(09-25-2021, 09:20 PM)Goose Wrote: Came home, ate dinner, read the cardboard. To help those that are confused as to how we could appear to hang with UCLA while having zero offense, UCLA is not a very good team and the Chipster insisted on having DTR throw the ball. Our defense actually played pretty well (for them). They got us a couple of stops and UCLA doing dumb things got us a few more. That is all we can hope for. However, our multiple three and outs cancelled out that effort.
The offense was horrible for the first half. The OL moved nobody during the entire game. We also saw a dose of "bad" McKee where he mist receivers that we available by making off-target throws. When you are having 3 and outs anyway because you can't run, one or two misses in the passing game are fatal, which is what we got. We simply can't expect our defense to hold up if we are punting that much.
If Chp had just run the ball all game, it wouldn't have been as close as it was. They couldn't get six yards every attempt, but could basically get siix yards every other attempt, which would have been quite enough.
Regarding Shaw's decision to put on 4th and a foot, at the time in the stadium I was outraged. However, upon reflection (before we got the ball back FWIW), I realized he had seen our OL play. Making a foot was not as probable as "normal", and putting any more pressure of a shorter field on our defense wasn't a good idea. He was right. Easy to say that given the outcome, but I think it was the case. We have all heard about "good decision, bad outcome" cases. Many here are arguing "bad decision, good outcome" in this case. I don't agree. It was a good decision given how we were performing.
Now, how can Shaw "fix" what happened in the first half on offense. I don't think he can. The team just has to actually play football. They didn't today during the first half, and arguably the OL never did all game.
Shaw had three chances to go for it on 4th and short. The first was, I think, the fourth and a foot you refer to. I had no problem with them punting. At that point in the game they couldn’t get a foot running the ball. Heck, UCLA’s d-line was getting penetration 3 yards into the backfield. I remember a second and one run by Peat. UCLA had 3 d lineman in the backfield almost as soon as he got the ball. He went outside and got back close to LOS. That may have been the same series where they punted fourth and a foot.
But the other two infuriated me. Especially kicking the FG. I knew UCLA would control it and score. He had to go for it there. Second one (down 21-14) was also weak.
It was a putrid performance from the o line. They got slaughtered.