Interesting that Whipple went max protect on that play call, and kept the I-Back and TE in to block. There were only 2 WR's downfield and Alante went back into the flat after being on the circle motion. I actually think Alante's motion helped draw the safety's eye up to him as a potential run threat, and the safety was no help on the deep pass.You're definitely right, @Mavric. If Palmer is led by an extra five yards with some more mustard on the ball it's probably a touchdown.
Good decision to throw the deep ball based on the coverage/look, not great execution on the actual throw itself.
We apparently watched 2 different games. I know you love the 90's but.... NW eliminated the running game fairly well. Whipple noticed it, just as easily as so many other people did. That is a reason why you have to throw, especially when you are in 2nd and long or 3rd and long. We had 7 productive runs from the RB - all game. Case in point (effectiveness):And you don't have to just go off of a guess or a feeling for how much we passed - we threw it an unprecedented 58% of our plays.![]()
Again, Whipple doesn't seem to want to run the ball much to move the chains. Hence why he only called run plays 42% of the time. That is way below our average from last season.
But when Grant got his chances, at least he:
-Broke a long one
-Ran one into the end zone from inside the red zone.
-Averaged 5.3 YPC
I'm not sure how it matters whether or not Grant gets the 46 yards from the long run doing it that way or chunking that up across 8 different carries (to stay consistent with the 5.3 YPC average that way).
Basically, our players and coaches made mistakes that cost us the game.
It seems like Whipple came into week 1 wanting the base offense to mainly be Thompson standing in the pocket on pass plays with 3-4 progressions and scan the field until he finds an open target. This actually went fairly well against Northwestern and Casey had 355 yards in the air. We would have gotten to 31 or 35 points if Garcia Casteneda hadn't fumbled inside the red zone against the Wildcats.
Against North Dakota, the offensive line ruined a couple drives by not picking up blitzes. I was really impressed with whoever it was on the staff that decided to just hand the ball off to Grant.
I believe that Anthony Grant is a pretty great talent, and I'm hoping that the philosophy changes to making teams stop him and setting up the play action pass. But Thompson has to improve his accuracy when guys are wide open.
We're also really missing having a talented tight end out there. We've got at least two of them on the roster but they're both injured. That's really frustrating.
The first play was an RPO that turned into a pass. The next four plays were two runs and two passes. But the running game wasn't doing much so we went to the air and got a TD. On our second possession two of the three plays were runs but they both only got two yards and we punted. We started out the third possession with three straight runs. But out of those seven running plays (which got us most of the way through the first quarter), only one of them went for more than four yards.
I can change my mind on my original take based on this, it's pretty convincing.
But I'm also looking at at Whip's run/pass ratio at Pitt. It was considerably lower than what we were averaging. To be clear, I'm not saying that's bad at all and at this point I'm completely "scheme-agnostic;" I don't care how we move the ball down the field or get it into the end zone - I just want to go to a bowl game and not be a dumpster fire anymore.
My main thesis is to look at what it seems like Grant is capable of doing. I'd like to see more 1st & 2nd downs just be handoffs to him because he's out there getting first downs a quite a bit of individual effort. Do that until you can setup that 1st down play action bomb.
The talent at skill positions is all there (outside of just the injuries at tight end). We could still legitimately run rough shod over the rest of the West with better pass protection - but I'm not counting on that part happening at all. I'm just saying that the line could easily come together by the time we play the do-or-die stretch of Purdue/Illinois/Minnesota. If we win two out of those three we are good to go for a bowl and probably wind up getting seven regular season wins.
And I do love what I'm seeing from Grant. A lot of people had forgotten what a really good RB looks like and they had convinced themselves that's what Yant is.
That all sounds good but forgets to mention a giant problem that is the defense.I can change my mind on my original take based on this, it's pretty convincing.
But I'm also looking at at Whip's run/pass ratio at Pitt. It was considerably lower than what we were averaging. To be clear, I'm not saying that's bad at all and at this point I'm completely "scheme-agnostic;" I don't care how we move the ball down the field or get it into the end zone - I just want to go to a bowl game and not be a dumpster fire anymore.
My main thesis is to look at what it seems like Grant is capable of doing. I'd like to see more 1st & 2nd downs just be handoffs to him because he's out there getting first downs a quite a bit of individual effort. Do that until you can setup that 1st down play action bomb.
The talent at skill positions is all there (outside of just the injuries at tight end). We could still legitimately run rough shod over the rest of the West with better pass protection - but I'm not counting on that part happening at all. I'm just saying that the line could easily come together by the time we play the do-or-die stretch of Purdue/Illinois/Minnesota. If we win two out of those three we are good to go for a bowl and probably wind up getting seven regular season wins.