Gregorak's coaching cost Griz the win versus Poly

[Grizfan-24]

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.[/quote]

I don't disagree with the assessment or the likelihood of them attacking the periphery versus the middle of the field because of time and space. I don't know what Gregorak's simple adjustment would have been, but there are obvious options that while logical would have been significant deviations from the game plan. Do you implement a 2 minute strategy in that situation during the week? Maybe.

My personal experience is that the fundamental reason that prevent defenses typically fail isn't the space they give up, is that players don't work very quickly within because it isn't intuitive. Did that situation lend for a three front? Maybe. Hindsight is definitely 20/20.

The speed concept does resonate. I don't dispute that our three or even four potential second level guys probably have the ability to play box versus spill. Poly did deviate from their strategy and put three guys into patterns on those plays and still ran the speed option. As I noted before that my concern would be giving up twenty yard gashes by brown. Box techinque because you need support help and flow to football does lend for natural running lanes. Not saying that it isn't possible or even executable, but again unless you worked on that philosophy in practice all week it is a bit of a deviation from what Gregorak was trying to do against that offense the whole game.

Third and like I said, it isn't in that situation something that I would do. I know that a lot of coaches probably would have risked man coverage with brown in space. I guess with that time, I wouldn't have given up the cheapie. I just wouldn't want my DB peeking back with brown in space. Just my opinion. Not to say that it is a valid option there.

 

[AZGrizFan]

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.

I have to say that this is the most reasoned and rational thing I have ever seen you post here (you feeling OK? :wink 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.

Good God. I just threw up in my mouth a little because I partially agree with Growler here as well...at least in the way he positioned THIS particular post.

I rewatched the game last night. What I REALLY disliked was the entire series of play calls on OUR last drive, particularly given the struggles Nguyen had gaining positive yardage between the tackles all night. That being said, I noticed a couple things on CP's last drive:

a) They only ran to the outside and out of bounds 3 times in the 11 plays. There were 5 running plays and 6 passing plays in that drive (counting the spike). So, the CP OC did really a nice job of mixing the plays up and not allowing our D to focus on JUST taking away the sideline. Their play-calling forced Ty's D to play it straight up and not overload or focus on just taking away the sideline.
b) When they ran the ball, they typically were getting 5-6 yards per carry. So, even if we HAD gotten a guy down in bounds, they really didn't need four downs to get 10 yards and could have spiked the ball at any time to stop the clock (which they did after the 2nd first down of the drive accomplished by Brown's 2-yard run).
c) Watch Holmes on the pitch-outs. He repeatedly overpursues and crashes down instead of maintaining contain, then has to pursue from behind. They caught him on all three of those running plays.
d) I specifically watched the CP blockers on the runs to the outside. On all three occasions they did a tremendous job sealing off their defender and not allowing pursuit to get to the RB until he'd already reached the sideline. Great job of coaching and executing by the CP O-linemen and/or blockers on those three particular plays.

All that being said, I'd agree we should have won that game. If you tell me we've got a lead, possession of the ball on the opponent's 44 yard line, a first down and 2:15 on the clock I say we win that game 98% of the time.

 

[PlayerRep]

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:

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.

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.

UM stopped the run plays in 5, 6 and 4 yards. How us an article where SEC coordinators say that they want to keep the ball carrier inbounds, or how they keep the ball carrier inbounds.

The plays on the drive were 5 yards to sideline, incomplete pass, complete pass, incomplete pass, 2 yards up middle, pass completion, 2 yards up middle, spike, 6 yards to sideline and 4 yards to sideline. Note that UM gave up less than 4 yards per carry in the 5 running plays, and 2-4 passing (2-5 if you include the spike).

After the first run to the sideline, would you have lined up to stop the next 7 plays (none of which were runs to the sideline)?

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

Gamboa played running back in high school and is a very good athlete. He had practiced that play during the week, as Counts had been banged up and missed some practices. Note that Counts didn't play much in the 2d half. I would have been fine doing a running play with normal personnel in normal formation, or how they did it with either running back. After Counts played well and scored the winning TD in the NDSU game, I trust that you don't believe that Gamboa was inserted for Counts for no reason. I would have been fine with a short punt too. In fact, that's what I would have done.

