WSU Game Thread - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WSU Game Thread (/thread-14789.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WSU Game Thread (/thread-14789.html)
Re: WSU Game Thread - winflop - 11-04-2017
(11-04-2017, 08:25 PM)Goose link Wrote:Play action passes work only when you are running with some effectiveness.
We will have to respectfully disagree. WSU was committing 8/9 on the line and crashing on Love, especially on first down. You can do play action with a 5-step drop and a release over the top to JJ in solo coverage. I'll take JJ in a jump ball 20 yards downfield every day and twice on Sunday. Didn't even do it ONCE. And if you do it a couple times in the first half you start to keep them more honest, which then opens up more opportunities for the run game.
You can also run screens, slants, quick hitches, read option, jet sweeps, and many other things we have in the playbook that never found their way to the field today. Yes, poor OL play can limit these options but to not try any of them really boggles the mind.
Re: WSU Game Thread - washingtonismoney - 11-04-2017
(11-04-2017, 08:34 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:Yeah, that's an interesting question. Anyone have any idea how many read options we actually ran? It's also hard to tell if Costello was told to just hand it off or if he was reading it badly or what. But that's definitely something we should lean on in a game like this.
It's strange. It looked as if, during the Utah game, either the coaches or the QBs made it a point to pull the ball and run. Since then, nada. It definitely looks open. The point of running a read option is that occasionally the QB keeps. So why has it turned into a nullity?
Re: WSU Game Thread - stupac2 - 11-04-2017
(11-04-2017, 08:48 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17902.msg210751#msg210751 date=1509852886]
Yeah, that's an interesting question. Anyone have any idea how many read options we actually ran? It's also hard to tell if Costello was told to just hand it off or if he was reading it badly or what. But that's definitely something we should lean on in a game like this.
It's strange. It looked as if, during the Utah game, either the coaches or the QBs made it a point to pull the ball and run. Since then, nada. It definitely looks open. The point of running a read option is that occasionally the QB keeps. So why has it turned into a nullity?
[/quote]
Especially here since WSU's MO on defense has been pretty similar for the past few years and Hogan running was the only thing we could get going in 2015. You'd think they'd be aware of that going into the game...
Re: WSU Game Thread - Mick - 11-05-2017
(11-04-2017, 07:57 PM)cardcrimson link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=17902.msg210739#msg210739 date=1509850016]
[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17902.msg210719#msg210719 date=1509845848]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=17902.msg210670#msg210670 date=1509838809]
[quote author=hurlburt88 link=topic=17902.msg210350#msg210350 date=1509829988]
I was unimpressed with accuracy on multiple throws. Let's see what 2nd half brings . . .
With respect, it's 37 degrees in rain and snow and sleet, and it's his first meaningful action in...ever. Maybe cut him a sliver of slack.
[/quote]
That's why Falk went 34 of 48 for 337 with 3 tds and 1 int., while Costello went 9 of 20 for 105 and no tds and 1 pick. The weather was much worse when we had the ball. At least their QBRs were about the same.
Costello looked good in the games earlier this season. Today, not so much. The weather was irrelevant, the scheme on the other hand. . . .
[/quote]
I didn't realize Falk did all his practicing in a warm climate like Palo Alto. I thought he practiced in Pullman.
[/quote]
Come on Mick. Blaming our performance on the weather is pretty lame. As someone mentioned in another thread , rain or snow is no big deal, wind on the other hand is a different story. Not much wind today.
[/quote]
I've played football in terrible conditions. It's a different game, and the team that practices in those conditions and has familiarity with those conditions has a leg up on their opponents. To say otherwise makes no sense.
We lost by three points. I think it's a different game and different outcome in Stanford.
Re: WSU Game Thread - JohnR34231 - 11-05-2017
(11-05-2017, 06:59 AM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17902.msg210743#msg210743 date=1509850631]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=17902.msg210739#msg210739 date=1509850016]
[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17902.msg210719#msg210719 date=1509845848]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=17902.msg210670#msg210670 date=1509838809]
[quote author=hurlburt88 link=topic=17902.msg210350#msg210350 date=1509829988]
I was unimpressed with accuracy on multiple throws. Let's see what 2nd half brings . . .
With respect, it's 37 degrees in rain and snow and sleet, and it's his first meaningful action in...ever. Maybe cut him a sliver of slack.
[/quote]
That's why Falk went 34 of 48 for 337 with 3 tds and 1 int., while Costello went 9 of 20 for 105 and no tds and 1 pick. The weather was much worse when we had the ball. At least their QBRs were about the same.
Costello looked good in the games earlier this season. Today, not so much. The weather was irrelevant, the scheme on the other hand. . . .
[/quote]
I didn't realize Falk did all his practicing in a warm climate like Palo Alto. I thought he practiced in Pullman.
[/quote]
Come on Mick. Blaming our performance on the weather is pretty lame. As someone mentioned in another thread , rain or snow is no big deal, wind on the other hand is a different story. Not much wind today.
[/quote]
I've played football in terrible conditions. It's a different game, and the team that practices in those conditions and has familiarity with those conditions has a leg up on their opponents. To say otherwise makes no sense.
