[JohnR34231]

Maybe the Offense just did not practice that much leading up to Sun Bowl ?  
Costello was slow and off the mark all day (6 of 17 for 105y -- his worst ever), and the run game didn't gel at all.  
The Defense did not need as much practice.  
And after Chryst went down in Q1 of Sun Bowl 2016, our offense with Burns was horrible also. 
Defensive scores won that game. 

Shaw still needs some new blood in the playbook on Offense.  
Go get Troy Walters (he setup the potent UCF Offense before exiting to NEBR with Scott Frost regime). 
UCF looked credible vs LSU in Fiesta yesterday, and beat AUBN last year.  
Sure, UCF doesn't play a tough schedule; but they aren't loaded with 4 and 5 star talent, either. 
As recent as 2015, they went 0-12, a doormat, like Stanford in 2006.  
Does Walters (Stanford '99; Biletnikoff Award) really want to toil in Lincoln another three years?

Actually I didn't think the run game was all that horrible, at least by this year's standards.
Another six yards and Scarlett would have hit 100.
The passing game did suck, no getting around that.
I think it was probably equal parts of the wind, two of our top three receivers being out, and Costello just having one of those days.
I don't think that bringing someone like Troy Walters in would necessarily be a bad idea, but since Shaw just ain't going to do it, I would think people would get tired of suggesting it.

[JohnR34231]

Maybe the Offense just did not practice that much leading up to Sun Bowl ?  
Costello was slow and off the mark all day (6 of 17 for 105y -- his worst ever), and the run game didn't gel at all.  
The Defense did not need as much practice.  
And after Chryst went down in Q1 of Sun Bowl 2016, our offense with Burns was horrible also. 
Defensive scores won that game. 

Shaw still needs some new blood in the playbook on Offense.  
Go get Troy Walters (he setup the potent UCF Offense before exiting to NEBR with Scott Frost regime). 
UCF looked credible vs LSU in Fiesta yesterday, and beat AUBN last year.  
Sure, UCF doesn't play a tough schedule; but they aren't loaded with 4 and 5 star talent, either. 
As recent as 2015, they went 0-12, a doormat, like Stanford in 2006.  
Does Walters (Stanford '99; Biletnikoff Award) really want to toil in Lincoln another three years?

Actually I didn't think the run game was all that horrible, at least by this year's standards.
Another six yards and Scarlett would have hit 100.
The passing game did suck, no getting around that.
I think it was probably equal parts of the wind, two of our top three receivers being out, and Costello just having one of those days.
I don't think that bringing someone like Troy Walters in would necessarily be a bad idea, but since Shaw just ain't going to do it, I would think people would get tired of suggesting it.

[Goose]

IIRC, Wilson had to break a jersey tackle on his way back to the LOS, so does that mean that Pitt's defense had him accounted for?  If so, then that means the playcall was bad but that Wilson was good enough to make a play and salvage the situation.

No, it doesn't mean Pitt's defense had him accounted for. They did not have contain on the right side of the field, and that is why he easily got the first down. End-around plays like that one require the end to run deep behind the QB. Linemen that get penetration may have a shot at making a play, but since they aren't expecting the end-around (you hope) they probably are too shallow, aiming at the QB. The runner has to outrun them if they get close. The linemen that are so far up the field are completely out of the play if you do get around them. It worked out that way.
No offensive play is immune to excellent defensive execution. The defense may be fooled and out of position, yet one guy can blow up the play by superior play and/or effort. Sometimes the defensive player is in the wrong place schematically, which turns into the right place against the offensive play that is actually run. Football plays are often looked at as chess moves. In some ways, the analogy is good, but in chess, the rooks can never move diagonally. In football, they usually don't but sometimes do.

I felt that was the case many times during the game -- terrible playcalling salvaged by player athleticism and skill.

You could be correct that the playcall was terrible. OTOH, all plays require player athleticism and skill. If they didn't, I would be a great football player. Call whatever plays you want and a team that has less athleticism and "skill" is going to lose 95% of the time. Plays that allow your players to use their athleticism and skill to best advantage is what we want to see called. Sounds like that is what you are describing.

[Goose]

IIRC, Wilson had to break a jersey tackle on his way back to the LOS, so does that mean that Pitt's defense had him accounted for?  If so, then that means the playcall was bad but that Wilson was good enough to make a play and salvage the situation.

