|
Post by coachdubyah on Jan 1, 2011 21:58:27 GMT -6
That MLB, Tank Carder, he's a dude! Best one in the nation next to Sheppard from LSU. That is just my opinion, but he is textbook in his pursuit. He was giving Wisconsin Oline problems all day. Another observation: I am nowhere near qualified to be a BCS Offensive Coordinator but, it seemed to me that Wisconsin was bound and determined to run their Stretch play and TCU was eating it up all day long. Wisconsin had a lot more success running A Gap Power and IZ. I just didnt get the thinking of trying to run around TCU. Like I said, I wasnt on the headset, but Wisconsin killed 1 or 2 of their drives by running that play. On another note, UConn is trying to stay in it.
|
|
|
Post by amikell on Jan 1, 2011 22:01:58 GMT -6
I'm kind of with coachd5O85. Everyone is going gaga over something that happens almost every year! I read on another board that non-AQ schools are now 5-1 in BCS games with the loss coming at the hands of another non-AQ school when Boise beat TCU last year. Okay, so maybe not every year, but about every other year maybe? Kind of losing track of how long we've had the BCS. Not true. Georgia smoked Hawaii in the 2008 Sugar Bowl.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jan 1, 2011 22:06:20 GMT -6
As for the game, it was great, but I couldn't help but scratch my head at Wisconsin's decision to throw on the 2 point try. They were running the ball downhill at will on TCU's tired defense. Then on the biggest play of the game, they line up in the gun for a quick pass that gets batted down??? Granted, the man was wide open, but it just seemed to me like they outsmarted themselves on that one. Agreed. I figured a downhull run was coming or boot pass. When they lined up in the gun, I couldn't believe it. How much film have you seen on TCU's Goal line and 2-point play defenses? The TE was WAO (Wide Azz Open), the pass was batted down before it got to him. I think Wisconsin coaches had pretty good idea what they were doing in that situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2011 22:44:41 GMT -6
Thanks for reminding me of that, amikell. The stat didn't seem right to me, but I was lazy, didn't look it up, and posted it anyway I think the main premise of what coachd5O85 and I were saying is true though.
|
|
|
Post by morris on Jan 1, 2011 23:16:51 GMT -6
Agreed. I figured a downhull run was coming or boot pass. When they lined up in the gun, I couldn't believe it. How much film have you seen on TCU's Goal line and 2-point play defenses? The TE was WAO (Wide Azz Open), the pass was batted down before it got to him. I think Wisconsin coaches had pretty good idea what they were doing in that situation. Without question he was WAO. It was a good call. With that said I was a little surprised they went gun. As good as they were running the ball PAP would of been interesting. If they go PAP than that LB stays on his blitz instead of stopping. They did have a good idea of what they were doing no question. They complete that pass they are geniuses.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jan 1, 2011 23:19:48 GMT -6
I cant figure out why Wisconnsin didnt run the ball more throughout the game... Just seemed like they were ripping off good yardage every time and then they would throw a couple incompletions and have to punt. Even the 2 point I thought they should have ran it in. They were destroying TCU DL and LBs what sets this board apart from "fan" boards is that we really try to stay away from speculation, 2nd-guessing, cliche, woulda-coulda-shoulda stuff that is so prevalent in other places. but, to clarify... in the 1st half, Wisconsin didn't punt. they had a FG, a TD, missed a FG, then had the half expire. I will spare you the details of the plays leading up to the "final series of downs" but here is what happened in the final set of downs of each of their drives: on the 2 FG drives, they ran the ball on 1st down & lost yards. ran it again on 2nd down, and lost yards. then finally threw it on 3rd down (1st one incomplete; 2nd one complete, but not enough for the 1st down) didn't get the 1st & elected to kick the FG. they punted 3 times in the 2nd half. 1st drive was incomplete, run for moderate, sack on 3rd long, then punt. 2nd drive was incomplete, run for little, run for little, punt. 3rd drive was inc, inc, inc, punt. last drive of the half resulted in a TD. they ran it on every down but one - which was a 3rd & long where they completed the pass. the rest of the drive they only had 1 other 3rd down & it was 3rd - very short. so, just from this, one could easily conclude that they only threw it when they felt like they needed to .... "long" yardage situations. (with the exception of the 3rd drive in 2nd half). not to pick a fight ... but let's get real here. we high school coaches get upset when "fans" question what we do, how we do it, plays we call, who we play, blah, blah, blah ... yet, here we are doing just that? it is one thing to discuss reasons behind making certain calls. dissecting them on the pros/cons. but to simply go with "i think" or "they were killing 'em" or any other fan-speak takes away from what can be gleaned from scenarios such as these.
|
|
|
Post by Yash on Jan 1, 2011 23:49:31 GMT -6
One thing this football season has taught me is how little Time of Possession really matters. Wisconsin has the ball for 10 minutes + than TCU and loses, Oregon is near the bottom in time of possession and plays for the national title. packers hold the ball for almost 40 minutes vs the patriots and lose. Clock management is very important, coming out ahead on time of possession isn't. Its not important to have the clock in your favor, its important to use the clock smartly when you do have the ball.
|
|
|
Post by bleefb on Jan 2, 2011 0:28:45 GMT -6
Time of possession also keeps the game close, especially if you have you stall on those long drives and come up empty. That's good against a superior opponent, but it also can give the inferior opponent a chance to "steal" a win.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jan 2, 2011 7:06:56 GMT -6
I'm a Big Ten guy born in Green Bay so was obviously rooting for Badgers.
