There was a lot made about the (successful) half-time adjustments the coaching staff made which played a major part in the turnaround to the game, but was thinking the whole time (when the NU O wasn't doing much and the Utes were building their lead) - why is the play-calling on O so vanilla (and why isn't McC moving the pocket to slow down the pass rush?) and why does the D seem to playing on its heels (reacting instead of attacking; also going w/ the 3-man rush on 3rd and long a # of times didn't help)?
I guess one could say that Fitz/McC went w/ a vanilla game plan on O in order to see if the 'Cats can beat their man (win their 1-on-1 battles as Fitz likes to say), but that likely wasn't going to happen (the 'Cats have had trouble winning their 1-on-1 battles w/ MAC teams (or lower programs) playing a vanilla scheme.
Not going to let Hank totally off the hook either as it didn't make sense to have the D playing on their heels instead of attacking (granted, don't want to be overly aggressive as the Utah QB had the ability to run for a big gain if there's a running lane), as Shelley is a young QB w/ limited experience and more likely prone to making mistakes when pressured.
Even if we accept the premise that both co-ordinators went w/ vanilla game-plans (which, one could pretty easily predict were likely not going to be successful) just to test the opponent out, why wait so long before changing tactics?
There's nothing that says coaches can't make adjustments until after half-time (esp. if they were so obvious from the start).
By waiting that long, the coaching staff gave the Utes a 17 pt margin (to be fair, Hank did seem to change tactics right before the half, limiting Utah to a FG) which (as pointed out in another thread) doesn't lead to good chances for a win.
It took a near-perfect confluence of events for the 'Cats to mount their massive 3rd Q comeback; something that you can't regularly count on occurring (even if it happened to the 'Cats twice this season, experiencing it from both sides).
These puzzling game-plans and slow adjustments aren't anything new - here are but a few examples.
1. The gameplan against Army was to try to run the ball on them w/ a running QB, which didn't make sense when Army's weak point on D was its secondary.
While I can maybe understand first trying to see if the gameplan could succeed (as Colter had the most collegiate game experience), didn't understand why it took 3 quarters before the staff decided to switch gears (after the 1st Q, it was pretty evident that the run-centric gameplan wasn't working.
By the time the coaching staff made the switch, didn't leave enough time for the comeback (did cut into Army's lead).
2. Absolutely did not make sense for the 'Cats to keep handing off to the RB on 3rd/4th and short as it was pretty evident that the O-line couldn't get much of a push and/or sustain their blocks long enough.
Was wondering for about half a season why McC wasn't utilizing the QB sneak.
Once McC finally got around to it and the sneak was working, he fell in love w/ it too much.
During the ill-fated PU game where Trevor sustained his injury; was yelling at McC to change the play as PU seemingly had every big body they had line up in the middle.
3. The M00N game.
UM had a fierce pass rush and the 'Cats O-line was very suspect which led to a bad combination, as the 'Cats couldn't run the ball which continually led to 3rd and long situations.
Thought to myself that it was too bad Trevor still had that leg injury, otherwise, it would have been a good idea to roll him out of the pocket, etc. instead of trying to buy some extra time by continually moving Trevor deeper behind the O-line (which didn't work).
But voila, McC let loose the shackles and let Siemian move out of the pocket - and Trevor was able to lead the 'Cats in mounting a furious comeback by extending plays w/ his legs - by either running for the 1st down or using his legs to extend passing plays.
The whole time here I was thinking that Trevor still had that leg injury which prevented him from being mobile.
While the 'Cats still had the opportunity to tie the game (that's a whole 'nother matter), if they had started letting Trevor use his legs before the 4th Q, have no doubt that the 'Cats would have won the game.
While TS was no Persa, always thought Siemian's mobility (esp. his ability to throw accurate passes while on the run) was underutilized.
I guess one could say that Fitz/McC went w/ a vanilla game plan on O in order to see if the 'Cats can beat their man (win their 1-on-1 battles as Fitz likes to say), but that likely wasn't going to happen (the 'Cats have had trouble winning their 1-on-1 battles w/ MAC teams (or lower programs) playing a vanilla scheme.
Not going to let Hank totally off the hook either as it didn't make sense to have the D playing on their heels instead of attacking (granted, don't want to be overly aggressive as the Utah QB had the ability to run for a big gain if there's a running lane), as Shelley is a young QB w/ limited experience and more likely prone to making mistakes when pressured.
Even if we accept the premise that both co-ordinators went w/ vanilla game-plans (which, one could pretty easily predict were likely not going to be successful) just to test the opponent out, why wait so long before changing tactics?
There's nothing that says coaches can't make adjustments until after half-time (esp. if they were so obvious from the start).
By waiting that long, the coaching staff gave the Utes a 17 pt margin (to be fair, Hank did seem to change tactics right before the half, limiting Utah to a FG) which (as pointed out in another thread) doesn't lead to good chances for a win.
It took a near-perfect confluence of events for the 'Cats to mount their massive 3rd Q comeback; something that you can't regularly count on occurring (even if it happened to the 'Cats twice this season, experiencing it from both sides).
These puzzling game-plans and slow adjustments aren't anything new - here are but a few examples.
1. The gameplan against Army was to try to run the ball on them w/ a running QB, which didn't make sense when Army's weak point on D was its secondary.
While I can maybe understand first trying to see if the gameplan could succeed (as Colter had the most collegiate game experience), didn't understand why it took 3 quarters before the staff decided to switch gears (after the 1st Q, it was pretty evident that the run-centric gameplan wasn't working.
By the time the coaching staff made the switch, didn't leave enough time for the comeback (did cut into Army's lead).
2. Absolutely did not make sense for the 'Cats to keep handing off to the RB on 3rd/4th and short as it was pretty evident that the O-line couldn't get much of a push and/or sustain their blocks long enough.
Was wondering for about half a season why McC wasn't utilizing the QB sneak.
Once McC finally got around to it and the sneak was working, he fell in love w/ it too much.
During the ill-fated PU game where Trevor sustained his injury; was yelling at McC to change the play as PU seemingly had every big body they had line up in the middle.
3. The M00N game.
UM had a fierce pass rush and the 'Cats O-line was very suspect which led to a bad combination, as the 'Cats couldn't run the ball which continually led to 3rd and long situations.
Thought to myself that it was too bad Trevor still had that leg injury, otherwise, it would have been a good idea to roll him out of the pocket, etc. instead of trying to buy some extra time by continually moving Trevor deeper behind the O-line (which didn't work).
But voila, McC let loose the shackles and let Siemian move out of the pocket - and Trevor was able to lead the 'Cats in mounting a furious comeback by extending plays w/ his legs - by either running for the 1st down or using his legs to extend passing plays.
The whole time here I was thinking that Trevor still had that leg injury which prevented him from being mobile.
While the 'Cats still had the opportunity to tie the game (that's a whole 'nother matter), if they had started letting Trevor use his legs before the 4th Q, have no doubt that the 'Cats would have won the game.
While TS was no Persa, always thought Siemian's mobility (esp. his ability to throw accurate passes while on the run) was underutilized.