No, it doesn't mean Pitt's defense had him accounted for. They did not have contain on the right side of the field, and that is why he easily got the first down. End-around plays like that one require the end to run deep behind the QB. Linemen that get penetration may have a shot at making a play, but since they aren't expecting the end-around (you hope) they probably are too shallow, aiming at the QB. The runner has to outrun them if they get close. The linemen that are so far up the field are completely out of the play if you do get around them. It worked out that way.
No offensive play is immune to excellent defensive execution. The defense may be fooled and out of position, yet one guy can blow up the play by superior play and/or effort. Sometimes the defensive player is in the wrong place schematically, which turns into the right place against the offensive play that is actually run. Football plays are often looked at as chess moves. In some ways, the analogy is good, but in chess, the rooks can never move diagonally. In football, they usually don't but sometimes do.

I felt that was the case many times during the game -- terrible playcalling salvaged by player athleticism and skill.

You could be correct that the playcall was terrible. OTOH, all plays require player athleticism and skill. If they didn't, I would be a great football player. Call whatever plays you want and a team that has less athleticism and "skill" is going to lose 95% of the time. Plays that allow your players to use their athleticism and skill to best advantage is what we want to see called. Sounds like that is what you are describing.

[BostonCard]

IIRC, Wilson had to break a jersey tackle on his way back to the LOS, so does that mean that Pitt's defense had him accounted for?  If so, then that means the playcall was bad but that Wilson was good enough to make a play and salvage the situation.

I felt that was the case many times during the game -- terrible playcalling salvaged by player athleticism and skill.

Not much of downside of that.  If the play was blown up for a loss of 6 yards, no big deal.  We proceed to run up the middle with the next play, and punt into the end zone on fourth down with only seconds left on the clock.  Pitt then has time for at most one play from their own 20 yard line.

There were only two bad things that could have happened on that play, and being stopped in the backfield was not really one of them.  One is a fumble, and that risk is there for anything other than taking a knee.  The other would have been Wilson going or being pushed out of bounds short of the line to gain, stopping the clock, and (if we didn't convert on third down) giving Pitt the ball back with about 30 - 40 seconds on the clock. A first down sealed the win, but not getting a first down would still have left Pitt needing a miracle to win.

BC

[BostonCard]

IIRC, Wilson had to break a jersey tackle on his way back to the LOS, so does that mean that Pitt's defense had him accounted for?  If so, then that means the playcall was bad but that Wilson was good enough to make a play and salvage the situation.

I felt that was the case many times during the game -- terrible playcalling salvaged by player athleticism and skill.

Not much of downside of that.  If the play was blown up for a loss of 6 yards, no big deal.  We proceed to run up the middle with the next play, and punt into the end zone on fourth down with only seconds left on the clock.  Pitt then has time for at most one play from their own 20 yard line.

There were only two bad things that could have happened on that play, and being stopped in the backfield was not really one of them.  One is a fumble, and that risk is there for anything other than taking a knee.  The other would have been Wilson going or being pushed out of bounds short of the line to gain, stopping the clock, and (if we didn't convert on third down) giving Pitt the ball back with about 30 - 40 seconds on the clock. A first down sealed the win, but not getting a first down would still have left Pitt needing a miracle to win.

BC

[Treebound]

Maybe the Offense just did not practice that much leading up to Sun Bowl ?  
Costello was slow and off the mark all day (6 of 17 for 105y -- his worst ever), and the run game didn't gel at all.  
The Defense did not need as much practice.  
And after Chryst went down in Q1 of Sun Bowl 2016, our offense with Burns was horrible also. 
Defensive scores won that game. 

Shaw still needs some new blood in the playbook on Offense.  
Go get Troy Walters (he setup the potent UCF Offense before exiting to NEBR with Scott Frost regime). 
UCF looked credible vs LSU in Fiesta yesterday, and beat AUBN last year.  
Sure, UCF doesn't play a tough schedule; but they aren't loaded with 4 and 5 star talent, either. 
As recent as 2015, they went 0-12, a doormat, like Stanford in 2006.  
Does Walters (Stanford '99; Biletnikoff Award) really want to toil in Lincoln another three years?

I think I remember hearing that Costello and family would be sitting down with Shaw in the coming weeks to discuss his options.  I can't believe he would come out early given this Sun Bowl performance.  My guess is that it will be used to "offer up" some feedback on play calling for next year.  The predictability has been a thorn for the last few years and Costello would prefer to open it up.  A new OC would help with this, imho.   I hold a thin hope that JJ returns for what could be a great season for us.    Get the line to gel early and as others have pointed out, get Turley focused on the strength and toughness of the team and a few more games go our way.   A good season, but not what we were hoping for after getting Bryce Love back.

