Why would you create plays your QB cannot audible out of?

therealjohncarlson · Feb 2, 2015

Can someone with more football knowledge please explain to me why, as a coach and coordinator, you would not allow your QB to audible out of plays the QB does not like and feel 100% comfortable running. Why, under any circumstance, would you want your QB to run a play he does not feel good about running? You know, the player on the field actually throwing the ball, and not the white middle-aged, balding sack of s*** on the sidelines?

therealjohncarlson · Feb 2, 2015

No one knows?

jblaze · Feb 2, 2015

The short answer is that against goal line defense and in a 3WR set, that was the right call technically.

We all believe running the ball with Lynch in that situation is the preferable playcall simply because Lynch is Lynch. But technically from a playcall perspective based on formation/personnel grouping, that play call beats that coverage most of the time.

Also the time situation with one timeout meant that if they wanted the ability to run on 3rd and 4th, they had to throw it on second down. Now I don't disagree necessary to throw on 2nd down, but I do disagree with the route. Too close of quarters and too many people around. They could have rolled RW out and went to one of the front/back pylons where only the receiver could make a play if they wanted to "waste" a play as the coaches have said since the game.

If you look at the play, both NE CB's made great plays. Browner blew up the pick so our receiver couldn't pick the other CB and the other CB sold out and went after the ball and beat Lockette to the ball.

All in all, I think Bevell got a little too cute with the scheme and should have just tried to run it down their throats. That is our bread and butter and we got away from our "identify" there and it cost us the SB.

HawkFan72 · Feb 2, 2015

Wilson said he trusted the play and thought it was a TD when he let the ball go.

He wouldn't have audibled out of it anyway.

HawkEye · Feb 2, 2015

As far as I know, the QB always can audible out of a play.

HawKnPeppa · Feb 2, 2015

HawkFan72":cmcxtcss said:
Wilson said he trusted the play and thought it was a TD when he let the ball go.

He wouldn't have audibled out of it anyway.

This ^^^^^ Where does the OP get the idea that Russ 'didn't like' the play when all of Russ's post-game comments say otherwise x100?

therealjohncarlson · Feb 2, 2015

HawKnPeppa":2gw29hry said:
HawkFan72":2gw29hry said:

Wilson said he trusted the play and thought it was a TD when he let the ball go.

He wouldn't have audibled out of it anyway.

Click to expand...

This ^^^^^ Where does the OP get the idea that Russ 'didn't like' the play when all of Russ's post-game comments say otherwise x100?

Im more talking in general. Why would an OC ever have this stipulation?

nanomoz · Feb 2, 2015

Even if you contend that a pass call was correct, that play call is not defensible. That's a high-risk pass on a short field to your seldom-used, 5th wide receiver that doesn't exactly have the build you want in that situation.

Not only was it a pass call (which I will disagree with until I'm dead), it was a pass call that doesn't really give Russell the opportunity to take advantage of his athletic ability or throw the ball away. It's a two-step throw kind of deal. I will always think that play call is absolutely unconscionable. Nothing will ever change that.

kidhawk · Feb 2, 2015

jblaze":24kty6yf said:
The short answer is that against goal line defense and in a 3WR set, that was the right call technically.

We all believe running the ball with Lynch in that situation is the preferable playcall simply because Lynch is Lynch. But technically from a playcall perspective based on formation/personnel grouping, that play call beats that coverage most of the time.

Also the time situation with one timeout meant that if they wanted the ability to run on 3rd and 4th, they had to throw it on second down. Now I don't disagree necessary to throw on 2nd down, but I do disagree with the route. Too close of quarters and too many people around. They could have rolled RW out and went to one of the front/back pylons where only the receiver could make a play if they wanted to "waste" a play as the coaches have said since the game.

If you look at the play, both NE CB's made great plays. Browner blew up the pick so our receiver couldn't pick the other CB and the other CB sold out and went after the ball and beat Lockette to the ball.

All in all, I think Bevell got a little too cute with the scheme and should have just tried to run it down their throats. That is our bread and butter and we got away from our "identify" there and it cost us the SB.

Passing was likely the best option, but that route was absolutely not the best option. They never should have ran a route into traffic. Too many ways it can go wrong. Run the routes into the endzone. Give Russell that option of throwing out of the back of the endzone if nothing opens up, but you don't create a play that you have to throw into traffic in that situation. Maybe in the 1st quarter you can risk it but not in the 4th quarter with seconds left with the Lombardi on the line. It was a bad idea from start to finish.

It's likely that they gave Wilson the option to audible to a run but only if the defense changed up to something other than goal line, but we all know that wasn't going to happen, so realistically there was no audible to be called.

SonicHawk · Feb 2, 2015

The shortest answer is...

Russ has to throw that ball away. Live to see another day. Even if hits Lockette square in the hands the ball could've popped up easily.

Even though it was a horrible play call, if you can somehow get a matchup you like and someone gets miraculously open you can win the game easily. Unfortunately Russ forced the ball in.

Bad play call, bad read by Wilson -- and for Ricardo, he's not a goal line receiver.

HawkFan72 · Feb 2, 2015

nanomoz":30m6jgd3 said:
Even if you contend that a pass call was correct, that play call is not defensible. That's a high-risk pass on a short field to your seldom-used, 5th wide receiver that doesn't exactly have the build you want in that situation.

