|
|
Post by coachmoore42 on Sept 3, 2007 18:47:21 GMT -6
If you want to see the Jet Sweep, just watch the game currently on ESPN. I have seen it at least 6 times so far. It's been getting 5+ most times it's been utilized. Both teams are running it. The genius announcer continues to call it "a reverse".
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Sept 3, 2007 19:36:13 GMT -6
mushburger is ignorant
|
|
|
|
Post by Yash on Sept 3, 2007 19:43:13 GMT -6
That clemson guy that hit the Jet sweep out of gun, wow that was pure speed when he turned the corner. took a perfect angle that allowed him to turn the corner, just nice. Can't teach speed.
|
|
|
|
Post by midsfan on Sept 3, 2007 19:44:22 GMT -6
You at least have to give Mike Patrick some credit. He is usually announcing NFL games. Looks to me like Clemson has adapted the "Wild-Tiger" formation. I don't know his name but, Clemson's OC is one of the best in the business. His nicknam is the "Mad-Scientist". Somebody help me on his name!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by coachmoore42 on Sept 3, 2007 19:59:17 GMT -6
Looks to me like Clemson has adapted the "Wild-Tiger" formation. Wild-Tiger, I like that one. After I start the thread they run Jet Sweep exactly ONCE in the second quarter. Although they did run playaction off of it once also. |
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on Sept 3, 2007 20:45:15 GMT -6
I like the punter picking up a snap over his head at the 20!! and running the ball out of the back of the endzone.
Whats up with that? Just fall on it, geez
|
|
|
|
Post by coachbdud on Sept 3, 2007 21:57:26 GMT -6
that was the right play, just take the safety , you got a big lead no reason to chance anything
|
|
|
|
Post by CatsCoach on Sept 4, 2007 4:28:51 GMT -6
. I don't know his name but, Clemson's OC is one of the best in the business. His nicknam is the "Mad-Scientist". Somebody help me on his name!!! There OC is Rob Spence |
|
|
|
Post by revtaz on Sept 4, 2007 7:23:40 GMT -6
If he jumps on it FSU gets a good chance at a TD. So now it is 10 to 24 than 5 to 24. Also if you take the safety, it's playing field position. Good teams win field position.
Taz
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Sept 4, 2007 7:34:13 GMT -6
I like the punter picking up a snap over his head at the 20!! and running the ball out of the back of the endzone. Whats up with that? Just fall on it, geez It's a little more complicated than that. I had this discussion with someone this morning already. The punter picked it up inside the 15. You have to determine (or at least have an estimate of) a few things. If FSU has the ball on the Clemson 12, what is that "worth"? In other words, what is FSU's expected points scored if they have 1st and 10 on the 12? I've read studies of this, and it is something approaching 7. It is about 6 or so. This makes sense since they have a good chance of scoring a TD and an excellent chance of at least getting the field goal. On the other hand, Clemson can give up 2 points, plus the expected value of wherever FSU is likely to get the ball next. I think FSU got it on their own 35. You have to hang some expected value for FSU here. I.e. their chance of getting a TD or at least 3. FSU's offense hadn't been very good, but based on being on the 35-40, we give them at a generous 2 points. So even with the 2 points, that is 2+2 which = 4. In other words, the punter taking the safety gives FSU the expected value of scoring 4 more points, with 2 guaranteed. On the other hand, if the punter fell on it at the 12, FSU has an expected value of 6 points. Those two things considered - along with Clemson's big lead at that point - makes the decision the right one to me. It made for a goofy play, but this was a critical late game play. Had FSU gotten the ball at the 12 and scored a TD they would have been in much better position. Indeed, FSU got the 2 and stupidly went for TD on another TD in that game. Had they scored the TD instead of gotten the 2 (and kicked the PAT) they would have been in much likelier position to tie the game at 24-24. Here are some links sort of explaining this value based approach to the football field. It's interesting - some areas of the field actually carry a negative value even when you have the ball. www.footballcommentary.com/dynamicprogramming.htmwww.vpostrel.com/articles-speeches/nyt/football.html |
|
|
|
Post by flycoach on Sept 5, 2007 23:11:29 GMT -6
You at least have to give Mike Patrick some credit. He is usually announcing NFL games. Looks to me like Clemson has adapted the "Wild-Tiger" formation. I don't know his name but, Clemson's OC is one of the best in the business. His nicknam is the "Mad-Scientist". Somebody help me on his name!!! I think you mean the "Wildcat" formation. That is the same one that Mcfadden runs at Arkansas |
|
|
|
Post by coachjaz on Sept 5, 2007 23:42:45 GMT -6
I think he just called it Wild-Tiger because Clemson was running it.
|
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Sept 6, 2007 5:12:05 GMT -6
If you want to see the Jet Sweep, just watch the game currently on ESPN. I have seen it at least 6 times so far. It's been getting 5+ most times it's been utilized. Both teams are running it. The genius announcer continues to call it "a reverse". I like when I hear announcers refer to it as "the old end around play" said with such broadcaster-like wild enthusiasm, it makes me want to vomit my beer nuts. |
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Sept 6, 2007 5:44:11 GMT -6
Why do ZERO announcers know what a Jet/Fly/Speed sweep is?