But, aside from couple well-timed and executed blitzes, I thought a big difference in the game was coverage by TCU's DBs.
Wisky's receivers aren't the best in the country but they're a far sight from the worst. When Tolzein did have time to pass there rarely was anyone open or the defender arrived same time ball did.
Accuracy of TCU's QB was impressive as well.
Good game between two fundamentally sound, well-coached teams. Frogs definiely played like they had something to prove even though they were higher-ranked and favored.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 2, 2011 11:34:19 GMT -6
I agree with blb. TCU's run D had some key stops (looked a lot like old school 4-4 to me) but Wiscy OL won that battle overall. But was really impressed with how TCU's coverage broke on the ball. I remember several curl/flats and other combos where Wisconsin had a decent call on and TCU just played the ball great.
|
|
|
Post by 42falcon on Jan 2, 2011 13:27:43 GMT -6
Tcu coaches did an awesome job of managment in terms of game clock vs Wisconsin offensive style. If the game was 1 more quarter wisconsin wins because they grind it out. I agree tcu looked a lot like old school 4-4 at times but that's what they needed to slow up the ground game. I think we as coaches can take a lot away from this. How many times do we come up against an oponent that is physically superior to us in size? With the right game plan you can hang in there.
|
|
|
Post by thakatalyst on Jan 2, 2011 15:00:14 GMT -6
I cant figure out why Wisconnsin didnt run the ball more throughout the game... Just seemed like they were ripping off good yardage every time and then they would throw a couple incompletions and have to punt. Even the 2 point I thought they should have ran it in. They were destroying TCU DL and LBs I guess trying to be balanced is not always a good thing. TCU couldn't stop power, counter, or zone cut-back. Wisconsin left a lot off the board though. I remember one beautiful play that I had to rewind over and over again - boot away with the TB running a wheel route. QB missed him. During the whole game, all I could think about was our difficulties a few years ago as a 4-2-5 stopping a power running game. Wisconsin had very few negative plays early on.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 2, 2011 15:14:43 GMT -6
if i remember correctly, that play was a Cover 1 peel, with the DE peeling to handle the wheel (and had a good 3 yards separation on the back) - because of the pressure (5), the throw was rushed. As I recall, TCU used a lot of man-coverage and surprisingly more fire zones. Wisconsin runs stretch as good as anybody in college football (even Iowa) and was owning TCU during the first few series. The frustration (I would assume) to be 'multiple' would be because TCU was getting some negative yardage plays with penetration, forcing them out of their comfort zone.
Great game, though.
|
|
|
Post by thakatalyst on Jan 2, 2011 16:44:22 GMT -6
if i remember correctly, that play was a Cover 1 peel, with the DE peeling to handle the wheel (and had a good 3 yards separation on the back) - because of the pressure (5), the throw was rushed. As I recall, TCU used a lot of man-coverage and surprisingly more fire zones. Wisconsin runs stretch as good as anybody in college football (even Iowa) and was owning TCU during the first few series. The frustration (I would assume) to be 'multiple' would be because TCU was getting some negative yardage plays with penetration, forcing them out of their comfort zone. Great game, though. Looking back at that play, that was definitely a DE. Good call, Brophy. As I look through the game again, it seems as if TCU was "willing" to let Wisconsin grind it out in the 30s and really played tough in the scoring area. Something I came away with that thoroughly impressed me was TCU's DE play. Those guys came screaming down the LOS on downblocks allowing the LBs and safeties to make plays at or behind the LOS. I'm looking forward to watching VT-Stanford tomorrow night. I think we are going to see a very similar game. I love Bud Foster, but I'm a West Coast/Pac-10 guy, so go Cardinal.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jan 2, 2011 17:24:49 GMT -6
That MLB, Tank Carder, he's a dude! Best one in the nation next to Sheppard from LSU. That is just my opinion, but he is textbook in his pursuit. He was giving Wisconsin Oline problems all day. Another observation: I am nowhere near qualified to be a BCS Offensive Coordinator but, it seemed to me that Wisconsin was bound and determined to run their Stretch play and TCU was eating it up all day long. Wisconsin had a lot more success running A Gap Power and IZ. I just didnt get the thinking of trying to run around TCU. Like I said, I wasnt on the headset, but Wisconsin killed 1 or 2 of their drives by running that play. On another note, UConn is trying to stay in it. Running stretch helped them set up their angle blocking schemes. They had a lot of success with Power and Counter because of it. They stretched the DEs to the sideline consistently and then came back with a kick-out block. I've seen Wisconsin play a few times this year and they call that Stretch play consistently, whether it's there or not. Some it was probably due to alignment as well; TCU was playing their DEs at a 7 tech (inside eye of the TE) a lot. Might as well try and tie him up inside, get to the force player and try and create some cut-back lanes. BUT, you really had to pay attention to how TCU was defending it; EXCELLENT defensive strategy. The LBs would scrape underneath when they read those bucket steps, chase the play down and take the cut-up lanes away. Their force players did a helluva job of stretching them to the sideline, allowing those LBs to really tear the play up. Most teams would have kept the LBs on that 4-5 yard plane, taking on blocks at that depth, fighting to hold the edge while taking away lanes. TCU used their speed to their advantage; they knew they probably couldn't handle Wisconsin's size on the edge so they played to their strength. I have always been impressed by TCU defensively and, even though they gave up big yardage, they still proved that they're a very well coached defense.
