Conservative Play-Calling Late

[qwertyus]

I don't know if this is a big enough issue/discussion point to merit its own thread, but I guess I'll start one anyways and see what the response is. Without further ado...

It's not the first time this has happened, but I was annoyed about the playcalling at the end of the game. The last few drives were dives up the middle, and on 4th and 10 we called some kind of QB sneak? WTF? Our last drive was all runs, and when we got stuffed on 1st down we should've taken the opportunity to throw a short pass in the middle of the field. I know that the obvious response is "what if they drop it", but the way we were throwing the ball and getting consistent yards after the catch (because our recievers were consistently WIDE open all game long), we could've easily gotten around 7 yards or so on 2nd down, forced the UNR timeout, then run the ball on 3rd and 2-3, instead of 3rd and long.

Now, maybe this wouldn't happen. Maybe we drop the ball and give Nevada an extra timeout. But goddamn, it was clear that Fajardo was cutting our defense to sheds all game long, and him missing the open guy on the last UNR play of the game wasn't because of a lack of timeouts or anything, he just (finally) missed a throw.

On the flip side, I like Anu Solomon's progression as a QB. Throws an ill-advised pick for the first time in his career, comes back, throws 3 TD's, and finishes with over 275 yards, over 80 percent completion rate. Maybe later in the season or next year RR will trust AS more, and put the game in his hands instead of the defense's, because right now I'm not confident with the game in the hands of the latter. Being wary of putting the game's outcome on a RS Frosh QB's shoulders isn't insane, RR's not an idiot for deciding not to take that risk, but it seems a bit too conservative for my taste.

Thoughts?

[dmjcat]

I think you hit the nail on the head.........RRod had to choose between placing his trust in the defense or in a frosh QB. Given the way the defense was being run over last night I have to agree that placing the game on the back of the Frosh QB would have been the better statistical play.

[azcat49]

I think after Anu made that bonehead play(sliding short of the sticks) and then getting blown up by RR on the sideline that the coaches might have been worried about his confidence.

He makes a mistake at that point and who knows what happens the rest of the year

[qwertyus]

I think after Anu made that bonehead play(sliding short of the sticks) and then getting blown up by RR on the sideline that the coaches might have been worried about his confidence.

He makes a mistake at that point and who knows what happens the rest of the year

I still want the ball in AS's hands on that last drive. He stopped himself twice, the TO and the slide short (which would've likely wrapped up the game, btw), but otherwise he was on point enough that I trust him throwing a short pass over the middle. Heck, with the YAC we were getting, who knows if we weren't going to get a first down throwing the ball, since Nevada rushed 7-8 stopping the run. Dink the ball over the rush, get a first down easy. Throw a short buttonhook to a guy in the slot, there's no way a safety comes down that quick to cut the ball off, and if he gets juked/is slow getting down to tackle our guy, it's a first down and we ice the game.

[OSUCat]

Well. lets think about this.

The fourth and 10 wasn't a QB sneak, its was a pass play that the QB decided to run (Be it the right or wrong call). There is a difference.

Now the scenario the OP brought up about the last drive being run plays. First, we know that the run plays can sometimes involve three different plays, just depends on the QB read and what play is exactly called. The QB can give it to the RB, take it himself, or pass it. We don't know if the run/pass read option was called so we can't say that no pass plays where called. We can assume it, but can't actually say it with a definite conclusion. Second, why in the world would you pass (IMO)? Wilson was averaging 5.9 yards a carry and had 171 yards rushing. If RR called passed plays and Anu missed the throws (which has happened) than Arizona would be giving Nevada more time which, as you said, they had been carving us all night (you can't really assume a 7yard pass would be "easy") So, why wouldn't you give the ball to RB that has been averaging 5.9 yards a carry?

Now with your overall concern about play calling. I agree. Personally, I can't think of a single reason why not to have more WR sweeps. My guess it's a wrinkle that we won't to keep till conference play, but we should run it 5-6 times a game. Although, RR has said that the playbook was cut down because the QB's weren't playing it correctly, and I can't remember when, but RR said that they where going to put more plays in and see how the QB handles it. So, I guess maybe RR doesn't trust Anu with too many plays and thats why the limits play calling. Hopefully as time goes on it gets better, but if we are going to be honest with ourselves this year playbook is more open than last year. I think last year Arizona had two pass plays and two runs plays.

[azpenguin]

I didn't really like the conservative play calls late, but he did force Nevada to burn all three timeouts before they got a chance to get the ball back. If he calls for a pass and it falls incomplete, and Nevada gets the ball back with more time on the clock, he's going to get skewered for that as well. The way Wilson was running tonight, all he has to do is break a tackle on that drive and that's ballgame. The play calling was pretty conservative all game long anyway; he still hasn't shown anything out of the playbook.

