OK, now that the celebration has died down a little...

[maroonmania]

I have to mention a few of my head scratchers from our side from the game last Saturday. Afterward, none of this mattered, but during the game these were the things that had me pulling my hair out (and kept OM within some semblance of striking distance):

1. Down 6-3 with second and goal inside the one AND Relf in this time, AGAIN (as in the LSU game), we don't try the QB sneak - Instead we try to run wide and lose back to the 2. Do our coaches think the QB sneak is an illegal play? Luckily Dixon got the TD call from the ref on the 3rd and goal AFTER slipping a tackle that would have knocked him down for another loss.

2. Up 27-13 early in the 4th quarter we leave a true freshman (Banks) on an island in the secondary trying to defend the bomb with no safety help whatsoever. Of course, gave up the TD and essentially let them back in the game on one play. Just would have thought we would have been playing a safer defense at that point forcing them to at least run a little clock before they scored.

3. Up 34-20 mid 4th quarter going in for the score from the 2, Stallworth leads into the pile with the ball loosely held in one hand sticking WAY out from his body and fumbles it away. Ball protection should have been job one at that point since even a FG makes it a 3 score game but that seemed to be the LAST thing on Arnil's mind.

4. Rebels still down 34-20 but with 4th and 17 from their own 45 and we let their primary receiver, Hodge, run an 18 yard curl with a cushion of seemingly 7 or 8 yards. Don't know what we were thinking on that one, however, the next play Broomfield gets the pick 6 and all is well again.

Just sayin' that sometimes it seems the Dogs always have to make it harder than it needs to be even in a win. But, I guess that's just part of the frustrating fun of being a long suffering MSU football fan.

 

[AzzurriDawg4]

if we just went with a strict policy of NO PASSING on 1st and 2nd downs once we crossed the 40. With Dixon and Relf, I guarantee we would have scored more points. I can't tell you how many times we got cute and tried to throw it on 2nd and 6 or 7, or drove past the 40 with the running game and threw on 1st down only to get sacked, put ourselves in 3rd and long or throw a pick. We would have had a lot of manageable 3rd (and less than 5) situations for sure.

 

[graddawg]

1. Down 6-3 with second and goal inside the one AND Relf in this time, AGAIN (as in the LSU game), we don't try the QB sneak - Instead we try to run wide and lose back to the 2. Do our coaches think the QB sneak is an illegal play? Luckily Dixon got the TD call from the ref on the 3rd and goal AFTER slipping a tackle that would have knocked him down for another loss.

I thought we brought Tyson in for the 2nd and 3rd down plays on the goal line, which was questionable at best.

 

[ckDOG]

1. Down 6-3 with second and goal inside the one AND Relf in this time, AGAIN (as in the LSU game), we don't try the QB sneak - Instead we try to run wide and lose back to the 2. Do our coaches think the QB sneak is an illegal play? Luckily Dixon got the TD call from the ref on the 3rd and goal AFTER slipping a tackle that would have knocked him down for another loss.

This has been my head scratcher all season also. I know we had a drastically improved offensive line this season - credit that to a variety of factors. However, I don't think straight up overpowering the opposition was one of their strong suits. I think the coaching staff simply didn't feel comfortable asking the o-line to just man up and own the line of scrimmage and let the QB or RB fall forward.

Alot of their effectiveness was scheme related (misdirection available in open space) and, unfortunately, lining up at the goal line and out-manning the opposition just wasn't our forte. That being the case, I think we were forced to get "cute" at times (see jump pass and favoring an outside running play). However, I did think the wishbone worked out well for us and favored what our personnel offer. When its working, the wishbone is truly a thing of beauty.

 

[maroonmania]

and made the pitch to Dixon but I'm almost positive Relf was in on 2nd down inside the 1.

 

[graddawg]

You may be right. I really can't remember who was in on 2nd down now that I think about it.

 

[Big Sheep81]

A strict policy of NO PASSING? Would this be in writing? That would be a big help to a defensive coordinator for the other team. Do you really think a coaching staff or coach says "This will be cute, let's try this"? You know better than that. Our play calling was not only creative but Saturday it clearly took advantage of what the OM defense was giving up and using up clock at the same time. Damn boys, open your eyes and your memory. 2009 was light years offensively ahead of the last five. What about the throw to the tight end when everybody on the field was looking for run? Folks can ***** about the infamous LSU 4th and inches but all of those calls were solid. The players did not execute and LSU's DB made a great play. Then Lee makes a BAD decision on 4th down. Mullen has more than demonstated an ability to layout and call a solid game plan. With the right players, those calls will be looking more like pure genius.

 

[kired]

3. Up 34-20 mid 4th quarter going in for the score from the 2, Stallworth leads into the pile with the ball loosely held in one hand sticking WAY out from his body and fumbles it away. Ball protection should have been job one at that point since even a FG makes it a 3 score game but that seemed to be the LAST thing on Arnil's mind.

Why didn't we run a QB sneak with Relf? I thought is was actually on the 1 yrd line... 1st down from the 1. I figured Mullen was trying to get Stallworth a TD on senior day, but screw that. Let Relf punch it in and seal the game.

 

[StateLover]

I'm very happy with the season, but why does the coaching staff feel the need to go to some three back, wishbone look as soon as we get inside the opponent's three?