|
|
raivik
Freshmen Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by raivik on Jan 3, 2011 4:56:50 GMT -6
Coachbdud I agree run the ball even if you are going to pass line up under center and play action pass. The offensive line was to good to lose that on a knock down pass out of the gun.
|
|
|
Post by lukethadrifter on Jan 3, 2011 7:37:27 GMT -6
Congrats to Coach Patterson and his staff on a great victory. TCU was the more complete team and could definitely play with anyone in the nation on any given day. Speaking of stats, the only one that really matters is how many points the others team scores and how many you scoren. Patterson and his staff have done this with mainly a bunch of Texas kids that the big boys did not want. Imagine what TCU will do if they start getting more of the top-flight players out of Texas? Hard to watch Stanford with their Texas qb, Florida State with their Texas qb, Alabama and their Texas qb, Oregon with their qb, rb, and wr from Texas, Oregon State with the Rodgers brothers, Arizona and their Texas qb, and I don't even want to think about how many great players end up at OU, Okie State, and others that touch our borders. Hopefully TCU will start getting more of these recruits. Go Frogs!
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jan 3, 2011 7:53:24 GMT -6
The offensive line was to good to lose that on a knock down pass out of the gun. Perhaps one of those "too good" OL should've blocked the blitzing ILBer to get his hands down so he couldn't deflect the pass. Running the ball in from the 3-yard line is not a sure thing. TCU didn't get to be 12-0 by not being able to play Goal line or 2-point defense. Again - the intended receiver (TE) was uncovered, WAO. The Frog ILBer just made a great play to secure the win. Give credit where credit is due instead of second-guessing the play call. Like most of us I'm sure Wisconsin has 2-point plays they've practiced all year and that was the one they had confidence in against that team in that situation.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 3, 2011 9:03:00 GMT -6
if i remember correctly, that play was a Cover 1 peel, with the DE peeling to handle the wheel (and had a good 3 yards separation on the back) - because of the pressure (5), the throw was rushed. As I recall, TCU used a lot of man-coverage and surprisingly more fire zones. Wisconsin runs stretch as good as anybody in college football (even Iowa) and was owning TCU during the first few series. The frustration (I would assume) to be 'multiple' would be because TCU was getting some negative yardage plays with penetration, forcing them out of their comfort zone. Great game, though. I agree with this. TCU seemed to take the approach that they might give up some 5, 8, 10 or even 15 yard gains, but if they could string together a stop or even negative yardage play, they seemed to feel pretty good about the passing game from Wisconsin, and could force Wisconsin to get off the field. It definitely wasn't like TCU shut them down, but I thought Wisconsin was going to kill them and at times it seemed like they could have. But TCU got the win, and that's all that matters.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jan 3, 2011 9:57:55 GMT -6
I thought Wisconsin was going to kill them and at times it seemed like they could have. But TCU got the win, and that's all that matters. Why? TCU was higher ranked and a 3 1/2-point favorite. Still, if Wisconsin makes the 39-yard FG they missed in the 2nd Quarter it doesn't come down to the 2-point Play and Badgers may indeed have won.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Jan 3, 2011 10:58:17 GMT -6
The offensive line was to good to lose that on a knock down pass out of the gun. Perhaps one of those "too good" OL should've blocked the blitzing ILBer to get his hands down so he couldn't deflect the pass. Running the ball in from the 3-yard line is not a sure thing. TCU didn't get to be 12-0 by not being able to play Goal line or 2-point defense. Again - the intended receiver (TE) was uncovered, WAO. The Frog ILBer just made a great play to secure the win. Give credit where credit is due instead of second-guessing the play call. Like most of us I'm sure Wisconsin has 2-point plays they've practiced all year and that was the one they had confidence in against that team in that situation. Yeah, the call was spot on........TCU just made the play. One thing I wondered watching the replay.........did the TE plant and open the wrong way? Go to the 1:08 mark. I'm just an outsider looking in, but on most stick routes, the rec. turns over his inside shoulder and posts up. Had the TE done that, Tank would not have been in the throwing lane. Perhaps he read man coverage and converted (or was originally assigned) to run an out cut, but the settling that he does post-cut makes me think stick. At any rate, best bowl game I saw.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jan 3, 2011 11:05:13 GMT -6
Honestly, I don't know why anyone is even questioning the 2 point call.
