[BostonCard]

Those who liked play action passing should have liked what they saw against WSU.  We ran it several times, including twice for a touchdown.  I'm a bit surprised it hasn't been discussed.

The play call to Houston Heimuli worked exactly as it was supposed to.  On fourth and goal from the 1/2 yard line, we run the heavy package (featuring three guys in the backfield), fake the give to Speights, and toss it to Heimuli who was all alone in the end zone.

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=25101742

Note, however, that if the WSU linebacker doesn't bite on the fake, there was nowhere else for the play to go.

That happened in our other touchdown, to Kaden Smith, who was not actually a secondary receiver in that play...

Kaden’s most impressive play, though, came without design. We lined up four tight ends in a run formation on the WSU 10-yard line with senior running back Bryce Love in the backfield. With all blockers crashing down in the expected style of a Stanford smash-mouth running play, we released sophomore tight end Colby Parkinson to the end zone for a play-action pass. Two Cougar defenders flanked Colby and left no target for junior quarterback K.J. Costello.

Before K.J. could throw the ball away on this red zone second down, Kaden slipped out and presented K.J. with a new option. There was no secondary route drawn up on the play. Kaden felt the situation, and his quarterback scrambled to stay alive long enough to find his roommate in the end zone.

Here's the clip...



Here's a case where what seemed like a great play call (play action pass on second and 5 from about the 8) could have ended in disaster, because the defense did not bite.  We were lucky that Smith and Costello were able to improvise, and it led to a TD.

BC

[BostonCard]

Those who liked play action passing should have liked what they saw against WSU.  We ran it several times, including twice for a touchdown.  I'm a bit surprised it hasn't been discussed.

The play call to Houston Heimuli worked exactly as it was supposed to.  On fourth and goal from the 1/2 yard line, we run the heavy package (featuring three guys in the backfield), fake the give to Speights, and toss it to Heimuli who was all alone in the end zone.

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=25101742

Note, however, that if the WSU linebacker doesn't bite on the fake, there was nowhere else for the play to go.

That happened in our other touchdown, to Kaden Smith, who was not actually a secondary receiver in that play...

Kaden’s most impressive play, though, came without design. We lined up four tight ends in a run formation on the WSU 10-yard line with senior running back Bryce Love in the backfield. With all blockers crashing down in the expected style of a Stanford smash-mouth running play, we released sophomore tight end Colby Parkinson to the end zone for a play-action pass. Two Cougar defenders flanked Colby and left no target for junior quarterback K.J. Costello.

Before K.J. could throw the ball away on this red zone second down, Kaden slipped out and presented K.J. with a new option. There was no secondary route drawn up on the play. Kaden felt the situation, and his quarterback scrambled to stay alive long enough to find his roommate in the end zone.

Here's the clip...



Here's a case where what seemed like a great play call (play action pass on second and 5 from about the 8) could have ended in disaster, because the defense did not bite.  We were lucky that Smith and Costello were able to improvise, and it led to a TD.

BC

[CompSci87]

On the clip it looks like Costello quickly flipped his left arm,  maybe to signal Smith to go downfield for the pass instead of continuing to block, though I'm not sure if Smith could see that.

[CompSci87]

On the clip it looks like Costello quickly flipped his left arm,  maybe to signal Smith to go downfield for the pass instead of continuing to block, though I'm not sure if Smith could see that.

[CTcard]

Those who liked play action passing should have liked what they saw against WSU.  We ran it several times, including twice for a touchdown.  I'm a bit surprised it hasn't been discussed.

Those are both interesting, not exactly standard play action plays.

The play call to Houston Heimuli worked exactly as it was supposed to.  On fourth and goal from the 1/2 yard line, we run the heavy package (featuring three guys in the backfield), fake the give to Speights, and toss it to Heimuli who was all alone in the end zone.

Note, however, that if the WSU linebacker doesn't bite on the fake, there was nowhere else for the play to go.

I guess that's true but it's a pretty good bet with how WSU lined up. The LB (#4?) is lined up just inside Smith and is clearly prepped to submarine at the snap. He could have stood up and curled around inside Smith to get to Heimuli, but wasn't really in position to do so.  I guess if he had, there were still two receivers to that side (Smith and Heimuli) - one could still have managed to catch a pass. And I guess there's some chance Costello could have scrambled
I wonder what the check was if the LB and safety had both stood up prepared to cover.

That happened in our other touchdown, to Kaden Smith, who was not actually a secondary receiver in that play...
...
Here's a case where what seemed like a great play call (play action pass on second and 5 from about the 8) could have ended in disaster, because the defense did not bite.  We were lucky that Smith and Costello were able to improvise, and it led to a TD.