[qwertyus]

Well. lets think about this.

The fourth and 10 wasn't a QB sneak, its was a pass play that the QB decided to run (Be it the right or wrong call). There is a difference.

Now the scenario the OP brought up about the last drive being run plays. First, we know that the run plays can sometimes involve three different plays, just depends on the QB read and what play is exactly called. The QB can give it to the RB, take it himself, or pass it. We don't know if the run/pass read option was called so we can't say that no pass plays where called. We can assume it, but can't actually say it with a definite conclusion. Second, why in the world would you pass (IMO)? Wilson was averaging 5.9 yards a carry and had 171 yards rushing. If RR called passed plays and Anu missed the throws (which has happened) than Arizona would be giving Nevada more time which, as you said, they had been carving us all night (you can't really assume a 7yard pass would be "easy") So, why wouldn't you give the ball to RB that has been averaging 5.9 yards a carry?

Now with your overall concern about play calling. I agree. Personally, I can't think of a single reason why not to have more WR sweeps. My guess it's a wrinkle that we won't to keep till conference play, but we should run it 5-6 times a game. Although, RR has said that the playbook was cut down because the QB's weren't playing it correctly, and I can't remember when, but RR said that they where going to put more plays in and see how the QB handles it. So, I guess maybe RR doesn't trust Anu with too many plays and thats why the limits play calling. Hopefully as time goes on it gets better, but if we are going to be honest with ourselves this year playbook is more open than last year. I think last year Arizona had two pass plays and two runs plays.

I thought it was a sneak. Dat fuzzy memory.

Why would you allow for the risk of dropping the ball? Because Nevada didn't need time to carve us up. They drove on us in the last 2 min of the half, they drove on us in the last couple minutes of the game, both without timeouts. Fajardo missed his man, that was why the drive stalled, not because they didn't have any timeouts. Why not give it to Wilson? Because he got stuffed on first down, got two on second and 10, and then 5 on third and 8. The pass play has a higher chance of getting more yardage and a first down, at the risk of letting Nevada keep a timeout. Our pass plays went for solid-excellent yardage all game, so it's not a crazy assumption that we'd get more than 0-2 yards like we did on 1st and 2nd down. They were run plays, that's why the line ran forward as a group, because if they were pass-options, there'd be 5 ineligible receivers. They brought 7-8 which means that AS keeping it likely wouldn't have done much. AS throwing it would have been a good (imo "better") chance to get more yds/a first down/set us up for a manageable 3rd down to run the ball, than running would've/did.

[OSUCat]

Why would you allow for the risk of dropping the ball? Because Nevada didn't need time to carve us up. They drove on us in the last 2 min of the half, they drove on us in the last couple minutes of the game, both without timeouts. Fajardo missed his man, that was why the drive stalled, not because they didn't have any timeouts.

I would say that about 90% of coaches would disagree with you. Especially if the other team only needs two minutes to drive the ball, why wouldn't you try to run the time out.

Why not give it to Wilson? Because he got stuffed on first down, got two on second and 10, and then 5 on third and 8.

I wonder how value this information would be before the call was made. Being able to make play calls after the fact would be a nice thing, but you can't. If we want to play this game we could go, sack on first (loss of 4 yards), a pass for 7 yards, and an incomplete third pass and everyone screaming why we didn't run the ball.

The pass play has a higher chance of getting more yardage and a first down, at the risk of letting Nevada keep a timeout

Just as a FYI, its not about Nevada using a timeout or having a timeout, its about time. Three incomplete passes would give Nevada alot more time compared to having run three plays. Even one run play would use more than a pass play. Alot of your argument seems a bit off. I mean the fact that the opposing team offense took 2 minutes to drive the prior two drives, does not mean that they will the next drive. It can take 10 seconds, or 7 minutes. I am also sure if you asked the opposing coach if they rather have 2 minutes or 3 minutes to make a last drive, that they would pick the 3 minutes 100% of the time.

Our pass plays went for solid-excellent yardage all game, so it's not a crazy assumption that we'd get more than 0-2 yards like we did on 1st and 2nd down.

It's not "crazy" but it is a jump in conclusion that I can't agree with.

They were run plays, that's why the line ran forward as a Ygroup, because if they were pass-options, there'd be 5 ineligible receivers. They brought 7-8 which means that AS keeping it likely wouldn't have done much. AS throwing it would have been a good (imo "better") chance to get more yds/a first down/set us up for a manageable 3rd down to run the ball, than running would've/did.

So who's advice would you rather take at the end of a game? RR or yours?

