Here is a scary realization...

[Horny4TCU]

it takes the old pros to notice the obvious!

The big and slow BYU defense against our offensive stars... Even when they were trying to stop the pass they couldn't!

We ran at them hard, and that is great, but after so long you don't question? TCU didn't score in the red zone, inches from the goal! The number 4 ranked team in the country. And you wouldn't call that a wake up call for a couple of OCs to change the play calling?

What would you reasonably accept from the frogs offense?

 

[PurplePutt]

NO

Why did we keep slamming our heads into an obvious wall.

Rushing
[font="verdana][size="2"]Team [/size][/font]
[font="verdana][size="2"]38 att [/size][/font]
[font="verdana][size="2"]108 ttl yds [/size][/font]
[font="verdana][size="2"]avg 2.8

The box was loaded, why didn't we adjust?
[/size][/font]
[font="verdana][size="3"]Looked like General Pickett was calling the plays.[/size][/font]
[font="verdana][size="3"] [/size][/font]

I have been known to complain about play calling and (apparent) offensive plans, however..........

I actually liked what they did. Obviously BYU sold out to stop the run and were pretty successful. I don't think that means you abandon the run though. I was glad that they stuck with it and kept pounding it. I actually was disappointed to see so much of the empty back field formations (and a couple of 3 and outs with it). Just think pounding it for 2-3 yards a couple of times leaves you with a very manageable 3rd and 4 or 5. Thought keeping them honest (in the box) that abandoning the run would not have done was the smart thing to do. AD was sharp as a tack again yesterday.

2 cents!

 

[Horny4TCU]

I have been known to complain about play calling and (apparent) offensive plans, however..........

I actually liked what they did. Obviously BYU sold out to stop the run and were pretty successful. I don't think that means you abandon the run though. I was glad that they stuck with it and kept pounding it. I actually was disappointed to see so much of the empty back field formations (and a couple of 3 and outs with it). Just think pounding it for 2-3 yards a couple of times leaves you with a very manageable 3rd and 4 or 5. Thought keeping them honest (in the box) that abandoning the run would not have done was the smart thing to do. AD was sharp as a tack again yesterday.

2 cents!

Yeah, but the average gain was 2.3 yards. If they were trying to control the time of possession, why didn't we convert more on third down. We were 7/16. The only reason I am complaining so much is that this team has so much talent. There is no excuse for letting a lousy BYU, now 2 - 5, throw us around defensively on the line of scrimmage and for us to not utterly dominate them. I don't blame the players for coming out flat or what have you, I blame the coaches for that. TCU is doing everything right on defense. Why don't the OCs have a better game plan and play calling ability and motivational speeches to get our team dominating on both sides of the ball?

 

[PurplePutt]

I was surprised that we had trouble running the ball too. I thought we might wear them down eventually if we stuck with it. Our RBs did have a few big runs anyway though. I know BYU is 2 and 5 and there are probably many reasons that is so. I don't think one of them is that they don't have big and talented athletes though. They are typically BYU slow but they have big physical players and I am not surprised that they were able to win some battles at the LOS, especially since that looks to be what they were committed to do.

 

[sous vide]

... why didn't we convert more on third down. We were 7/16. ... Why don't the OCs have a better game plan and play calling ability...?

Out of 120 teams, given your implied expertise about what "shudda" happened, would you care to speculate how many have averaged 8 for 16 (.500) or better on third down conversions? Or, 7 for 16 (.4375) or better for that matter?

Of the top 10 teams, care to speculate where the Frogs stand in 3rd downs conversions completing just under 50%?




If you actually look you'll find our OCs are perhaps a bit better than your "analysis".  Or else that every other team save a very few can't help us if we should hire their OCs away from them.

 

[Pure Purple]

[quote name='Horny4TCU'

Anderson and Fuente won't have Dalton, Curtis Clay, Bart Johnson, Jeremy Kerley,

Evan Frosch, Jimmy Young, Marcus Cannon, and Jake Kirkpatrick...

[/quote]


Hell, Anderson and Fuente's play calling alone

is enough to scare the bejeebies out of anyone.

 

[Jefffrog1993]

The offensive game plan and play calling was terrible you saw it deal with reality. SImple really they had 8 in the box you throw. We have fast athletes you throw deep. For the love of God will someone take pictures of our Tight Ends and Show them to our offensive coordinators do they know they are eligible to catch passes? Seriously it was terrible where was zone read? Where were seam routes? Where were reverses to overally aggressive defense? Does TCU even have a screen pass? If we did it would have been wide open. I got sick to my stomach watching this game. This is another example of we just flat our had more talent than the other team. BYU played with more effort, heart, and will than us. If we play this way against Air Force we lose against Utah we get blown out. Coach P needs to clean up the mess and fast.