That was an interesting formation.
We used the oh so typical 14 personnel. [Left to Right Smith, Harrington, Fisk and Parkinson were all in on the play.]
Only Parkinson went out on a route, so the plan was to fool them utterly - which as you noted did not happen.
On the other hand, WSU had five guys on the line (to our nominal 9) with the other 6 a few yards off the LOS. Rather seemed we could have run successfully under those circumstances.

[CTcard]

Those who liked play action passing should have liked what they saw against WSU.  We ran it several times, including twice for a touchdown.  I'm a bit surprised it hasn't been discussed.

Those are both interesting, not exactly standard play action plays.

The play call to Houston Heimuli worked exactly as it was supposed to.  On fourth and goal from the 1/2 yard line, we run the heavy package (featuring three guys in the backfield), fake the give to Speights, and toss it to Heimuli who was all alone in the end zone.

Note, however, that if the WSU linebacker doesn't bite on the fake, there was nowhere else for the play to go.

I guess that's true but it's a pretty good bet with how WSU lined up. The LB (#4?) is lined up just inside Smith and is clearly prepped to submarine at the snap. He could have stood up and curled around inside Smith to get to Heimuli, but wasn't really in position to do so.  I guess if he had, there were still two receivers to that side (Smith and Heimuli) - one could still have managed to catch a pass. And I guess there's some chance Costello could have scrambled
I wonder what the check was if the LB and safety had both stood up prepared to cover.

That happened in our other touchdown, to Kaden Smith, who was not actually a secondary receiver in that play...
...
Here's a case where what seemed like a great play call (play action pass on second and 5 from about the 8) could have ended in disaster, because the defense did not bite.  We were lucky that Smith and Costello were able to improvise, and it led to a TD.

That was an interesting formation.
We used the oh so typical 14 personnel. [Left to Right Smith, Harrington, Fisk and Parkinson were all in on the play.]
Only Parkinson went out on a route, so the plan was to fool them utterly - which as you noted did not happen.
On the other hand, WSU had five guys on the line (to our nominal 9) with the other 6 a few yards off the LOS. Rather seemed we could have run successfully under those circumstances.

[BostonCard]

Good point.  Didn’t see smith go into a route, though he was actually well-covered.  But by doing so, he essentially shielded Heimuli in the flat from the linebacker who tried to crash the end to “get” Speights in the backfield.  The only way to cover would have been for the linebacker who went with Smith to instead move out into the flat, and for the safety, who wasn’t doing much of anything until too late, to side over to Smith in coverage.  Good chance that produces a TD to Smith, though.  I’m guessing that once Costello saw the defensive alignment, he knew we had them.  I’m guessing from the one foot line, had the defensive alignment not sold out to stop the run, we would have run it in.

On the TD to Smith, I’m not sure we could have run it.  Hard to tell, obviously, but it looked like the four linebackers were prepared to attack the LOS had it been a true running play.  

So, play action out of 32 personnel and 14 personnel.  Despite the worse result, I kind of liked the 14 grouping better, but would have rather two tight ends go out in a pattern.  My choice, though would have been to go with a 22 grouping, with JJAW outside.  That would have given us versatility to run the box out of Arcega-whiteside were in single coverage, a straight run play (even Power) if WSU played off, and a play action pass with either the fullback in the flat, or the tight end running a banana route.  Yup, dusting off the old spider-2-Y-banana.  Hoping that this is not Heimuli’s last catch for a while.

BC

[BostonCard]

Good point.  Didn’t see smith go into a route, though he was actually well-covered.  But by doing so, he essentially shielded Heimuli in the flat from the linebacker who tried to crash the end to “get” Speights in the backfield.  The only way to cover would have been for the linebacker who went with Smith to instead move out into the flat, and for the safety, who wasn’t doing much of anything until too late, to side over to Smith in coverage.  Good chance that produces a TD to Smith, though.  I’m guessing that once Costello saw the defensive alignment, he knew we had them.  I’m guessing from the one foot line, had the defensive alignment not sold out to stop the run, we would have run it in.

On the TD to Smith, I’m not sure we could have run it.  Hard to tell, obviously, but it looked like the four linebackers were prepared to attack the LOS had it been a true running play.  

So, play action out of 32 personnel and 14 personnel.  Despite the worse result, I kind of liked the 14 grouping better, but would have rather two tight ends go out in a pattern.  My choice, though would have been to go with a 22 grouping, with JJAW outside.  That would have given us versatility to run the box out of Arcega-whiteside were in single coverage, a straight run play (even Power) if WSU played off, and a play action pass with either the fullback in the flat, or the tight end running a banana route.  Yup, dusting off the old spider-2-Y-banana.  Hoping that this is not Heimuli’s last catch for a while.

BC