[Treebound]

Maybe the Offense just did not practice that much leading up to Sun Bowl ?  
Costello was slow and off the mark all day (6 of 17 for 105y -- his worst ever), and the run game didn't gel at all.  
The Defense did not need as much practice.  
And after Chryst went down in Q1 of Sun Bowl 2016, our offense with Burns was horrible also. 
Defensive scores won that game. 

Shaw still needs some new blood in the playbook on Offense.  
Go get Troy Walters (he setup the potent UCF Offense before exiting to NEBR with Scott Frost regime). 
UCF looked credible vs LSU in Fiesta yesterday, and beat AUBN last year.  
Sure, UCF doesn't play a tough schedule; but they aren't loaded with 4 and 5 star talent, either. 
As recent as 2015, they went 0-12, a doormat, like Stanford in 2006.  
Does Walters (Stanford '99; Biletnikoff Award) really want to toil in Lincoln another three years?

I think I remember hearing that Costello and family would be sitting down with Shaw in the coming weeks to discuss his options.  I can't believe he would come out early given this Sun Bowl performance.  My guess is that it will be used to "offer up" some feedback on play calling for next year.  The predictability has been a thorn for the last few years and Costello would prefer to open it up.  A new OC would help with this, imho.   I hold a thin hope that JJ returns for what could be a great season for us.    Get the line to gel early and as others have pointed out, get Turley focused on the strength and toughness of the team and a few more games go our way.   A good season, but not what we were hoping for after getting Bryce Love back.

[ChicagoCard]

Didn't you mean to write "KJ", or did you really mean JJ A-W?

[ChicagoCard]

Didn't you mean to write "KJ", or did you really mean JJ A-W?

[terry]

The title of this thread, "Sun Bowl takeaways," made me realize that there actually weren't any "takeaways" -- i.e. turnovers -- in the Sun Bowl.

That started me wondering about why Stanford was able to win despite being on the wrong end of the stats, such as yards (208-344) and first downs (12-18).

Often, when a team gets out-gained by 136 yards but wins anyway, it's because of turnovers. Or maybe blocked punts, or long kick returns, or something of that nature. Games like that can be viewed as kind of fluky.

But that didn't really happen here. There were no turnovers, no long returns, and no big special teams plays. Stanford didn't score any TDs on a short field. Pitt didn't shoot itself in the foot with a raft of penalties or killer turnovers. 

Rather, Stanford's defense gave some ground, but stiffened when needed and kept Pitt out of the end zone, forcing punts or FG attempts. Stanford's offense didn't do much, but did manage to produce a couple of long drives. And that was enough.

It's true that Stanford got the winning TD on a fluky play, but the TD wasn't undeserved. Stanford's scoring play came on a 1st-and-goal at the 2 yard line. Overwhelmingly, that down and distance results in a TD. Stanford already had done most of the hard work on that drive and really "deserved" the TD. A TD in that situation was to be expected. It just came about in an unexpected way. :-)

[terry]

The title of this thread, "Sun Bowl takeaways," made me realize that there actually weren't any "takeaways" -- i.e. turnovers -- in the Sun Bowl.

That started me wondering about why Stanford was able to win despite being on the wrong end of the stats, such as yards (208-344) and first downs (12-18).

Often, when a team gets out-gained by 136 yards but wins anyway, it's because of turnovers. Or maybe blocked punts, or long kick returns, or something of that nature. Games like that can be viewed as kind of fluky.

But that didn't really happen here. There were no turnovers, no long returns, and no big special teams plays. Stanford didn't score any TDs on a short field. Pitt didn't shoot itself in the foot with a raft of penalties or killer turnovers. 

Rather, Stanford's defense gave some ground, but stiffened when needed and kept Pitt out of the end zone, forcing punts or FG attempts. Stanford's offense didn't do much, but did manage to produce a couple of long drives. And that was enough.

It's true that Stanford got the winning TD on a fluky play, but the TD wasn't undeserved. Stanford's scoring play came on a 1st-and-goal at the 2 yard line. Overwhelmingly, that down and distance results in a TD. Stanford already had done most of the hard work on that drive and really "deserved" the TD. A TD in that situation was to be expected. It just came about in an unexpected way. :-)

[BostonCard]

The title of this thread, "Sun Bowl takeaways," made me realize that there actually weren't any "takeaways" -- i.e. turnovers -- in the Sun Bowl.