 

[Pure Purple]

Uh-huh!

 

[Duquesne Frog]

A strategy, BTW, that we once used to beat an Adrian Peterson-led Oklahoma. The difference is that Andy rose to the challenge when the inexperienced OU QB did not. It wasn't a bad plan for an overmatched BYU, but succeeding at stopping our running game up the middle couldn't begin to compensate for their own lack of offensive production.

And frankly this was exactly what happened in the Fiesta Bowl. Boise picked their poison and said, "Make Dalton beat us" and Andy/the receivers had a bad game. BYU did the same thing ... make Dalton beat us. And he tore them to shreds.

Wyoming, we ran off tackle all night without them showing the slightest sign of stopping us. Not exactly creative playcalling. But it worked fabulously.

 

[Frogs97]

Go back and read the posts again................The whiners are complaining about play calls, all the runs........the runs set up the passing game, why do you think the WR were getting one on one coverage and able to beat it. BYU was selling out to stop the run. They were daring Andy to beat them passing.............and he did. GOOD GRIEF! hmy:

Ok, like you said, the Cougars were selling out to stop the run. To say "why didn't they identify that and call more passes?" isn't as ridiculous of a statement as you would make sound. Like you said, BYU's game plan all along was to stop the run and dare Andy to beat them. That game plan is what setup the pass effectiveness, not the fact that we kept calling running plays. If we'd have come out tossing it down the field, we'd have been up 21-0 after 1 and not 3-0.

I'm not being a whiner here. Or, at least I'm really trying very hard not to be. I'm choosing to believe that this was being treated more as an experiment. They knew they could handle BYU, and wanted to see if they could cram it down their throats, even when they were selling out to stop it. Maybe hoping to strike the fear of God into future opponents, that we can run at will.

That's what I'm choosing to believe, and there's nothing anyone can say to convince me otherwise. So there.

 

[Frogs97]

All 2 of them??? Wow.

Well there was a third one: the "out" was because of a TD. But maybe you found that disappointing as well.

Point taken, I should have written "our perceived inability to finish drives". They weren't all 3 and out. Hopefully anyone that was at the game could attest to that. It was dead for long periods of time. Your points about 3rd down efficiency are all very valid. But, I go back and say that it's not unreasonable to sit and ask why they didn't adjust to the BYU gameplan. I am hoping (and choosing to believe) that if this was a stronger opponent or our D wasn't playing lights out (13 yds total offense in the first half) they would have made more adjustments. The Fiesta Bowl doesn't completely support that theory, but I think that was a learning experience for the OCs and won't let that happen again.

As for that TD ... no I loved that one, too. In fact, when we got that turnover I told my wife "every play better be a pass here". Guess I'm not as stupid as I look (Duq, no comments from the PA peanut gallery!)

 

[tetonfrog]

That's what I'm choosing to believe, and there's nothing anyone can say to convince me otherwise. So there.

OK.

I bet we smoke AFA this weekend and then go to Utah and win. AD will have to win that one for us and I bet those "terrible" OCs pull a few tricks out of their sleeves. The Utah win puts us in the title game and we stomp (fill in blanks). National champions!

That's what I believe. There's nothing anyone can say to convince me otherwise. So there. :excl:

 

[Horny4TCU]

I wear purple glasses, A LOT! But at this point, if the OCs don't start getting our offense more fired up and making better plays, I just don't see us creaming another National Championship contender. Last year, before the Fiesta Bowl I would have said, "Yes, we would kill Bama." This year, I just haven't been that excited about our offense. Maybe my expectations were just too high at the beginning, but so far I would hate to see us up against Auburn...

 

[Duquesne Frog]

I wear purple glasses, A LOT! But at this point, if the OCs don't start getting our offense more fired up and making better plays, I just don't see us creaming another National Championship contender. Last year, before the Fiesta Bowl I would have said, "Yes, we would kill Bama." This year, I just haven't been that excited about our offense. Maybe my expectations were just too high at the beginning, but so far I would hate to see us up against Auburn...

Thpppt. I don't know whether we'd beat Auburn or not but they just gave up damn near 600 yards, most to Arkansas' backup QB. I'd like to see what our defense could do with Newton. Not sure we'd shut him down entirely, but I know for certain we would not be giving up 65.

And exactly whose expectation is to "cream" other MNC contenders? Generally part of what makes them contenders is that it is really hard for other teams, even good ones, to "cream" them ...

