-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Gregorak's coaching cost Griz the win versus Poly
- Thread starter Atlanta Griz1
- Start date
horribilisfan8184 said:
True, the defense did have the last chance, but what you stated was "Stitt's offense performed under pressure when it had to" and that is an absolutely false statement. The Griz offense had a chance to seal the victory in a pressure situation and did not succeed.
PlayerRep said:
I would also like to hear specifically what he would have done differently. "Keeping the player in bounds" doesn't work. Enlighten me, and how would you have made these adjustments without calling a timeout and stopping the clock yourself????
Didn't think so! :roll:
FCSwatcher
Well-known member
CV Griz Fan said:
Your post and the quoted post are excellent.
CV Griz Fan
Well-known member
grizindabox said:
I believe 8184 was referring to what the O did against NDSU not Poly....
Hammer said:
After the first run to the sideline, I would have put 5 players on each sideline, with one in the middle, and hoped that CP wouldn't have noticed or adjusted. For each of the next 10 plays. I guarantee you that no one would be complaining about letting CP run to the sideline and stop the clock. Did you hear me, guaranteed. Altho CP would have scored a TD very quickly, UM would have had time to march downfield for its own TD.
horribilisfan8184
Well-known member
PlayerRep said:
Read any article on how SEC defensive coordinators force the hand off on the dive in those situations and count on their best player, our best defensive player Kose, to make the tackle. 5 yds means nothing if the clock runs. And if the QB (as Brown was) was instructed to forego the dive and pitch to get the clock stopped, the up field DE would cause an early pitch, giving the OLB, CB and SS more time to get to the pitchman in bounds, if the pitchman holds on to the ball. There are strategies for this that work. Ty should have known several, and taking a timeout when the clock has already stopped by an out of bounds to regroup, especially when we left one on the table, would have been a smart move. Point is you'll never get me to agree there was nothing Ty could have done, and hopefully he doesn't buy your position either. You could tell from the NEZ, watching how the plays unfolded differently than during the game, Brown was going to pitch no matter what and the pitchman was going to go out of bounds no matter what. Most DC's would realize that and use that knowledge to their advantage.
Atlanta Griz1
Well-known member
horribilisfan8184 said:
Great analysis. Brown was not even running the option on the last 3 plays. He looked immediately to the pitch back each time. There was no way that Poly was going to put all of their eggs into one play trying to fool the Griz and run inside. Their strategy was obvious...... get as many yards as possible on each outside run and then go out-of-bounds to stop the clock and give their FG kicker a shot at the win. It worked! One stop ends the game. Playa Rep is scrambling to try to protect his "buddy"..... you know, the one his nose is firmly implanted in.
Atlanta Griz1
Well-known member
Big G said:
Big G said:
Yeah, because Hauck always had such great success against Cal Poly. :|
horribilisfan8184 said:
this is what i saw as well, all for more than 5 yds. maybe a 3-5-3 look when the ball was over the 50 with the option to drop back 1 or 2 as the play developed.........i know that crowding the box dictates pass to the offense but just the look may have made him nervous to pitch out as we could be coming with an all out blitz or stay in gap coverage with one dropping back. like you said prevent or pressure.....we showed prevent so the pitch out is the most probable call. on the first roll out leading up to the field goal we had van (35) in pursuit he was blocked quite nicely which led to a nice gain. the second rollout we had 3 defensive players in lateral pursuit which ended up with Kose pushing the runner out of bounds for another gain.
we did prevent long gains, with the exceptions of the pass plays starting at the 32, however, we did not prevent them from using clock management and less gains/or stops to place them out of field goal range. they covered from the 32 to the 32 in a minute 17 seconds. this, to me, is equal to the 4th and 1 on our last possession. both were helpful for the cp win..........granted they had to make the 49 yarder, however, points are points and as we know they can be scored a lot of different ways. this was done in a very traditional way (it was no fluke) which adds to the sting of a loss.
Atlanta Griz1
Well-known member
zirge said:
Good post. Both the fiasco on the 4th down play where you give the rock to a LB who has never carried the rock in a college game before, and the last 37 seconds were coaching gaffs. Stitt needs to forget all of the cutesy stuff on offense, and focus on better execution. If Joey Counts runs the ball on that 4th down play, with the elephant package, we win the game. If Ty calls a TO and coaches his charges on how to stop the Poly RB from getting out-of-bounds, we win the game. Two instances where the coaching was poor. I'm not sayin' Stitt is a poor coach, nor Ty. I am just sayin' that in these two instances they screwed the pooch and it cost us the game..... a game we should have won.