That started me wondering about why Stanford was able to win despite being on the wrong end of the stats, such as yards (208-344) and first downs (12-18).

Often, when a team gets out-gained by 136 yards but wins anyway, it's because of turnovers. Or maybe blocked punts, or long kick returns, or something of that nature. Games like that can be viewed as kind of fluky.

But that didn't really happen here. There were no turnovers, no long returns, and no big special teams plays. Stanford didn't score any TDs on a short field. Pitt didn't shoot itself in the foot with a raft of penalties or killer turnovers. 

Rather, Stanford's defense gave some ground, but stiffened when needed and kept Pitt out of the end zone, forcing punts or FG attempts. Stanford's offense didn't do much, but did manage to produce a couple of long drives. And that was enough.

It's true that Stanford got the winning TD on a fluky play, but the TD wasn't undeserved. Stanford's scoring play came on a 1st-and-goal at the 2 yard line. Overwhelmingly, that down and distance results in a TD. Stanford already had done most of the hard work on that drive and really "deserved" the TD. A TD in that situation was to be expected. It just came about in an unexpected way. :-)

Yes, good point.  Pitt was forced to kick field goals twice after making it to within the Stanford 10 yard line, and missed a long-ish field goal ("just a bit outside").  Had it converted either of those two field goals into touchdowns or had made its field goal, it likely would have won (maybe; after all, we kneeled down having gotten the ball to the Pitt 13 yard line, so we could have kicked a game-tying or winning field goal, though under that situation, Pitt punts in the previous drive instead of turning the ball over on downs; counterfactuals are hard).

Here are the key plays:
Early in the first quarter, with the game scoreless, Pitt drives easily to the Stanford 31.  They get 3 yards to make it second and 7 at the 28.  From there, they move backwards and out of field goal range.  A second down run loses them two yards and on third and 9, Okereke sacks Pickett for a loss of 10 yards.  Pitt punted from the 40.  Had they gained a couple more yards instead of losing yards, they had a makeable field goal.  Even two runs into the pile for no gain would have made it a 45 yard field goal (their field goal kicker Kessman was 4/5 from 40-49 yards, and surprisingly 4/5 from 50+ yards, his only miss being against us).  But the Okereke sack put it well out of field goal range.

Towards the end of the first quarter, Pitt drove to the Stanford 10 yard line.  On first and goal from the ten, we stop them for one yard.  On second and goal, Davis gets to the 4 yard line.  On third and goal, Pitt elected to pass instead of run, and Jordan Fox sacks him (I think after Toohill destroys the pocket) for a 7 yard loss.  Pitt settles for a 29 yard field goal to go up 3-0.

On Pitt's second drive of the third quarter, they started in good field position after Bailey shanked his punt.  Kenny Pickett's 41 yard completion gave Pitt first and goal from the Stanford 9.  The first run nets three yards and makes it second and goal from the six.  Then we stuff Hall for a loss of four yards making it third and goal from the 10.  Kenny Pickett's pass is incomplete, and Pitt is again forced to settle for a field goal.

Finally, after we took the lead, Pitt drove the ball to our 35 yard line on a PI, and Hall rushes of 19, 7, and 8 yards.  Strangely, despite Pitt gashing us on the run, they elected to pass, and Pickett threw two incompletions, setting up third and 10.  Pickett fumbles the ball, but falls on it for a two yard loss.  The ensuing 55 yard field goal is very wide right, Kessman's first and only miss of the year from over 50 yards.

The game is a bit like Stanford's game at home against USC in 2014.  WE outgained the Trojans 413 to 291, but we:
* Missed 49-yard field goal after making it to the USC 21 (pushed back by a pair of penalties)
* Punted from the USC 29 (after having second and six from the USC 13 pushed back by a fumble)
* Settled for a 33 yard field goal (after having third and one from the seven; two penalties made it third and 10)
* Missed 26 yard field goal (that wasted a 44 yard Ty Montgomery punt return)
* Turned the ball over on downs from the USC 3 (on fourth and one)
* Fumbled on first and ten from the USC 32 (after Ty Montgomery returned the kickoff to the USC 47 and the refs tagged on another 15 yards for an SC personal foul)
* Punted from the USC 32 (after we had third and 4 from the USC 23, pushed back by another penalty)
* Were sacked and fumbled from the USC 25 on third and 6.