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

I have to say that this is the most reasoned and rational thing I have ever seen you post here (you feeling OK? :wink 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.

I think the post was stupid. Counts was banged up and hadn't practiced the play during the week. Call timeout for let CP get organized? That would be risky. What would Gregorak have told the defense to do? Go stand on the sidelines and allow long runs and passes up the middle? Note that after the 1st run to the sideline, the next 7 plays were not runs to the sidelines. How silly would it have been to defense against runs to the sideline on those 7 plays?

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

I have to say that this is the most reasoned and rational thing I have ever seen you post here (you feeling OK? :wink 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.

Good God. I just threw up in my mouth a little because I partially agree with Growler here as well...at least in the way he positioned THIS particular post.

I rewatched the game last night. What I REALLY disliked was the entire series of play calls on OUR last drive, particularly given the struggles Nguyen had gaining positive yardage between the tackles all night. That being said, I noticed a couple things on CP's last drive:

a) They only ran to the outside and out of bounds 3 times in the 11 plays. There were 5 running plays and 6 passing plays in that drive (counting the spike). So, the CP OC did really a nice job of mixing the plays up and not allowing our D to focus on JUST taking away the sideline. Their play-calling forced Ty's D to play it straight up and not overload or focus on just taking away the sideline.
b) When they ran the ball, they typically were getting 5-6 yards per carry. So, even if we HAD gotten a guy down in bounds, they really didn't need four downs to get 10 yards and could have spiked the ball at any time to stop the clock (which they did after the 2nd first down of the drive accomplished by Brown's 2-yard run).
c) Watch Holmes on the pitch-outs. He repeatedly overpursues and crashes down instead of maintaining contain, then has to pursue from behind. They caught him on all three of those running plays.
d) I specifically watched the CP blockers on the runs to the outside. On all three occasions they did a tremendous job sealing off their defender and not allowing pursuit to get to the RB until he'd already reached the sideline. Great job of coaching and executing by the CP O-linemen and/or blockers on those three particular plays.

All that being said, I'd agree we should have won that game. If you tell me we've got a lead, possession of the ball on the opponent's 44 yard line, a first down and 2:15 on the clock I say we win that game 98% of the time.

The CP runs on the last drive were 5, 2, 2, 6 and 4--not 5 - 6 per carry.

 

[AZGrizFan]

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.

I have to say that this is the most reasoned and rational thing I have ever seen you post here (you feeling OK? :wink 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.

Good God. I just threw up in my mouth a little because I partially agree with Growler here as well...at least in the way he positioned THIS particular post.

I rewatched the game last night. What I REALLY disliked was the entire series of play calls on OUR last drive, particularly given the struggles Nguyen had gaining positive yardage between the tackles all night. That being said, I noticed a couple things on CP's last drive:

a) They only ran to the outside and out of bounds 3 times in the 11 plays. There were 5 running plays and 6 passing plays in that drive (counting the spike). So, the CP OC did really a nice job of mixing the plays up and not allowing our D to focus on JUST taking away the sideline. Their play-calling forced Ty's D to play it straight up and not overload or focus on just taking away the sideline.
b) When they ran the ball, they typically were getting 5-6 yards per carry. So, even if we HAD gotten a guy down in bounds, they really didn't need four downs to get 10 yards and could have spiked the ball at any time to stop the clock (which they did after the 2nd first down of the drive accomplished by Brown's 2-yard run).
c) Watch Holmes on the pitch-outs. He repeatedly overpursues and crashes down instead of maintaining contain, then has to pursue from behind. They caught him on all three of those running plays.
d) I specifically watched the CP blockers on the runs to the outside. On all three occasions they did a tremendous job sealing off their defender and not allowing pursuit to get to the RB until he'd already reached the sideline. Great job of coaching and executing by the CP O-linemen and/or blockers on those three particular plays.

All that being said, I'd agree we should have won that game. If you tell me we've got a lead, possession of the ball on the opponent's 44 yard line, a first down and 2:15 on the clock I say we win that game 98% of the time.

