[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17932.msg211149#msg211149 date=1510109101]
Didn't we call a screen to Weddington and it was completely blown up for a 2-yard loss? It's possible we should've tried more but I'm certain there was at least one.

But, as I've said before, a lot of the answer to "Why didn't we do more ____?" is "We only ran 47 plays."

Not really a traditional bubble screen.  As I recall, weddington was 1 on 1 with a DB, so for the play to work. He needed to make his guy miss.  Usually, the bubble screen is run with trips or at least two receivers out wide so that there can be blockers.

BC
[/quote]

Well, sure, but traditionally a bubble screen isn't that fast either, since the receiver needs to fake like he's running a route then come back to make the catch. And, no matter what happens, there's going to be at least as many defenders as receivers, so it's still the receiver's job to make a man miss. You could argue that that's easier with a blocker and his assignment taking up space, but the blocker could also just whiff, making it 2-on-1. I know NFL data has limited relevance to college, but in Football Outsider's study of DVOA by route type screens were by far the worst of the common routes, probably because they're a little "boom or bust" and not very efficient.

Anyway, maybe we should've run more than the one, but I find it hard to believe that it would've made the difference in the game.

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17932.msg211149#msg211149 date=1510109101]
Didn't we call a screen to Weddington and it was completely blown up for a 2-yard loss? It's possible we should've tried more but I'm certain there was at least one.

But, as I've said before, a lot of the answer to "Why didn't we do more ____?" is "We only ran 47 plays."

Not really a traditional bubble screen.  As I recall, weddington was 1 on 1 with a DB, so for the play to work. He needed to make his guy miss.  Usually, the bubble screen is run with trips or at least two receivers out wide so that there can be blockers.

BC
[/quote]

Well, sure, but traditionally a bubble screen isn't that fast either, since the receiver needs to fake like he's running a route then come back to make the catch. And, no matter what happens, there's going to be at least as many defenders as receivers, so it's still the receiver's job to make a man miss. You could argue that that's easier with a blocker and his assignment taking up space, but the blocker could also just whiff, making it 2-on-1. I know NFL data has limited relevance to college, but in Football Outsider's study of DVOA by route type screens were by far the worst of the common routes, probably because they're a little "boom or bust" and not very efficient.

Anyway, maybe we should've run more than the one, but I find it hard to believe that it would've made the difference in the game.