We wound up losing that game 13-10.

BC

[BostonCard]

The title of this thread, "Sun Bowl takeaways," made me realize that there actually weren't any "takeaways" -- i.e. turnovers -- in the Sun Bowl.

That started me wondering about why Stanford was able to win despite being on the wrong end of the stats, such as yards (208-344) and first downs (12-18).

Often, when a team gets out-gained by 136 yards but wins anyway, it's because of turnovers. Or maybe blocked punts, or long kick returns, or something of that nature. Games like that can be viewed as kind of fluky.

But that didn't really happen here. There were no turnovers, no long returns, and no big special teams plays. Stanford didn't score any TDs on a short field. Pitt didn't shoot itself in the foot with a raft of penalties or killer turnovers. 

Rather, Stanford's defense gave some ground, but stiffened when needed and kept Pitt out of the end zone, forcing punts or FG attempts. Stanford's offense didn't do much, but did manage to produce a couple of long drives. And that was enough.

It's true that Stanford got the winning TD on a fluky play, but the TD wasn't undeserved. Stanford's scoring play came on a 1st-and-goal at the 2 yard line. Overwhelmingly, that down and distance results in a TD. Stanford already had done most of the hard work on that drive and really "deserved" the TD. A TD in that situation was to be expected. It just came about in an unexpected way. :-)

Yes, good point.  Pitt was forced to kick field goals twice after making it to within the Stanford 10 yard line, and missed a long-ish field goal ("just a bit outside").  Had it converted either of those two field goals into touchdowns or had made its field goal, it likely would have won (maybe; after all, we kneeled down having gotten the ball to the Pitt 13 yard line, so we could have kicked a game-tying or winning field goal, though under that situation, Pitt punts in the previous drive instead of turning the ball over on downs; counterfactuals are hard).

Here are the key plays:
Early in the first quarter, with the game scoreless, Pitt drives easily to the Stanford 31.  They get 3 yards to make it second and 7 at the 28.  From there, they move backwards and out of field goal range.  A second down run loses them two yards and on third and 9, Okereke sacks Pickett for a loss of 10 yards.  Pitt punted from the 40.  Had they gained a couple more yards instead of losing yards, they had a makeable field goal.  Even two runs into the pile for no gain would have made it a 45 yard field goal (their field goal kicker Kessman was 4/5 from 40-49 yards, and surprisingly 4/5 from 50+ yards, his only miss being against us).  But the Okereke sack put it well out of field goal range.

Towards the end of the first quarter, Pitt drove to the Stanford 10 yard line.  On first and goal from the ten, we stop them for one yard.  On second and goal, Davis gets to the 4 yard line.  On third and goal, Pitt elected to pass instead of run, and Jordan Fox sacks him (I think after Toohill destroys the pocket) for a 7 yard loss.  Pitt settles for a 29 yard field goal to go up 3-0.

On Pitt's second drive of the third quarter, they started in good field position after Bailey shanked his punt.  Kenny Pickett's 41 yard completion gave Pitt first and goal from the Stanford 9.  The first run nets three yards and makes it second and goal from the six.  Then we stuff Hall for a loss of four yards making it third and goal from the 10.  Kenny Pickett's pass is incomplete, and Pitt is again forced to settle for a field goal.

Finally, after we took the lead, Pitt drove the ball to our 35 yard line on a PI, and Hall rushes of 19, 7, and 8 yards.  Strangely, despite Pitt gashing us on the run, they elected to pass, and Pickett threw two incompletions, setting up third and 10.  Pickett fumbles the ball, but falls on it for a two yard loss.  The ensuing 55 yard field goal is very wide right, Kessman's first and only miss of the year from over 50 yards.

The game is a bit like Stanford's game at home against USC in 2014.  WE outgained the Trojans 413 to 291, but we:
* Missed 49-yard field goal after making it to the USC 21 (pushed back by a pair of penalties)
* Punted from the USC 29 (after having second and six from the USC 13 pushed back by a fumble)
* Settled for a 33 yard field goal (after having third and one from the seven; two penalties made it third and 10)
* Missed 26 yard field goal (that wasted a 44 yard Ty Montgomery punt return)
* Turned the ball over on downs from the USC 3 (on fourth and one)
* Fumbled on first and ten from the USC 32 (after Ty Montgomery returned the kickoff to the USC 47 and the refs tagged on another 15 yards for an SC personal foul)
* Punted from the USC 32 (after we had third and 4 from the USC 23, pushed back by another penalty)
* Were sacked and fumbled from the USC 25 on third and 6.