Not only was it a pass call (which I will disagree with until I'm dead), it was a pass call that doesn't really give Russell the opportunity to take advantage of his athletic ability or throw the ball away. It's a two-step throw kind of deal. I will always think that play call is absolutely unconscionable. Nothing will ever change that.

Correct. There are no excuses for that call. Even if you somehow defend the need to pass, that was the wrong pass play.

onanygivensunday · Feb 2, 2015

If anything, it should have been a corner fade to Matthews.

thegreeninyoureye · Feb 2, 2015

Correct. There are no excuses for that call. Even if you somehow defend the need to pass, that was the wrong pass play.[/quote]
I know man we should have fake the slant and then did like a drag route. Same way the patriots scored. I cant get this feeling out my stomach

ukeface: But I would of ran 1st

Anonymous · Feb 2, 2015

If he had glanced left at the snap, he may even have beat the pursuit around the left on a keeper to the pylon.

He had Marshawn out there to get at least one guy blocked.

SonicHawk · Feb 2, 2015

HoustonHawk82":3oxzpblr said:
If he had glanced left at the snap, he may even have beat the pursuit around the left on a keeper to the pylon.

He had Marshawn out there to get at least one guy blocked.

And that's why the play is so bad. Bad play call by Bevell, horrible job reading the defense by Russ.

Russ Willstrong · Feb 2, 2015

therealjohncarlson":p38cmx8a said:
HawKnPeppa":p38cmx8a said:

HawkFan72":p38cmx8a said:

Wilson said he trusted the play and thought it was a TD when he let the ball go.

He wouldn't have audibled out of it anyway.

Click to expand...

This ^^^^^ Where does the OP get the idea that Russ 'didn't like' the play when all of Russ's post-game comments say otherwise x100?

Click to expand...

Im more talking in general. Why would an OC ever have this stipulation?

Even Brett Favre had to struggle with this in Minnesota when playing under Childress with Bevell as OC calling plays. Next step for Russell is to gain more control of this passing offense because he's got the running game down.

jblaze · Feb 2, 2015

kidhawk":3iqmu988 said:
jblaze":3iqmu988 said:

The short answer is that against goal line defense and in a 3WR set, that was the right call technically.

We all believe running the ball with Lynch in that situation is the preferable playcall simply because Lynch is Lynch. But technically from a playcall perspective based on formation/personnel grouping, that play call beats that coverage most of the time.

Also the time situation with one timeout meant that if they wanted the ability to run on 3rd and 4th, they had to throw it on second down. Now I don't disagree necessary to throw on 2nd down, but I do disagree with the route. Too close of quarters and too many people around. They could have rolled RW out and went to one of the front/back pylons where only the receiver could make a play if they wanted to "waste" a play as the coaches have said since the game.

If you look at the play, both NE CB's made great plays. Browner blew up the pick so our receiver couldn't pick the other CB and the other CB sold out and went after the ball and beat Lockette to the ball.

All in all, I think Bevell got a little too cute with the scheme and should have just tried to run it down their throats. That is our bread and butter and we got away from our "identify" there and it cost us the SB.

Click to expand...

Passing was likely the best option, but that route was absolutely not the best option. They never should have ran a route into traffic. Too many ways it can go wrong. Run the routes into the endzone. Give Russell that option of throwing out of the back of the endzone if nothing opens up, but you don't create a play that you have to throw into traffic in that situation. Maybe in the 1st quarter you can risk it but not in the 4th quarter with seconds left with the Lombardi on the line. It was a bad idea from start to finish.

It's likely that they gave Wilson the option to audible to a run but only if the defense changed up to something other than goal line, but we all know that wasn't going to happen, so realistically there was no audible to be called.

I think we're saying the same thing.

SonicHawk · Feb 2, 2015

How can you say passing was the best option?

Name the time where Lynch was stopped for a loss?

Patriots weren't even really in goal line, they didn't stack the box - they were expecting pass.

joeseahawks · Feb 2, 2015

Earlier in the year, we had the exact same situation. Russell threw the ball to Lynch, who was lined up as a receiver on the left side. It ricochet off the hands of Lynch and was intercepted in the end zone. I don't remember the game, but it ball was wet.
I hate the play, mostly because of the traffic around that area. Also, I think Russell threw the ball too high. That ball should have been thrown lower.

mistaowen · Feb 2, 2015

SonicHawk":37yr99ud said:
How can you say passing was the best option?

Name the time where Lynch was stopped for a loss?

Patriots weren't even really in goal line, they didn't stack the box - they were expecting pass.

That's what I don't get. Why was this rookie DB out there who barely played all season if they are in a goal line set? We got CONSISENT push against a weak interior all game long and Marshawn was running very hard. There is no way he doesn't push across the line given three chances. I don't think the Pats even hit him behind the line once. Even on big gang tackles for a few yards he was always falling forward.

Passing could have worked with a different, safer play like play action to a TE who leaks out or a bootleg with an easy throwaway for Russ, but not giving the ball to Marshawn was the worst choice.

Why would you create plays your QB cannot audible out of?

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Member

Anonymous

Guest

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Similar threads