Play Calling - at least the 1st 2 series

wallym

Active member
Messages
303
Reaction score
48
Sorry if there is already a thread on this....

I'm not too worried about our play calling for the entire year, nor was I upset about it for the majority of the game. Here's my beef, though....On our first 2 possessions, we had a 3rd and 2 and a 3rd and 4, respectively. Each time we ran a fade to Kamara on the left side. We didn't convert either. For starters, "why"????? Wasn't our mentatility to "pound it" and couldn't we get 2-4 yards on a more "low risk" play? Maybe a screen...maybe a sweep....maybe something we haven't seen?

I sure hope Heywood was holding back for the Michigan game, because this is a scary site. This seems like something Weis would do (i.e. every 4th down we went for it last year...i.e. the Navy game when we should have kicked a field goal). We should have set the tone for the game by makeing the 1st two drives count. How do you get off to a "fast start" if you put the kids in a high risk position to fail?

Our coaching staff surely doesn't understand the psychology of a college football player, and they are trying way to hard. Keep it simple stupid....especially against and undersized, undermanned opponent. This week won't be so easy, as Meatchicken's D is decent....
 

MirageSmack

New member
Messages
386
Reaction score
25
I keep falling back to the thought that you mentioned. I think (hope) Weis was holding back on the playbook to save it for UM.
 

wallym

Active member
Messages
303
Reaction score
48
I just watched Heywood on rivals.com after practice yesterday. He plans to "let loose" this week...so signs are pointing us opening it up.
 

wallym

Active member
Messages
303
Reaction score
48
Also, out of 85 plays on the wrist band, we only ran 44 of them. Regardless, the "selection" of the plays is what concerns me.
 

WeisWeisBaby

New member
Messages
1,259
Reaction score
79
We were not holding anything back for UM, you guys really need to start understanding this... I do not know why we did not run it on 3rd and 2 but it was not because we were holding back, ND is not good enough to hold anything back when you are losing to SDSU in the 4th quarter.

If Haywood was holding back he would just run it every play until we either scored or turned over the ball
 

wallym

Active member
Messages
303
Reaction score
48
Again, the selection of play calls on 3rd and 2 and 3rd and 4 were horrific.
 
S

safety27

Guest
It is not the number of plays. It is how effective the plays are. I am from the old school...if the play works, run it until they stop it. Find something that you do well and do it.
 

wallym

Active member
Messages
303
Reaction score
48
Oh ya, the first series was a slant. Good call...

Still, it was 3rd and 2 and a slant is a "high risk" play in that situation. We needed to pound it, get momentum on our first drive. I like the idea of taking risk, and the way we looked we'll have to take many more to win games, but it just didn't set the tone.

This leads me to another point...as good of a coach and guy Charlie is, he still doesn't get the idea of 'momentum' and understanding the college player psychie.
 
Top