We wound up losing that game 13-10.

BC

[martyup]

As I read your recap of that 2014 SC game, I started sweating as recollection of the frustration suffered watching that game crept back into my mind.  We should never have to relive the memory of games like that one.

[martyup]

As I read your recap of that 2014 SC game, I started sweating as recollection of the frustration suffered watching that game crept back into my mind.  We should never have to relive the memory of games like that one.

[BostonCard]

We should never have to relive the memory of games like that one.

...unless we are on the other end.  Though the experience of the Sun Bowl was only marginally better. This is an almost no-win proposition.  Dominate your opponent in every facet but the scoreboard and you are incredibly frustrated about all the points you left on the table and the loss.  Win despite getting dominated by your opponent in every other facet of the game, and you rue the fact that the team was outplayed.

BC

[BostonCard]

We should never have to relive the memory of games like that one.

...unless we are on the other end.  Though the experience of the Sun Bowl was only marginally better. This is an almost no-win proposition.  Dominate your opponent in every facet but the scoreboard and you are incredibly frustrated about all the points you left on the table and the loss.  Win despite getting dominated by your opponent in every other facet of the game, and you rue the fact that the team was outplayed.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

The Pitt game showed how you absolutely must pass the ball effectively in modern football. As Ron Jaworski always says “points come from the passing game.” Doesn’t mean TD passes per se, more so that you usually need a few chunk plays to score on drives, and they most often come from passing the ball. 

Both Stanford’s TD drives were set up by effective pass plays.

[OutsiderFan]

The Pitt game showed how you absolutely must pass the ball effectively in modern football. As Ron Jaworski always says “points come from the passing game.” Doesn’t mean TD passes per se, more so that you usually need a few chunk plays to score on drives, and they most often come from passing the ball. 

Both Stanford’s TD drives were set up by effective pass plays.

[CowboyIndian]

Both Stanford’s TD drives were set up by effective pass plays.

Which, one could argue, were set up by successful running plays.

[CowboyIndian]

Both Stanford’s TD drives were set up by effective pass plays.

Which, one could argue, were set up by successful running plays.

[CowboyIndian]

Both Stanford’s TD drives were set up by effective pass plays.

Which, one could argue, were set up by successful running plays.

[CowboyIndian]

Both Stanford’s TD drives were set up by effective pass plays.

Which, one could argue, were set up by successful running plays.

[ChicagoCard]

Not sure this is a takeaway but I just saw that Pitt fired it's OC...
Pitt fired its offensive coordinator and one other offensive coach

[ChicagoCard]

Not sure this is a takeaway but I just saw that Pitt fired it's OC...
Pitt fired its offensive coordinator and one other offensive coach

[SamuelMcF]

Not sure this is a takeaway but I just saw that Pitt fired it's OC...
Pitt fired its offensive coordinator and one other offensive coach

100% a takeaway. With a competent Pitt OC we lose the Sun Bowl handily.

Pitt saw how maddeningly anti-run their play calling was in the 2nd half. They would’ve kept gashing us on the ground had they just stuck to the same formula.

[SamuelMcF]

Not sure this is a takeaway but I just saw that Pitt fired it's OC...
Pitt fired its offensive coordinator and one other offensive coach

100% a takeaway. With a competent Pitt OC we lose the Sun Bowl handily.

Pitt saw how maddeningly anti-run their play calling was in the 2nd half. They would’ve kept gashing us on the ground had they just stuck to the same formula.

[Farm93]

Not sure this is a takeaway but I just saw that Pitt fired it's OC...
Pitt fired its offensive coordinator and one other offensive coach

100% a takeaway. With a competent Pitt OC we lose the Sun Bowl handily.

Pitt saw how maddeningly anti-run their play calling was in the 2nd half. They would’ve kept gashing us on the ground had they just stuck to the same formula.

That's so true.   Often in the game I was hoping they would elect to pass the ball.   A completed pass might get them a first down, but just one incomplete pass would put them behind schedule forcing another pass.   It seemed pretty clear that they could get 5+ yards on any running play. 

It was as if they had a requirement to pass or some form of scripted plays.   Hard to believe a staff would not have gone with 75+% run in the second half given the run success in the first half, but I guess not.