Think about it. TCU has watched every single film of Wisconsin all year and what have they seen? Wisconsin pounding the ball or throwing PA in goa line situations. It seems like a great strategy to line up and throw the short ball in that situation. Plus, they had success throwing the ball out of those gun sets all game and really have been all year. It's not like they went in there and tried to out scheme theme; they can throw the ball.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 3, 2011 11:30:41 GMT -6
Perhaps one of those "too good" OL should've blocked the blitzing ILBer to get his hands down so he couldn't deflect the pass. Running the ball in from the 3-yard line is not a sure thing. TCU didn't get to be 12-0 by not being able to play Goal line or 2-point defense. Again - the intended receiver (TE) was uncovered, WAO. The Frog ILBer just made a great play to secure the win. Give credit where credit is due instead of second-guessing the play call. Like most of us I'm sure Wisconsin has 2-point plays they've practiced all year and that was the one they had confidence in against that team in that situation. Yeah, the call was spot on........TCU just made the play. One thing I wondered watching the replay.........did the TE plant and open the wrong way? Go to the 1:08 mark. I'm just an outsider looking in, but on most stick routes, the rec. turns over his inside shoulder and posts up. Had the TE done that, Tank would not have been in the throwing lane. Perhaps he read man coverage and converted (or was originally assigned) to run an out cut, but the settling that he does post-cut makes me think stick. At any rate, best bowl game I saw. Most teams run stick as an out cut. Only the Airraid branches turn inside and pivot back out. The Saints run this constantly and you always see it as an out cut. Patriots too.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 3, 2011 11:39:47 GMT -6
Most teams run stick as an out cut. Only the Airraid branches turn inside and pivot back out. The Saints run this constantly and you always see it as an out cut. Patriots too. isn't this based on athlete at Y? I mean if he's a bigger guy, you'll force the inside stem (and have it mirror Y Cross stem), but if it is a smaller guy, you avoid the inside purposely and just stick it outside with no fake?
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jan 3, 2011 11:58:57 GMT -6
I'm not an "Air Raid" guy but we have TE turn out because ILBer will be coming from inside whether Zone or Man; if SS is playing TE Man-to-Man he'll probably be playing with inside alignment-technique.
Actually we tell TE if SS is Man to run Flag or Corner but I think this particular play was designed as Quick Pass (TE ran route just inside End Zone) expecting Blitz.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 3, 2011 12:47:05 GMT -6
I just wish the NCAA would come out and finally hone up to the fact the over 1/2 of all schools at the BCS level have absolutely no shot at winning the championship and it's all because of money. If they'd just come clean and admit that the SEC, ACC, Big 10, Pac-10, and Big 12 are where the money, ratings, and most of the fan support is and therefore constitute a seperate de facto division that gets to play by different rules, it wouldn't be nearly as frustrating as hearing the same old talking heads spewing the same tired arguments every year over "the little sisters of the poor who couldn't survive in a big conference" yet win whenever they play the best of those teams. Actually, if they'd take this a step further and divide the BCS into 2 divisions, institute some revenue sharing from the big bowls, let the two divisions play each other in the second and third tier bowls, and have seperate championships for each, part of this problem could be solved without the playoff they fear so much. After all, besides the NC game, the bowls aren't much more than hyped up exhibition games with fat payouts attached. Then what does the NCAA offer these days to keep the BCS teams in it?
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Jan 3, 2011 13:13:20 GMT -6
It's a minor thing, I suppose you don't call and design concepts based on where rushers may be.........you call em' to get someone open, and the play designer (and caller) did their job.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 3, 2011 15:47:26 GMT -6
this is really the only thing I remember from that game
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Jan 3, 2011 16:00:02 GMT -6
Sports Illustrated had a really good article on the BCS series and what an organized racket it really is. I would love to see the BCS go away for the most part and perhaps now with TCU this will be the first step in its undoing. One can wish anyway.
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Jan 3, 2011 16:02:24 GMT -6
And on a totally biased point, Boise State would have waxed Uconn.
|
|