The CP runs on the last drive were 5, 2, 2, 6 and 4--not 5 - 6 per carry.

I realize that....But to clarify, one of those 2-yard carries was to the sideline--stopped the clock. The other was by Brown and got a first down--exactly what he needed--and stopped the clock to place the ball and move the chains....after which he immediately spiked the ball. Then they got ANOTHER 6 yards and ANOTHER 4 yards (out of bounds, which stopped the clock) for ANOTHER first down. In two plays.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I would have been fine with a short punt too. In fact, that's what I would have done.

Yep. With them having zero timeouts I'd have done the same thing. Made the field as long as possible for them. Then again, I'd have challenged the Henderson (no) catch; I'd have thrown a shit fit when they didn't measure for the 1st down on Gamboa's run (and then let CP decline the penalty), and I'd have given the rock to somebody else other than Nguyen the first two plays of the final drive.

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

I would have been fine with a short punt too. In fact, that's what I would have done.

Yep. With them having zero timeouts I'd have done the same thing. Made the field as long as possible for them. Then again, I'd have challenged the Henderson (no) catch; I'd have thrown a shit fit when they didn't measure for the 1st down on Gamboa's run (and then let CP decline the penalty), and I'd have given the rock to somebody else other than Nguyen the first two plays of the final drive.

So, you are saying the coaches messed up?

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

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.

I have to say that this is the most reasoned and rational thing I have ever seen you post here (you feeling OK? :wink 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.

I think the post was stupid. Counts was banged up and hadn't practiced the play during the week. Call timeout for let CP get organized? That would be risky. What would Gregorak have told the defense to do? Go stand on the sidelines and allow long runs and passes up the middle? Note that after the 1st run to the sideline, the next 7 plays were not runs to the sidelines. How silly would it have been to defense against runs to the sideline on those 7 plays?

The more you write trying to defend your buddy, the stupider you look. But then, I think after all of these years we all get your agenda. Defend coaches that screw up. Defend criminal actions of players who screw up. You really are quite pathetic.

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

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.

Gamboa played running back in high school and is a very good athlete. He had practiced that play during the week, as Counts had been banged up and missed some practices. Note that Counts didn't play much in the 2d half. I would have been fine doing a running play with normal personnel in normal formation, or how they did it with either running back. After Counts played well and scored the winning TD in the NDSU game, I trust that you don't believe that Gamboa was inserted for Counts for no reason. I would have been fine with a short punt too. In fact, that's what I would have done.

[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Yeah, they practiced that play so well that two players were in motion at the same time, a clear violation. Gimmick plays are for losers. Execution wins games. and, how do YOU know that they practiced that play during the week? Do you chart every play in practice, and were you even at the closed practices. Another obvious lie to foster your agenda.

Stitt needs to can the gimmick plays. He has run two of them, one in each game, and both were disasters. The infamous catch-n-lateral fumble against NDSU, and the more infamous 4th down gaff trying to use a LB to run the ball.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I would have been fine with a short punt too. In fact, that's what I would have done.

Yep. With them having zero timeouts I'd have done the same thing. Made the field as long as possible for them. Then again, I'd have challenged the Henderson (no) catch; I'd have thrown a shit fit when they didn't measure for the 1st down on Gamboa's run (and then let CP decline the penalty), and I'd have given the rock to somebody else other than Nguyen the first two plays of the final drive.

So, you are saying the coaches messed up?

Multiple times.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Yeah, they practiced that play so well that two players were in motion at the same time, a clear violation. Gimmick plays are for losers. Execution wins games. and, how do YOU know that they practiced that play during the week? Do you chart every play in practice, and were you even at the closed practices. Another obvious lie to foster your agenda.

BG already took responsibility for that illegal shift, saying he had the ball hiked too soon as he thought time was running down, and ended up getting it snapped before they were able to get set again.

