- September 23rd, 2017, 11:01 pm
#537435
Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke, Class of 20Something
ballcoach15 wrote:Appears we left play book back in Lynchburg.No...the sad thing is...that IS our playbook. I'm just at a loss with trying to understand our coaching strategy anymore.
jinxy wrote:Dailey got outsmarted big time tonight. As far as the d goes you may say they played solid but the continuous personal foul penalties and big play blown coverages are inexcusable. Each has been going on for 2 to 3 years. also they failed to add defensive depth this offseason despite knowing they had several defections. It has cost us all year.I missed the personal foul penalties, with the streaming messed up and not watching some of the game. And I was hoping for something positive out of this game.
willflop wrote:Hard to analyze with only listening to the game, but passes accounted for 64% of all plays against JSU. This is a 20% increase in pass attempts vs. runs, over our prior three game average (53%). Their game plan was to stop the pass, so I don't see how throwing more would have helped. They shut it down, as Calvert threw 47%. My take is that we were just outmatched, across the board, so we wouldn't have succeeded under any game plan. In fact, they stopped the run while trying to stop the pass.We were 16 for 23 passing to start the game, moving the ball well, then started running. No particularly a bad plan, except it was clear to an average 5th grader, that the running game was not going to work after a couple of series. However, we continued to run unsuccessfully. After we fell so far behind, we were forced to pass a lot. They were able to pressure the QB with just 4 rushers and that was really the key to the game.
Not giving the coaches a pass, because it's their job to get a team that can compete with a top 5 FCS team, imo. They've had 6 years to do it, and they haven't. Taking the game in isolation though, is it possible different play calling would have made a difference? I'm doubting it, but who knows. Play calling is often akin to the guy that says he doesn't have a gambling problem, he has a losing problem.
rmiller1959 wrote:I still think quick passes to the slot receivers and running backs to tame the rush would have been preferable to bubble screens and taking shots downfield, neither of which worked well once they figured out how to cover our receivers. String a few of those quick-hit passes together and that keeps their pass rush honest and gives Buckshot time to survey the field and take his shots.Quick slants and screens also cover for a shaky O Line
And I agree with Class of 20Something - we are designed in terms of talent to use the pass to set up the run. And Purple has a point about the offensive line. They need to be able to block four rushers.
Purple Haize wrote:Sounds like the offensive line was suspectAbsolutely, that and very poor play calling make for an overall bad performance. Once the defense dictates how the game is played, it usually gets ugly, quick.
Sly Fox wrote:As I mentioned in the preview, Jax State has a roster enhanced significantly by P5 & JUCO transfers. That is a great plan for FCS success. It doesn't work at the FBS level in most cases. But they have certainly built quite an elite FCS operation.Absolutely