 

[Salfrog]

What I was seeing & the rest of the people seated around me also saw was that our QB "NEVER" checks down his receivers. There were several pass plays that he threw the ball into double, and a couple triple coverages and had another receiver wide open about 15-20 yards downfield from his primary receiver. He just doesn't look off his primary. He watches him all of the way. That's more frustrating than anything. There was at least a good 14-21 points left wide open, plus we had to settle for a FG after we had 1st & goal at the 5. Come on, you can't say that was what GP wants our offense to do.

 

[sous vide]

Point taken, I should have written "our perceived inability to finish drives".  They weren't all 3 and out.  Hopefully anyone that was at the game could attest to that.  It was dead for long periods of time.  Your points about 3rd down efficiency are all very valid.  But, I go back and say that it's not unreasonable to sit and ask why they didn't adjust to the BYU gameplan.  I am hoping (and choosing to believe) that if this was a stronger opponent or our D wasn't playing lights out (13 yds total offense in the first half) they would have made more adjustments.  The Fiesta Bowl doesn't completely support that theory, but I think that was a learning experience for the OCs and won't let that happen again.

As for that TD ... no I loved that one, too.  In fact, when we got that turnover I told my wife "every play better be a pass here".  Guess I'm not as stupid as I look (Duq, no comments from the PA peanut gallery!)

It's a style thing again, I think. Where you see "our perceived inability to finish drives" I see--and I'd wager more than a bit the actual plan called for--"our great ability to hold on to the ball for long periods of time and limit the Cougar scoring chances". We held the ball for 12 minutes more and ran 20 more plays. Boring, true.Especially as that means you got to watch 70 nonscoring plays. But that is CPG's style. Even when the drives end up scoring--say Baylor--the drives were time consuming and took many plays.

Nor, for good or ill, was the Fiesta Bowl a fluke, I think/fear. It was pure CGP. Same as Utah the year before. I think CGP thought that style gave him the best shot of winning. But when really good teams play really good teams, one of the really good teams loses every single time. Even though they are, in fact, really, really good. The "reason" is rooted in the rules of the game itself in disallowing ties far more than the "causes" many outside analysts both pro and armchair come up with.

 

[sous vide]

 One additional point. People keep referring to the Baylor game as being so different. I'm not sure I fully agree except for rushing which was definitely a function of the Ds, not TCU 0. Let's see...

1st downs 28 vs. 23

Rushing 291 vs. 108

 Passing 267 vs. 273

3rd down conversions 3 of 8 vs. 7 of 16.

 Margin of victory 35 vs. 28

Offensive plays 71  TCU/56  BU vs. 74  TCU/57  BYU

TOP 36 minutes to 24 minutes both games

 Essentially Baylor was a one TD "better" performance. Not sure this is anything to crow about as really so very qualitatively different. I see the same basic plan by TCU interacting with 2 very different defensive schemes. And interacting pretty much equally successfully each time when the final score was in.




There was actually one major difference: It was that the OCs called for 48 rushes and 23 passes at Baylor and 38 rushes and 36 passes at  BYU. But since it's an article of faith here they did not respond to stacking the run, perhaps this difference never actually occurred.

 

[Virginia Frog]

[font="verdana][size="3"]Looked like General Pickett was calling the plays.[/size][/font]
[font="verdana][size="3"] [/size][/font]

General Pickett didn't want to "charge" at Gettysburg...it was Gen. Lee who mad 'em do it. Historical fact.

None the less, the O coordinators need to drop the Shultz-side option that they revived last Saturday (before it costs us big-time in the future.)

 

[Virginia Frog]

Guarantee we still win at least 10 games in a "rebuilding" year.

2011...In the Big East???

Not likely next season, but...

if TCU is fortunate enough to get the Boise game at HOME, given the state of our stadium and reduced capacity, I hope CDC has made some contingency plans as to book JERRYWORLD for that one.

 

[sous vide]

General Pickett didn't want to "charge" at Gettysburg...it was Gen. Lee who mad 'em do it. Historical fact.

None the less, the O coordinators need to drop the Shultz-side option that they revived last Saturday (before it costs us big-time in the future.)

The short side option has been working pretty well this year taken as a whole. It was NOT "revived last Saturday" at all but rather has been in the game day playbook all along. NOTHING in the running playbook was working all that well Saturday as they loaded up against it. Skye Dawson last big on an attempted end around, Dalton couldn't even option well with defenders on him and the pitch man all day, the middle was stacked, etc. That's probably why the Frogs shifted to a 50-50 run-pass ratio rather than their more normal 67-33 or so ratio.

From all the history I have read, yes Pickett indeed never, ever forgave Lee till the day he died, though others tried to shift the blame for the operation to Longstreet (who himself apparently opposed it).