deep in their own territory with 2:30-3:00 left and only one TO remaining. I like our chances at that point. And, if we make another first down, the game is over. The fumble cost us the game, and I will go on record now in predicting that we will see other JLM fumbles if he continues to be a hero on every play. There is a time for the hero stuff, and there is a time to play smart. Not sure he understands the difference.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 5 7 0 0 View Post
                        No, I was maybe a little discombobulated after your wife put mustard in my tuna melt. Again.


                        Who put meth in your Cheerios?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          haha It's been awhile, Growler.. Hope all is well you miserable old dick


                          This kid probably failed Stitt's 100 question "secret" personality test..........

                          Click image for larger version

Name:	suckmycockb.png
Views:	1
Size:	216.0 KB
ID:	1364

                          https://twitter.com/ReggieStrong14/s...02495390289922


                          https://www.hudl.com/profile/6055596...Flip-Strong-Jr


                          BOBBY IS BACK, PPL.







                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X