Grisly Fan
Well-known member
I have to say that this is the most reasoned and rational thing I have ever seen you post here (you feeling OK? :winkAtlanta Griz1 said:
and I agree 100%. The game was ours to win and we didn't. That's a real shame. Did I happen to mention I HATE THE TRIPLE OPTION: boring and effective.
In my opinion, I think simplistic answers in regards to stopping veer option teams, spread option teams are rarely executable in the way that they look on paper. We can criticize Gregorak for doing this or that in regards to stopping Poly on that last drive, but there is little in those criticisms that a ton of merit as I noted in a prior post.
First, veer option teams are difficult to scheme in a way to get desired predictable outcomes. In other words, if you call this play defensively then your are going to get this outcome. The common idea is if you blitz a guy off the edge, you are going to get the quarterback to give the football on dive. They don't have to run dive option, they can run speed option, or another of a myriad of play calls.
Now it obviously helps if you have the type of athletes that SEC teams employ, because in most cases they have not only skill but type of athletic advantage that allows you to defend option type teams by devoting your DL plus inside backers to stopping dive. This is of course the reason why running option at the NFL level in nearly impossible. The speed and strength negates the deception.
Moreover, Veer/man schemes are just sloppy reads for second level guys. There are in my estimation three types of reads for backers. Clean reads are those where if you read the guard you are going to know immediately where the play is headed. Soft Reads are those reads that generally take you to the football (think stretch). Cloudy Reads require play development to know truly where the football is going to go. There are so few reads at the second level against option teams that are Clean. In fact most of them are so cloudy, that unless you get your eyes to the second level for clarity, you might as well just guess. Moreover, the second level reads are just as cloudy because the f back doesn't always necessarily travel in the same path of the football.
Which I have always argued for holistic game plans against veer/wingt/option teams, that created secondary fail safes. The situation at the end of the game, the scheme didn't fail but rather Poly exposed a weakness within it. The answer is not one I would have employed because of the implicit risk involved. If you want to stop sweep/option you are going to have to commit to running a zero coverage on the perimeter and brought your safeties into the box. In that situation, not sure the risk worth the reward.
Others might have, but I think you allow the obvious pitch and rally to the sideline. That outside linebacker has to force pitch before he rallies. You can't always depend on the DE to employ that tactic there. The DE most likely is in inside out mode, and Cal Poly doesn't necessarily have to option the end either. They didn't a lot and you hope Crittenden is capable of stringing that option to the sideline without getting hooked. The DE and OLB can't give seams, because you don't want Brown running vertically through the secondary. That option is much scarier than a pitch that was strung all the way to the sideline.
You prevent the easy vertical release and protect on double move routes which is why the corners struggled to get back in on those plays. That means that OLB are going to be on a bit of an Island and they were. The other options would have vacated what the defense had done so well to that point. Remember, they forced a freshman kicker to boot at 50 yarder to win the game. I have said this before...and am repeating myself..
First, veer option teams are difficult to scheme in a way to get desired predictable outcomes. In other words, if you call this play defensively then your are going to get this outcome. The common idea is if you blitz a guy off the edge, you are going to get the quarterback to give the football on dive. They don't have to run dive option, they can run speed option, or another of a myriad of play calls.
Now it obviously helps if you have the type of athletes that SEC teams employ, because in most cases they have not only skill but type of athletic advantage that allows you to defend option type teams by devoting your DL plus inside backers to stopping dive. This is of course the reason why running option at the NFL level in nearly impossible. The speed and strength negates the deception.
Moreover, Veer/man schemes are just sloppy reads for second level guys. There are in my estimation three types of reads for backers. Clean reads are those where if you read the guard you are going to know immediately where the play is headed. Soft Reads are those reads that generally take you to the football (think stretch). Cloudy Reads require play development to know truly where the football is going to go. There are so few reads at the second level against option teams that are Clean. In fact most of them are so cloudy, that unless you get your eyes to the second level for clarity, you might as well just guess. Moreover, the second level reads are just as cloudy because the f back doesn't always necessarily travel in the same path of the football.