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

Gamboa played running back in high school and is a very good athlete. He had practiced that play during the week, as Counts had been banged up and missed some practices. Note that Counts didn't play much in the 2d half. I would have been fine doing a running play with normal personnel in normal formation, or how they did it with either running back. After Counts played well and scored the winning TD in the NDSU game, I trust that you don't believe that Gamboa was inserted for Counts for no reason. I would have been fine with a short punt too. In fact, that's what I would have done.

[/quote][/quote]

Yeah, they practiced that play so well that two players were in motion at the same time, a clear violation. Gimmick plays are for losers. Execution wins games. and, how do YOU know that they practiced that play during the week? Do you chart every play in practice, and were you even at the closed practices. Another obvious lie to foster your agenda.

Stitt needs to can the gimmick plays. He has run two of them, one in each game, and both were disasters. The infamous catch-n-lateral fumble against NDSU, and the more infamous 4th down gaff trying to use a LB to run the ball.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

A similar "gimmick" play was the go-ahead TD against NDSU.

The 2 players didn't go in motion at the same time. They shifted left, as they were supposed to do. Brady thought the clock was running down too far and called for the snap a bit too soon. The penalty had nothing to do with not practicing enough. How do I know they practiced this, etc.? The same way I know much of what I post on subjects like this. I got it from the coaches. I also talked to Gamboa, whom I know fairly well. I don't get my stuff from imaginary friends over cocktails.

 

[zengriz]

...not sure it's been noted...
...the kid's 49 yard fg...
...was into the wind...

... ...

 

[bgbigdog]

...not sure it's been noted...
...the kid's 49 yard fg...
...was into the wind...

... ...

So you're saying the answer to the question is blowing in the wind? Wow.

 

[zengriz]

...no..the answer to the ???
...that was a hell of a fcukn kick...
...when i left wgs i said fcukin !!! wow!!!

... :beer:...

 

[CV Griz Fan]

I would have been fine with a short punt too. In fact, that's what I would have done.

Yep. With them having zero timeouts I'd have done the same thing. Made the field as long as possible for them. Then again, I'd have challenged the Henderson (no) catch; I'd have thrown a shit fit when they didn't measure for the 1st down on Gamboa's run (and then let CP decline the penalty), and I'd have given the rock to somebody else other than Nguyen the first two plays of the final drive.

So, you are saying the coaches messed up?

Hmmm.... I dare say yes. That appears to be what is being said. But no backlash.....

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

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.

Gamboa played running back in high school and is a very good athlete. He had practiced that play during the week, as Counts had been banged up and missed some practices. Note that Counts didn't play much in the 2d half. I would have been fine doing a running play with normal personnel in normal formation, or how they did it with either running back. After Counts played well and scored the winning TD in the NDSU game, I trust that you don't believe that Gamboa was inserted for Counts for no reason. I would have been fine with a short punt too. In fact, that's what I would have done.

[/quote]

Yeah, they practiced that play so well that two players were in motion at the same time, a clear violation. Gimmick plays are for losers. Execution wins games. and, how do YOU know that they practiced that play during the week? Do you chart every play in practice, and were you even at the closed practices. Another obvious lie to foster your agenda.

Stitt needs to can the gimmick plays. He has run two of them, one in each game, and both were disasters. The infamous catch-n-lateral fumble against NDSU, and the more infamous 4th down gaff trying to use a LB to run the ball.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

A similar "gimmick" play was the go-ahead TD against NDSU.

The 2 players didn't go in motion at the same time. They shifted left, as they were supposed to do. Brady thought the clock was running down too far and called for the snap a bit too soon. The penalty had nothing to do with not practicing enough. How do I know they practiced this, etc.? The same way I know much of what I post on subjects like this. I got it from the coaches. I also talked to Gamboa, whom I know fairly well. I don't get my stuff from imaginary friends over cocktails.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]


Do the coaches wear the same jock straps as the coaches? We know we can count on you to know the answer.

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

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..

This from a class C high school assistant coach. Uh, Poly did not run the option on the last three plays. There was no fake to dive back, and threat of the QB to hit it off tackle. He simply ran a couple of steps towards the direction of the play and pitched the ball. So, all of your rhetoric meant nothing on the last three plays.