We lost by three points. I think it's a different game and different outcome in Stanford.
[/quote]
It might have been a different game in Palo Alto, but probably because both teams have played well at home and not so well on the road this year. Someone pointed out earlier that this was the first time this year conditions had been this bad in the area, so if that's true it is somewhat questionable how familiar Wazzu was with them.
Re: WSU Game Thread - martyup - 11-05-2017
We only ran 47 plays. On nearly every play, we run the play clock down to under 5 seconds. IT DRIVES ME CRAZY WATCHING THE CLOCK TICK DOWN WHILE OUR QB FRANTICLY MAKES HIS AUDIBLE CALLS. I really think this process is hurting our offensive execution. I think that the linemen are getting confused and, therefore, missing assignments. I think that our receivers are not hearing the calls and running the wrong routes. I think our QBs are in such a hurry to get the ball snapped before the DOG penalty that they are making bad decisions in their progressions and read options.
If the Shaw strategy is to take as much time as possible on each play to keep the other team's offense off of the field, I can understand it. However, this could be achieved without all of the audibles. Why not stay in the huddle longer and let the boys get some air?
Sure, Andrew Luck could run the Stanford offense by making good audible calls at the line. But, neither Chryst nor Costello have proven that they can pull it off successfully.
Re: WSU Game Thread - cardcrimson - 11-05-2017
(11-05-2017, 10:58 AM)martyup link Wrote:We only ran 47 plays. On nearly every play, we run the play clock down to under 5 seconds. IT DRIVES ME CRAZY WATCHING THE CLOCK TICK DOWN WHILE OUR QB FRANTICLY MAKES HIS AUDIBLE CALLS. I really think this process is hurting our offensive execution. I think that the linemen are getting confused and, therefore, missing assignments. I think that our receivers are not hearing the calls and running the wrong routes. I think our QBs are in such a hurry to get the ball snapped before the DOG penalty that they are making bad decisions in their progressions and read options.
If the Shaw strategy is to take as much time as possible on each play to keep the other team's offense off of the field, I can understand it. However, this could be achieved without all of the audibles. Why not stay in the huddle longer and let the boys get some air?
Sure, Andrew Luck could run the Stanford offense by making good audible calls at the line. But, neither Chryst nor Costello have proven that they can pull it off successfully.
Actually, some pretty valid points.
Re: WSU Game Thread - BostonCard - 11-05-2017
(11-05-2017, 10:58 AM)martyup link Wrote:If the Shaw strategy is to take as much time as possible on each play to keep the other team's offense off of the field, I can understand it. However, this could be achieved without all of the audibles. Why not stay in the huddle longer and let the boys get some air?
Sure, Andrew Luck could run the Stanford offense by making good audible calls at the line. But, neither Chryst nor Costello have proven that they can pull it off successfully.
At least in the past (may not be the case now), multiple plays were called in the huddle. The QB then looked at the defensive alignment and made a pre-snap decision about whether to go with the primary play call, or kill it and go to an alternate play call. So, this all takes time; you have to decide on multiple plays, communicate multiple plays to the QB, the QB has to call multiple plays in the huddle, then when he goes to the line of scrimmage, he has to see and read the defensive alignment, and if he goes to the alternate play, he has to audible.
I was watching a lot of football yesterday, and in each of the games I watched, there was at least one delay of game (or time out to prevent a delay of game). While it drives us mad because it ought to be preventable, it does not seem isolated to Stanford, though I think we are guilty more often than most.
BC
Re: WSU Game Thread - washingtonismoney - 11-05-2017
The delay of game issues are what they are, but I think the slow tempo is particularly vulnerable to Washington State, and may account for the team's struggles over the past three years (i.e. since Grinch got on the scene). The more time you bleed from the clock, the more pre-snap shifts the defensive line can throw in to confuse the opposing offensive line.
So I do blame the offensive staff for not counteracting that, or at the very least replicating their successful use of Kevin Hogan's read-option keeps in 2015. While I don't think Costello is quite the athlete Hogan is, he's good enough to make the opponents think.
Re: WSU Game Thread - martyup - 11-05-2017
(11-05-2017, 11:48 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:At least in the past (may not be the case now), multiple plays were called in the huddle. The QB then looked at the defensive alignment and made a pre-snap decision about whether to go with the primary play call, or kill it and go to an alternate play call. So, this all takes time; you have to decide on multiple plays, communicate multiple plays to the QB, the QB has to call multiple plays in the huddle, then when he goes to the line of scrimmage, he has to see and read the defensive alignment, and if he goes to the alternate play, he has to audible.
BC
You are perfectly describing the process that I am condemning. I think this process is getting in the way of our execution and is holding back Love. We have the best running back in the country in the backfield. He is especially good at finding creases in the D line and taking it to the house. Why dilly dally with all the mumbo jumbo? Just run plays to Love, or read option, or play action. Then, repeat.