Coach, we were getting 6 yards a carry out of the spread. No reason to bunch it up on the goalline. Please scrap that in the future, go four wide, and run a sneak with your choice of 6'3" qbs: newton russell or relf. If you had already done so, we'd be bowling.

 

[Shmuley]

the fumble was a huge WTF, but before that, ol Arnil nearly made a helluva defensive play on Green on the TD catch. WTF was Stallworth doing on that route?

 

[Shmuley]

with James Carmon lined up in the Cody slot.

 

[AzzurriDawg4]

You have me sounding like I am complaining. But we ran 3 damn plays. And we didnt pass unless (you guessed it) we had to.

Your damn right though. Until somebody showed they could consistently stop the Relf/Dixon combo, every time we crossed the 40 (note this is qualified) I would institute said policy. You act like I said never pass. Obviously we can pass when we are driving and need it on our side of the field to make something happen, but we took ourselves out of field goal range a bunch of times by getting away from the run on their half of the field.

And no, I don't think it would help the other team's DC. Sure as hell didn't help Nix.

 

[Big Sheep81]

nm

 

[ckDOG]

Coach, we were getting 6 yards a carry out of the spread. No reason to bunch it up on the goalline.

The back of the endzone takes alot out of the spread concept. The fact that there is far less room to work with less than 5 yards out makes it tougher to keep with the scheme that got you down there in the first place. Plus, for that to work, you have to assume the defense is going to respect that you may pass to one of those 4 WRs. I don't think anyone respected any of our QBs because of their passing capabilities.

Sometimes, you just have to line up and knock over your opponent.

 

[Big Sheep81]

But my point was, would the previous staff have even put Relf in running the option? No, and yes it WAS creative because they had a package in (Relf/Dixon/pass) that they went to in the second half when they saw it opening up. Creative is not always re-inventing an offense or a new offense. It more often imagining and preparing new scenarios where you do something different than just the last three years of Dixon, Dixon, throw incomplete. Dixon and the inside game was a big ***** before Mullen. Now, things are mixed up better. No more complete predictability. That is what killed us offensively under what-was-his-name (I cannot bring myself to type it). Yep, we screwed the pooch passing some. Some of that was QB some was routes. But we got better as the year went on. I had my doubts about Mullen as a head coach. His play calling won me over.

The other thing ya'll miss sometimes is just how bad we really were and our lack of effort. Mullen turned that in one season. Let the man coach. If he flops in two years, I will hold his balls while ya'll cut them off......

 

[StateLover]

I'll be the first to admit my own football dumbassedness but I'll make two points:

(1) I cannot recall ever seeing a QB sneak fail on consecutive downs to pick up one yard. I like a sneak even more if you have a tall, physical QB like Relf. I believe State would have scored the go-ahead touchdown against LSU if Relf's number would have been called twice on the goalline.

(2) I think State should get away from the goal line set we are currently employing. Maybe "four-wide" was a bit much, but if you put additional recievers out wide or split a tight end out wide or send a back in motion, a defender has to go up there and line up on that eligible reciever, which means one less defender in the box to combat any push that your line creates.

With the current goalline set (2 tight, 3 backs), State dictates that 9 or 10 defenders begin the play three steps from where the ball is being snapped. Almost every defender has less distance to travel than the running back to the point of attack. At the snap, there is no split and instead of a running back winning a battle with one defender and overpowering him into the endzone, you get a situation where a back has to move a pile to get into the endzone.

It seems like if you can create some room on the goalline (with some eligible recievers wide), you can be more effective. Its still power football--you have to block the guy in front of you and the running back likely has to beat one defender into the end zone. As for a sneak, a QB sneak behind the center and guard is more effective in a spread out formation because the lineman are pushing 3 guys instead of 5. The safety or OLB is in the slot and too far away from the play to make an impact. And if they dont go cover the reciever you check off and throw it to the unmarked reciever for a touchdown.

Im sure this is football 101, perhaps someone who has experience beyond spectating can make sense of this and restate it or tell me why am wrong.

 

[dogfan96]

he was supposed to go to the flat (and hopefully take a LB with him).. but for some reason he drifted upfield and almost blew up the play

 

[Big Sheep81]

If you have never seen a QB sneak fail on consecutive downs to get a yard, you simply have not watched enough football. It happens. A QB sneak is no different than a straight dive. If you do not get the surge from your OL whipping the DL, you get no yards. (MSU vs LSU 2009 1st, 2nd, 4th downs six inches needed).

A tight set of 2-3 players in the back field enables you to put more folks on fewer folks at the point of attack, i.e. leverage. If your guys do what they should you have them outnumbered IF you whip them. If not, you get jammed up.
When you do that and draw the defenders down, then you can SOMETIMES bounce a run outside, bootleg, or play action and hit a tight end or back (UM vs MSU 2009, TOUCHDOWN).

As ckdog said, the spread is designed to get playmakers in space, in the open field, with room to create one on one matchups. At the three yard line that ability is limited due to the limitations of the endzone. The defenders have less space to cover and your offense has to depend on busted coverage.

That is about as simple as I know to explain without a board to show you.

 

[StateLover]

Thanks