I mean.. when you’re having success running the ball, 50 times, it seems like a logical wrinkle to throw in. Have we even TRIED to pull the ball to hit a quick pass? Keep the D honest. We are gonna have to find a passing game at some point. Just a thought to try to get Gavin going in the passing game.
Observation: Why no play action? Discussion
- Thread starter SBP
- Start date
Once it was confirmed (first few drives of the game) that our OL would be able to dominate in the trenches, vanilla run was going to be the blueprint for this one. Perhaps in a future year, we’ll be able to use this type of game to experiment, but we’re not there yet. For once, it’s hard to argue the merits of going ultra conservative to collect that W.
And a screen pass. I don't think I've seen one all year.
We’re not very good at running them
Correct - the game to question (and the only one) was Wagner. Why weren’t we practicing in that one? Clearly we need the practice reps and running the ball down Wagner’s throat helped with nothing.
You didn’t watch Mich? I wish your statement was true. I think we didn’t run it because IU never really overload the box.
I had no problem with RU running as much as it did. But we did throw a dozen times, and I don’t think any of them were play action. That surprised me because, if there ever was a team prepped to bite on the run fake, it was Indiana yesterday. Seems odd. But, whatever, great win.
If the concern is that the offense and/or Wimsatt don't handle the play action well, that seems like something to continue to work on during the bye week. We are likely to be dogs in each of our remaining games, and if we will be running, running, running, we need to take advantage of that by using play action to potentially hit a few big plays. Because these better teams will be much more likely than Indiana to eventually stuff the run.
Again, we threw 12 times. This is about those 12 times, not throwing more than that. But on those plays, why not use play action given that IU would almost certainly have bitten given that we were running 80% of the time? Instead, we just dropped back with no run fake. It's an interesting question.
You do remember the Michigan game don’t you. Pick six that turned (or sealed our fate) the game.
The offense certainly isn’t easy on the eyes. It’s a boring brand of football to be sure but it’s what we do well. All you can do when the talent isn’t there at qb and wr. As we get more playmakers I’m sure the plan is to evolve.
We were not looking to stretch the field. Guess the coaching staff wanted a more ball control offense. It did work so difficult to argue it was bad.
I still don’t think that we’re talking about the same thing. This isn’t a challenge to the decision to run, run, run. That worked. It’s about how RU schemed its 12 passing plays. The question is why, on those passing plays, didn’t RU take advantage of how much it was running by using play-action to fool IU rather than simply drop straight back to pass.
Last edited:
I would think that this would be a point of emphasis in the remaining games. It's going to be difficult to throw the ball against the likes of Penn State, Ohio State, and Iowa without deception. The OL is improved, but it's not dominant.
Doesn’t need to be deep play action. Usually over the middle is wide open when linebackers bite on run fake
I think the bootleg TD was play-action... and I know I have seen play-action passes work for us. Think some of those middle-rang down teh middle passes were play-action.
But I agree we do not do it enough and if I were forced to explain it, I might suggest that GW's habit of long down a receiver might indicate an issue with him finding targets downfield. There has to be some reason he doesn't look-off defenders... perhaps if he takes his eyes off his target he'll have a hard time finding him? That would be necessary of a good play-action fake. He can't be looking downfield and fake hanging off while still looking downfield.
But to run just one such bootleg off a fake to Monangai when he is ripping the D for yardage? Criminal misuse of GW's legs.
But I agree we do not do it enough and if I were forced to explain it, I might suggest that GW's habit of long down a receiver might indicate an issue with him finding targets downfield. There has to be some reason he doesn't look-off defenders... perhaps if he takes his eyes off his target he'll have a hard time finding him? That would be necessary of a good play-action fake. He can't be looking downfield and fake hanging off while still looking downfield.
But to run just one such bootleg off a fake to Monangai when he is ripping the D for yardage? Criminal misuse of GW's legs.
Of those 12 passing plays.. how many were in down and distance situations where a run was dangerous to teh defense? I mean 3rd and forever do they really bite on any play-fake? Of course, when we were successful running the ball.. you could see the D selling out to stop it. At a minimum, we needed to run that bootleg more often. And, yeah.. an efficient play-fake passing game would be real nice to have.
There were at least a handful. This isn't a post-game observation, just something that seemed odd to me while watching the game, in particular while watching those plays.
agreed... every 1st down coming after a first-down-making run by Monangai is a play-action opportunity. heck.. I LOVE the first play of the game for that... which we have done a couple times this year.