The one defense for the OC was the RB injury to that co-starter.   They seemed to have a platoon thing planned, and utilized it all season long.   So the decision to pass may have been an attempt to give the remaining RB some rest.   Of course, since he was a horrible pass blocker I suspect he would have preferred to run the ball 40 times.

[Farm93]

Not sure this is a takeaway but I just saw that Pitt fired it's OC...
Pitt fired its offensive coordinator and one other offensive coach

100% a takeaway. With a competent Pitt OC we lose the Sun Bowl handily.

Pitt saw how maddeningly anti-run their play calling was in the 2nd half. They would’ve kept gashing us on the ground had they just stuck to the same formula.

That's so true.   Often in the game I was hoping they would elect to pass the ball.   A completed pass might get them a first down, but just one incomplete pass would put them behind schedule forcing another pass.   It seemed pretty clear that they could get 5+ yards on any running play. 

It was as if they had a requirement to pass or some form of scripted plays.   Hard to believe a staff would not have gone with 75+% run in the second half given the run success in the first half, but I guess not.

The one defense for the OC was the RB injury to that co-starter.   They seemed to have a platoon thing planned, and utilized it all season long.   So the decision to pass may have been an attempt to give the remaining RB some rest.   Of course, since he was a horrible pass blocker I suspect he would have preferred to run the ball 40 times.

[Beeg_Dawg]

LOL - when I typed that point about creativity, I thought "I'll bet someone is going to point out the last play reverse as creative."  I don't classify that as creative in the sense of making the game entertaining or rolling the dice on a big play.  Pitt had no timeouts and I don't know what the exact time on the clock was, but two knees would have ended the game too, right?

No, I don't think so. There was something like 1:33 on the clock. Two or three knees wouldn't have done it.

Seriously, you weren't surprised by the end-around? I was shocked.

I was surprised.  I assumed some one other than Shaw called the play.  More like Shaw was digging in to his playbook looking for perfect play and Costello called his own play in the huddle.

[Beeg_Dawg]

LOL - when I typed that point about creativity, I thought "I'll bet someone is going to point out the last play reverse as creative."  I don't classify that as creative in the sense of making the game entertaining or rolling the dice on a big play.  Pitt had no timeouts and I don't know what the exact time on the clock was, but two knees would have ended the game too, right?

No, I don't think so. There was something like 1:33 on the clock. Two or three knees wouldn't have done it.

Seriously, you weren't surprised by the end-around? I was shocked.

I was surprised.  I assumed some one other than Shaw called the play.  More like Shaw was digging in to his playbook looking for perfect play and Costello called his own play in the huddle.

[BostonCard]

No, I don't think so. There was something like 1:33 on the clock. Two or three knees wouldn't have done it.

Seriously, you weren't surprised by the end-around? I was shocked.

I was surprised.  I assumed some one other than Shaw called the play.  More like Shaw was digging in to his playbook looking for perfect play and Costello called his own play in the huddle.

Three knees I think would have done it (there are 40 seconds between plays).  However, that play was run on second down, so we could have taken at most two knees (1 min 20 seconds, plus however long the actual play takes) before being forced to punt or attempt a field goal.  The endaround was a smart play, because in addition to surprising every one, the play itself took a few extra seconds off the clock.  If you figure a regular play takes about 4 seconds off the clock, then we could have taken 1 min 28 seconds off the clock before being forced to punt.  A punt in the end zone probably gives Pitt one play.  But the endaround probably took an extra couple seconds off the clock, enough where the clock would have expired with the punt in the air, or we could have had someone run around in the backfield for a couple of seconds and take a knee once the clock hit 0's.

It is precisely because Shaw's carefully cultivated reputation that these "trick plays" take everyone by surprise, and make them more effective.  It strikes me that there is an inverse correlation between how often you call "trick plays" and how effective they are at catching the defense off guard.

BC

[BostonCard]

No, I don't think so. There was something like 1:33 on the clock. Two or three knees wouldn't have done it.

Seriously, you weren't surprised by the end-around? I was shocked.

I was surprised.  I assumed some one other than Shaw called the play.  More like Shaw was digging in to his playbook looking for perfect play and Costello called his own play in the huddle.