Arent many of these announcers former players?
Im glad to see Im not the only one that gets SICK of hearing "reverse" on about every Jet Sweep I see on TV.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Sept 6, 2007 9:59:33 GMT -6
Why do ZERO announcers know what a Jet/Fly/Speed sweep is? Arent many of these announcers former players? Im glad to see Im not the only one that gets SICK of hearing "reverse" on about every Jet Sweep I see on TV. Dave: These are generally the same doofi who call the Wing-T "the ol' Single Wing" -- and the Single Wing "the ol' Wing-T"... ;D  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by midlineqb on Sept 6, 2007 10:01:50 GMT -6
I like the punter picking up a snap over his head at the 20!! and running the ball out of the back of the endzone. Whats up with that? Just fall on it, geez It's a little more complicated than that. I had this discussion with someone this morning already. The punter picked it up inside the 15. You have to determine (or at least have an estimate of) a few things. If FSU has the ball on the Clemson 12, what is that "worth"? In other words, what is FSU's expected points scored if they have 1st and 10 on the 12? I've read studies of this, and it is something approaching 7. It is about 6 or so. This makes sense since they have a good chance of scoring a TD and an excellent chance of at least getting the field goal. On the other hand, Clemson can give up 2 points, plus the expected value of wherever FSU is likely to get the ball next. I think FSU got it on their own 35. You have to hang some expected value for FSU here. I.e. their chance of getting a TD or at least 3. FSU's offense hadn't been very good, but based on being on the 35-40, we give them at a generous 2 points. So even with the 2 points, that is 2+2 which = 4. In other words, the punter taking the safety gives FSU the expected value of scoring 4 more points, with 2 guaranteed. On the other hand, if the punter fell on it at the 12, FSU has an expected value of 6 points. Those two things considered - along with Clemson's big lead at that point - makes the decision the right one to me. It made for a goofy play, but this was a critical late game play. Had FSU gotten the ball at the 12 and scored a TD they would have been in much better position. Indeed, FSU got the 2 and stupidly went for TD on another TD in that game. Had they scored the TD instead of gotten the 2 (and kicked the PAT) they would have been in much likelier position to tie the game at 24-24. Here are some links sort of explaining this value based approach to the football field. It's interesting - some areas of the field actually carry a negative value even when you have the ball. www.footballcommentary.com/dynamicprogramming.htmwww.vpostrel.com/articles-speeches/nyt/football.htmlWish I knew something about math, I'm only a lowly social studies teacher. |
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on Sept 6, 2007 11:04:55 GMT -6
It's a little more complicated than that. I had this discussion with someone this morning already. The punter picked it up inside the 15. You have to determine (or at least have an estimate of) a few things. If FSU has the ball on the Clemson 12, what is that "worth"? In other words, what is FSU's expected points scored if they have 1st and 10 on the 12? I've read studies of this, and it is something approaching 7. It is about 6 or so. This makes sense since they have a good chance of scoring a TD and an excellent chance of at least getting the field goal. On the other hand, Clemson can give up 2 points, plus the expected value of wherever FSU is likely to get the ball next. I think FSU got it on their own 35. You have to hang some expected value for FSU here. I.e. their chance of getting a TD or at least 3. FSU's offense hadn't been very good, but based on being on the 35-40, we give them at a generous 2 points. So even with the 2 points, that is 2+2 which = 4. In other words, the punter taking the safety gives FSU the expected value of scoring 4 more points, with 2 guaranteed. On the other hand, if the punter fell on it at the 12, FSU has an expected value of 6 points. Those two things considered - along with Clemson's big lead at that point - makes the decision the right one to me. It made for a goofy play, but this was a critical late game play. Had FSU gotten the ball at the 12 and scored a TD they would have been in much better position. Indeed, FSU got the 2 and stupidly went for TD on another TD in that game. Had they scored the TD instead of gotten the 2 (and kicked the PAT) they would have been in much likelier position to tie the game at 24-24. Here are some links sort of explaining this value based approach to the football field. It's interesting - some areas of the field actually carry a negative value even when you have the ball. www.footballcommentary.com/dynamicprogramming.htmwww.vpostrel.com/articles-speeches/nyt/football.htmlWish I knew something about math, I'm only a lowly social studies teacher. Are these the same mathematicians who tell you that it's good to go for 2 in the first half of a game to cut the lead to 3?  Just messing. Sorry, I think there are some intangibles there when your punter runs 20 yards out of the back of the endzone. "My defense sucks so bad, I don't want to give them a short field" and "hey! Here's 2 free points, and we'll give you the ball too" not to mention it looks absolutely ridiculous. It's a complete give up move...like letting someone score just so you get the ball back so you can score, get an onsides kick, and score again to try and take the lead. Some things math can't explain IMO. |
|
;D
Just messing.