Anyways, there is a lot of ifs and buts, with the different scenario. Sometimes the cautious action is correct, sometimes it is not (See Stanford vs USC). I think last night is right, and Arizona won. To me I look at it like this. If Arizona ran the ball and fumbled I wouldn't blame RR. If Arizona passed the ball and it was a interception it would be RR fault for the play call.

Could you imagine the screaming fans would have if he did call a pass play and ANU threw a INT or fumbled the ball?

[qwertyus]

Why would you allow for the risk of dropping the ball? Because Nevada didn't need time to carve us up. They drove on us in the last 2 min of the half, they drove on us in the last couple minutes of the game, both without timeouts. Fajardo missed his man, that was why the drive stalled, not because they didn't have any timeouts.

I would say that about 90% of coaches would disagree with you. Especially if the other team only needs two minutes to drive the ball, why wouldn't you try to run the time out.

Why not give it to Wilson? Because he got stuffed on first down, got two on second and 10, and then 5 on third and 8.

I wonder how value this information would be before the call was made. Being able to make play calls after the fact would be a nice thing, but you can't. If we want to play this game we could go, sack on first (loss of 4 yards), a pass for 7 yards, and an incomplete third pass and everyone screaming why we didn't run the ball.

The pass play has a higher chance of getting more yardage and a first down, at the risk of letting Nevada keep a timeout

Just as a FYI, its not about Nevada using a timeout or having a timeout, its about time. Three incomplete passes would give Nevada alot more time compared to having run three plays. Even one run play would use more than a pass play. Alot of your argument seems a bit off. I mean the fact that the opposing team offense took 2 minutes to drive the prior two drives, does not mean that they will the next drive. It can take 10 seconds, or 7 minutes. I am also sure if you asked the opposing coach if they rather have 2 minutes or 3 minutes to make a last drive, that they would pick the 3 minutes 100% of the time.

Our pass plays went for solid-excellent yardage all game, so it's not a crazy assumption that we'd get more than 0-2 yards like we did on 1st and 2nd down.

It's not "crazy" but it is a jump in conclusion that I can't agree with.

They were run plays, that's why the line ran forward as a Ygroup, because if they were pass-options, there'd be 5 ineligible receivers. They brought 7-8 which means that AS keeping it likely wouldn't have done much. AS throwing it would have been a good (imo "better") chance to get more yds/a first down/set us up for a manageable 3rd down to run the ball, than running would've/did.

So who's advice would you rather take at the end of a game? RR or yours?

Anyways, there is a lot of ifs and buts, with the different scenario. Sometimes the cautious action is correct, sometimes it is not (See Stanford vs USC). I think last night is right, and Arizona won. To me I look at it like this. If Arizona ran the ball and fumbled I wouldn't blame RR. If Arizona passed the ball and it was a interception it would be RR fault for the play call.

Could you imagine the screaming fans would have if he did call a pass play and ANU threw a INT or fumbled the ball?

It's not THREE pass plays. It's ONE. I'm suggesting that doing it on second down when he got stuffed on first down, orthird and long when he got 2 yards would've been unexpected yet a high chance of success. A higher chance of success than running the ball up the middle on 2nd and 10, and again on 3rd and 8.

I think my suggestion w/r/t playcalling in this situation exemplifies the aggressiveness that people whined about RR not having in the 4th quarter(e.g "turtling up" playcalling-wise), and yes, I'd take my advice over RR in this situation, the "90%" of coaches be damned. Aggressive playcalling doesn't always work out, and it's not always prudent to be aggressive all the time. Like, if we're up by 10 points and in the same situation, sure, run the ball 3 times and just risk an onside kick after a possible score. The safe play would be the right one imo. In this case, RR got helped out by a poor throw ending the game. Can you imagine the uproar had Fajardo drove and scored? See, I can do that too.

[UAtrue]

I am not a fan of conservative play calling late in games (e.g., play to not lose and play soft on the line to keep their receivers from getting away and catching a deep pass), but this was mostly time-management. You must have noticed how the play clock came up during this drive when most of the game we never saw this clock because both teams were snapping the ball w/in ~20 sec of the end of the last play? And, we watched that play clock go all the way down to 1 or 2 sec before we called the timeout or snapped the ball. I don't recall the exact amount of time we ate up, but I believe it was upwards of close to 3 minutes and gave them nothing to work with.

[EVCat]

if there had been about a minute or so less on the clock, I am all for running the ball and making those time outs burn. But when the likely outcome (punting to Nevada, 0 time outs) leaves enough time for the opposition to not really need the time out to get off a reasonable number of plays to score, I question the decision.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Compared to Stoops, RR is a riverboat gambler.

[UAtrue]

Compared to Stoops, RR is a riverboat gambler.

So true.