Which I have always argued for holistic game plans against veer/wingt/option teams, that created secondary fail safes. The situation at the end of the game, the scheme didn't fail but rather Poly exposed a weakness within it. The answer is not one I would have employed because of the implicit risk involved. If you want to stop sweep/option you are going to have to commit to running a zero coverage on the perimeter and brought your safeties into the box. In that situation, not sure the risk worth the reward.
Others might have, but I think you allow the obvious pitch and rally to the sideline. That outside linebacker has to force pitch before he rallies. You can't always depend on the DE to employ that tactic there. The DE most likely is in inside out mode, and Cal Poly doesn't necessarily have to option the end either. They didn't a lot and you hope Crittenden is capable of stringing that option to the sideline without getting hooked. The DE and OLB can't give seams, because you don't want Brown running vertically through the secondary. That option is much scarier than a pitch that was strung all the way to the sideline.
You prevent the easy vertical release and protect on double move routes which is why the corners struggled to get back in on those plays. That means that OLB are going to be on a bit of an Island and they were. The other options would have vacated what the defense had done so well to that point. Remember, they forced a freshman kicker to boot at 50 yarder to win the game. I have said this before...and am repeating myself..
Grizfan-24 said:
i respect your knowledge you impart on this thread, my response will be addressed by the references in bold above
first bold statement.......this said and being focused on the few end plays, not the entire system, it appears from being at the game and observing the entirety of the offensive formation, time and place in that moment of the game, that they were not going to pass or run the middle with a keeper etc. so a myriad of plays does pertain to the system, i honestly believe it did not in this circumstance.
second bold statement........i thought we had the speed and strength in gamboa, kose, van and yamen
third bold statement..........isn't going for it on 4th several times a game running this same risk aspect on offense. if so, why not the defense risk on occasion as well..........this would have been an opportune time. you may say no, because doing this we are risking a td to lose the game.......you know what i have to say about that is we lost anyway, even if it was a 49 yarder, it was a risk that they would not make it.
so if prevent is a way to negate risk then it has to protect the field goal as well. ie less yardage gain period.
zirge said:
With regard to #3, it's with the benefit of hindsight easy to say the defense should have taken more risk, much harder when the game is being played and you are the coach. The QB demonstrated in the game the ability to make the big play, I think it would have been really hard to not take into account the possibility of one more.
mcg
i know what you are saying...........in my statement i was addressing grizfan24's points on defending and risk taking against the option system with the players that we have.......not using hindsight
in the first statement i was using hindsight based on the actual plays that were the most probable based the circumstances in that moment of the game. to run to the outside to stop the clock was pretty evident, as horrible said from his seat in the north endzone and my seat in sec 224 i saw this as well. this was to state that i do not believe, in that instance, they had a myriad of plays that they wanted or could of run. thats all
you are right in game situations it can be different it depends on, as grizfan24 pointed out, on your athletic talent and speed of players, this is me saying.....also coaching ability and how well you are perceiving your opponent in that moment of the game, and.......
the second statement was addressing that i thought we have the players to pursue/pressure in that moment based on grizfan's mention on what it takes to defend the triple option aggressively.
the third statement was making a risk comparison based on the game events that took place in the game. yes hindsight, but, really, not to make the change after the fact but asking isn't this sorta the same risk, and if so, this would have been a good time to take a similar type of "got for it risk" on defense.
i know what you are saying...........in my statement i was addressing grizfan24's points on defending and risk taking against the option system with the players that we have.......not using hindsight
in the first statement i was using hindsight based on the actual plays that were the most probable based the circumstances in that moment of the game. to run to the outside to stop the clock was pretty evident, as horrible said from his seat in the north endzone and my seat in sec 224 i saw this as well. this was to state that i do not believe, in that instance, they had a myriad of plays that they wanted or could of run. thats all
you are right in game situations it can be different it depends on, as grizfan24 pointed out, on your athletic talent and speed of players, this is me saying.....also coaching ability and how well you are perceiving your opponent in that moment of the game, and.......
the second statement was addressing that i thought we have the players to pursue/pressure in that moment based on grizfan's mention on what it takes to defend the triple option aggressively.
the third statement was making a risk comparison based on the game events that took place in the game. yes hindsight, but, really, not to make the change after the fact but asking isn't this sorta the same risk, and if so, this would have been a good time to take a similar type of "got for it risk" on defense.
Latest posts
-
2026 Northern Arizona Regular Season Predictions
- Latest: AZhoopsMTfootballfan
-
-
-
-