Three knees I think would have done it (there are 40 seconds between plays).  However, that play was run on second down, so we could have taken at most two knees (1 min 20 seconds, plus however long the actual play takes) before being forced to punt or attempt a field goal.  The endaround was a smart play, because in addition to surprising every one, the play itself took a few extra seconds off the clock.  If you figure a regular play takes about 4 seconds off the clock, then we could have taken 1 min 28 seconds off the clock before being forced to punt.  A punt in the end zone probably gives Pitt one play.  But the endaround probably took an extra couple seconds off the clock, enough where the clock would have expired with the punt in the air, or we could have had someone run around in the backfield for a couple of seconds and take a knee once the clock hit 0's.

It is precisely because Shaw's carefully cultivated reputation that these "trick plays" take everyone by surprise, and make them more effective.  It strikes me that there is an inverse correlation between how often you call "trick plays" and how effective they are at catching the defense off guard.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

No, I don't think so. There was something like 1:33 on the clock. Two or three knees wouldn't have done it.

Seriously, you weren't surprised by the end-around? I was shocked.

I was surprised.  I assumed some one other than Shaw called the play.  More like Shaw was digging in to his playbook looking for perfect play and Costello called his own play in the huddle.

Three knees I think would have done it (there are 40 seconds between plays).  However, that play was run on second down, so we could have taken at most two knees (1 min 20 seconds, plus however long the actual play takes) before being forced to punt or attempt a field goal.  The endaround was a smart play, because in addition to surprising every one, the play itself took a few extra seconds off the clock.  If you figure a regular play takes about 4 seconds off the clock, then we could have taken 1 min 28 seconds off the clock before being forced to punt.  A punt in the end zone probably gives Pitt one play.  But the endaround probably took an extra couple seconds off the clock, enough where the clock would have expired with the punt in the air, or we could have had someone run around in the backfield for a couple of seconds and take a knee once the clock hit 0's.

It is precisely because Shaw's carefully cultivated reputation that these "trick plays" take everyone by surprise, and make them more effective.  It strikes me that there is an inverse correlation between how often you call "trick plays" and how effective they are at catching the defense off guard.

BC

Ask Chris Peterson.

[OutsiderFan]

No, I don't think so. There was something like 1:33 on the clock. Two or three knees wouldn't have done it.

Seriously, you weren't surprised by the end-around? I was shocked.

I was surprised.  I assumed some one other than Shaw called the play.  More like Shaw was digging in to his playbook looking for perfect play and Costello called his own play in the huddle.

Three knees I think would have done it (there are 40 seconds between plays).  However, that play was run on second down, so we could have taken at most two knees (1 min 20 seconds, plus however long the actual play takes) before being forced to punt or attempt a field goal.  The endaround was a smart play, because in addition to surprising every one, the play itself took a few extra seconds off the clock.  If you figure a regular play takes about 4 seconds off the clock, then we could have taken 1 min 28 seconds off the clock before being forced to punt.  A punt in the end zone probably gives Pitt one play.  But the endaround probably took an extra couple seconds off the clock, enough where the clock would have expired with the punt in the air, or we could have had someone run around in the backfield for a couple of seconds and take a knee once the clock hit 0's.

It is precisely because Shaw's carefully cultivated reputation that these "trick plays" take everyone by surprise, and make them more effective.  It strikes me that there is an inverse correlation between how often you call "trick plays" and how effective they are at catching the defense off guard.

BC

Ask Chris Peterson.

[BostonCard]

Ask Chris Peterson.

It's "Petersen"

And despite his reputation given the Fiesta Bowl, at UW, Petersen has run most of his plays straight.

https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/uw-h...ick-plays/

“I think it’s so funny because people don’t get it,” Petersen told 710 ESPN Seattle earlier this month. “And I don’t want people to get it. … We’re talking about, how many plays, like 900 plays during a season and we might run less than 20, maybe 15 deceptive-type plays. But yet everybody’s like, ‘That’s all they do is run trick plays.’ ”

That's 1-2 per game, about 2% of all the plays he runs.

BC

[BostonCard]

Ask Chris Peterson.

It's "Petersen"

And despite his reputation given the Fiesta Bowl, at UW, Petersen has run most of his plays straight.

https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/uw-h...ick-plays/

“I think it’s so funny because people don’t get it,” Petersen told 710 ESPN Seattle earlier this month. “And I don’t want people to get it. … We’re talking about, how many plays, like 900 plays during a season and we might run less than 20, maybe 15 deceptive-type plays. But yet everybody’s like, ‘That’s all they do is run trick plays.’ ”

That's 1-2 per game, about 2% of all the plays he runs.

BC