Re: WSU Game Thread - stupac2 - 11-05-2017
(11-05-2017, 12:52 PM)martyup link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17902.msg210835#msg210835 date=1509907697]
At least in the past (may not be the case now), multiple plays were called in the huddle. The QB then looked at the defensive alignment and made a pre-snap decision about whether to go with the primary play call, or kill it and go to an alternate play call. So, this all takes time; you have to decide on multiple plays, communicate multiple plays to the QB, the QB has to call multiple plays in the huddle, then when he goes to the line of scrimmage, he has to see and read the defensive alignment, and if he goes to the alternate play, he has to audible.
BC
You are perfectly describing the process that I am condemning. I think this process is getting in the way of our execution and is holding back Love. We have the best running back in the country in the backfield. He is especially good at finding creases in the D line and taking it to the house. Why dilly dally with all the mumbo jumbo? Just run plays to Love, or read option, or play action. Then, repeat.
[/quote]
Well, the theory is that the QB, by reading and reacting to the defense, can put us into a better position than the coaches can by calling a play without seeing the defense. I suspect that, without an experienced QB, it's probably better to just call a play and run it. But there's at least a rationale behind what they're doing.
Re: WSU Game Thread - martyup - 11-05-2017
(11-05-2017, 01:11 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:Well, the theory is that the QB, by reading and reacting to the defense, can put us into a better position than the coaches can by calling a play without seeing the defense. I suspect that, without an experienced QB, it's probably better to just call a play and run it. But there's at least a rationale behind what they're doing.
Yes, of course the rationale is sound. It works when you have a QB like Luck and Hogan who can make the reads and change the plays at the line without getting frazzled and without taking a delay penalty. What I am saying is that neither Chyrst nor Costello have shown that they can pull it off effectively.
Re: WSU Game Thread - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 11-05-2017
Didn't get a chance to watch the game, can someone summarize how Costello looked? The numbers were awful but of course don't always tell the whole story.
Re: WSU Game Thread - BostonCard - 11-05-2017
(11-05-2017, 01:29 PM)martyup link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17902.msg210859#msg210859 date=1509912691]
Well, the theory is that the QB, by reading and reacting to the defense, can put us into a better position than the coaches can by calling a play without seeing the defense. I suspect that, without an experienced QB, it's probably better to just call a play and run it. But there's at least a rationale behind what they're doing.
Yes, of course the rationale is sound. It works when you have a QB like Luck and Hogan who can make the reads and change the plays at the line without getting frazzled and without taking a delay penalty. What I am saying is that neither Chyrst nor Costello have shown that they can pull it off effectively.
[/quote]
That is a fair critique. The issue is none of us really know if the problem is that the QB is not getting us into the right play, or if he is, but someone is missing a block or running the wrong route, or not seeing the open receiver. From the fan perspective, they look identical: a play that goes no where. But from a coaching perspective it makes all the difference in the world because if the QB is not recognizing the defensive alignment, then, yeah, you call in one play regardless. If, on the other hand, he does, then what you suggest might make you feel better, but wont help in the outcome.
BC
Re: WSU Game Thread - washingtonismoney - 11-05-2017
(11-05-2017, 01:42 PM)ThePOC link Wrote:Didn't get a chance to watch the game, can someone summarize how Costello looked? The numbers were awful but of course don't always tell the whole story.
Up and down. Some impressive throws, more poor ones. Pressured a bunch. Never seemed to lose it mentally, as we've seen from failed QBs in the past. Refs didn't call some obvious pass interferences/holds, which presumably would've helped the passing game.
It was not his fault, but not not his fault, if that makes any sense.
Re: WSU Game Thread - dabigv13 - 11-05-2017
He wasn't the missing link to offensive success, but it wasn't like the bulk of the offensive failings were his fault. Looked better than Chryst from OSU game, but not nearly as good as Costello's other games so far.
Re: WSU Game Thread - CowboyIndian - 11-05-2017
(11-05-2017, 01:47 PM)dabigv link Wrote:He wasn't the missing link to offensive success, but it wasn't like the bulk of the offensive failings were his fault. Looked better than Chryst from OSU game, but not nearly as good as Costello's other games so far.
OL, OL, OL!
Re: WSU Game Thread - dabigv13 - 11-05-2017
Yeah, if our OL could keep a pocket and guys out of Love's face in the backfield, we would've won I think, and that was the bulk of our troubles. But if Costello makes a few throws he misses, maybe we win too.
He should definitely keep the starting job, and hopefully he improves next week.
Re: WSU Game Thread - cardcrimson - 11-05-2017
(11-05-2017, 02:36 PM)dabigv link Wrote:Yeah, if our OL could keep a pocket and guys out of Love's face in the backfield, we would've won I think, and that was the bulk of our troubles. But if Costello makes a few throws he misses, maybe we win too.
He should definitely keep the starting job, and hopefully he improves next week.
If we only could have scored more points then Wazzu, we probably would have won, but who knows. . . .
Re: WSU Game Thread - Hurlburt88 - 11-05-2017
Changing subjects, any news leaking out on Walker Little's injury?
I did think Hamilton filled in well for him. OUr problems seemed more on the interior OL (open to correction on this)