It's 1st and goal for Pitt from the 2. What's next?
- Thread starter Saboteur
- Start date
I’m a big fan of going 4 wide to stretch the defense and unpack the box.
going big and trying to run through 11 defenders is stupid -
Unless your oline is the rare exception who is far more talented than the defense
going big and trying to run through 11 defenders is stupid -
Unless your oline is the rare exception who is far more talented than the defense
Great post but I would add more too it.... I agree spread it out, but I would also include a QB lead or read option so there is a numbers advantage. I say this because KP is a good and tough runner.
Last edited:
I take the opposite side
They have athletes all over the field. We had nowhere to go (outside) all day.
We have (presumably) a Rimington candidate over the ball.
You take away the athletic advantage Miami's defense has by going straight at them 4 plays in a row.
I hated the run up the gut on 3rd down. Naked bootleg your mobile QB and I think Pickett walks in.
I'd go sneak right up the gut but not out of a bunched up big formation. I would have Mathews spread out to the wide side, with an h-back on the wing. V Carter as the set back. QB sneak on the first play, then if there is a 2nd down, with no huddle, I would line up on the ball in the same formation and run Pickett down the line to the wide side, with the option to cut it up if there, or take it wide with the old school option style pitch to V Carter there.
There is absolutely no question Pitt needs to be able to score TD's from in close. No question at all.
But in the context of the game yesterday, even had Pitt scored that TD from the 1, they would have still needed to prevent Miami from scoring a late TD in order to win. And they weren't able to do that.
Pitt needs more point production offensively. Winning games solely on the back of the defense is very difficult to do. Pitt needs to develop an offense to compliment the current play of the D. In other words, a complete team on both sides of the ball. Until they can do that, every game will be a struggle and achieving more than 7 (or so) wins will be tough to attain.
But in the context of the game yesterday, even had Pitt scored that TD from the 1, they would have still needed to prevent Miami from scoring a late TD in order to win. And they weren't able to do that.
Pitt needs more point production offensively. Winning games solely on the back of the defense is very difficult to do. Pitt needs to develop an offense to compliment the current play of the D. In other words, a complete team on both sides of the ball. Until they can do that, every game will be a struggle and achieving more than 7 (or so) wins will be tough to attain.
Bill Walsh said when you get near the 20 yard line, start throwing for the end zone. Because it's hard to punch it in when you have a compressed field (unless you have significantly superior talent, in which case playcall is sort of irrelevant.)
Ugh... spoken from someone who has never played the game nor has a grasp of mathematics. From the 2 - you can't stretch a defense that only has 12 yards of depth to defend. Holy crap... they do teach math at Pitt, right?
Wait... where did FogeDuzzi go to school??
Line up with a back on each side of the QB. Dive player to the RB they don't expect on the side of the line they don't expect.
YES! Are you serious? You don't even need to be a fan of football just know the general nature of the sport to know that every situation is unique and different planning/tactics need employed for these differences.
For all of you guys who are bellyaching about yesterday, do you guys realize that even if Pitt scores that TD yesterday, they still lose. Or do you think that TD means Miami doesn't score their TD? Or did you want to get a TD and go for a 2 PT conversion and get it which means a tie and OT unless if Miami goes for 2 also and gets it?
This is not the PSU game where they needed to tie the game late. Going for it in the PSU game would have been the right call which Duzz didn't. He wised up for the UCF game and this call to kick the FG was correct also. It put us up which is always the goal.
Where Pitt screwed up was the play calling once they got the ball back. There was no reason why Miami should have had any more than 2 minutes and any less than 80 yards to score.
I don't mind spreading it out either, but there's a reason people go big in those situations.
If Wheeler doesn't completely whiff on his block, AJ is likely in for a TD.
Because it’s conventional wisdom
it’s the same reason lots of bad decisions get made -
Because they are lower risk and thus less likely to be questioned .
also more predictable and less likely to succeed
Yeah
Math of 4- 5 db away from the los instead of stacking behind the dline.
Easier to block 5 with 5 than 8 with 6
You are assuming that if Pitt had scored a touchdown in that situation, the rest of the game would have played out exactly as it did with the field goal. And that is very unlikely to have happened. As you said, every situation is different and Miami would play differently down by 5 or 7 than down by 2.
Thank you for realizing the lead would’ve been 5 or 7, has been frustrating dealing with people saying Pitt would have been up 6.
Wait, do you think that scoring a touchdown and then NOT going for two was a possibility?
Do they still teach math at Pitt?
Actually I mentioned this in another thread. I mean you’d assume it’s a no brainer to go for 2, but nothing surprises me anymore.
Could imagine Narduzzi going for the XP and saying with Miami’s kicking woes an XP is far from automatic for them. Then having 50 posters call me stupid for questioning that strategy.
Actually you are proving my point.
If this, if that, if such and such, if so and so.
There was still 7 minutes left in the game people. A lot of football was still left to be played. Pitt had their chance to put it away when they got the ball back and didn't.
We have no clue if the game would play out differently if Pitt was up by 5 or 7. No one here knows that.
What we do know is even if Pitt got the TD, that Miami still had 7 minutes afterwards to either go up by 1 (yes would be bad math on coaches part but would you be surprised?) ,2 (a failed 2 PT attempt which not perfect but the only stat I saw was NFL stat that states 53% chance of this outcome) or or tie the game (47% chance Pitt converts).
I have stated my frustrations with Duzz over the years and this season, but I am not critical of kicking a fg there. The critism should be the play calling once Pitt got the ball back. Ashton is not our FB and Olison is not our RB anymore and last year's line is gone too. With those guys you could have called those plays, not this cast of players.
Not at all. You stated that Miami would have scored a touchdown, and my point is that there is no way to know what would have actually happened if Pitt had gone for it and scored a touchdown. You stated yourself that no one knows what would have happened, yet you also claim that Miami would have scored a touchdown - those are mutually exclusive positions.
I will admit that I worded it bad. But you appear to agree that none of us know how it would have turned out. Too many ifs, shoulds and coulds to have a logical discussion.
I still maintain more focus of blame should be the 3 and out once we got the ball back, not the FG.
With last year's team that type of play calling would have worked. This year's team, well, we all saw what happened.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
My guess as to why this site is STILL in 'no mans land' at the moment
- Latest: Guyasuta Genac
-
-
