What I didn't like about Saturday's game

[Cat In The Cradle]

The list:

1. Our wide receivers flagged for holding. This issue carries over from the last two seasons. It usually comes on a big play (which is 10-15 yards in NU speak), well down the field when the point of contact has marginal value of freeing the runner.

2. The long snapper can't seem to get the ball to Niswander on the fly. This issue also carries over from last season. Does an excellent job on FGs but not with the punting unit. Had I not been forever scarred by the Miami Ohio game, I'd probably not even notice it. But when the ball gets dribbled back, our punter loses his timing and rushes his punt. Niswander's best kick came about when the ball got back to him on the fly. North also had trouble snapping the ball but seemed like opening kickoff jitters more than anything else.

3. Predictable trick play calling. After the Cardinal turnover, I thought, "here comes a trick play." It seemed the entire Stanford defense shared the same thought. And then we saw Thorson go out for a pass. I get McCall's philosophy of putting a dagger into the heart of a bleeding opponent. But, once in a while, let's use the momentum change to run regular plays. It almost seemed like we lost the edge after Stanford smacked it down and then the next one four plays later.

4. Media overreaction. I've been watching too much of the B1G Channel lately. Imagine if we started last season playing ND, Penn St., Wisconsin, obtained the same results, but then had to play the remaining opponents to end up 5-7. NU may be a "big game" team but the team occasionally loses its focus with more competitive match ups. For this reason, I agree with Fitz's comments, although he has had to apparently walk back his immense enthusiasm immediately after Saturday's game.

5. Too much criticism over missed interceptions. Some of these opportunities were tipped or deflected away from the player's path of travel, none of them were inadvertently thrown into the bread basket of an NU defender, and not even our WRs could catch most of these chances. On the flip side, Thorson's errant throws were ripe for picking only if any those Stanford defenders had exceptional hands and, thankfully, none did.

 

[sprinkler2]

I'd argue that at least one of the holding calls was the result of JJ bouncing a broken play outside (instead of running inside) and placing the WR on the wrong side of the block. Not a complete excuse, but tough on a blocker as the Stanford player tried to quickly change direction and pulled away from the block.

 

[pawildcat]

The list:

1. Our wide receivers flagged for holding. This issue carries over from the last two seasons. It usually comes on a big play (which is 10-15 yards in NU speak), well down the field when the point of contact has marginal value of freeing the runner.

2. The long snapper can't seem to get the ball to Niswander on the fly. This issue also carries over from last season. Does an excellent job on FGs but not with the punting unit. Had I not been forever scarred by the Miami Ohio game, I'd probably not even notice it. But when the ball gets dribbled back, our punter loses his timing and rushes his punt. Niswander's best kick came about when the ball got back to him on the fly. North also had trouble snapping the ball but seemed like opening kickoff jitters more than anything else.

3. Predictable trick play calling. After the Cardinal turnover, I thought, "here comes a trick play." It seemed the entire Stanford defense shared the same thought. And then we saw Thorson go out for a pass. I get McCall's philosophy of putting a dagger into the heart of a bleeding opponent. But, once in a while, let's use the momentum change to run regular plays. It almost seemed like we lost the edge after Stanford smacked it down and then the next one four plays later.

4. Media overreaction. I've been watching too much of the B1G Channel lately. Imagine if we started last season playing ND, Penn St., Wisconsin, obtained the same results, but then had to play the remaining opponents to end up 5-7. NU may be a "big game" team but the team occasionally loses its focus with more competitive match ups. For this reason, I agree with Fitz's comments, although he has had to apparently walk back his immense enthusiasm immediately after Saturday's game.

5. Too much criticism over missed interceptions. Some of these opportunities were tipped or deflected away from the player's path of travel, none of them were inadvertently thrown into the bread basket of an NU defender, and not even our WRs could catch most of these chances. On the flip side, Thorson's errant throws were ripe for picking only if any those Stanford defenders had exceptional hands and, thankfully, none did.

Thorson actually was open on the pass play, but he "short-armed" when he saw the Stanford safety coming at him. As the announcer said, perhaps not a bad idea as he would have taken a hit in the ribs, but he could have made that catch.

 

[KramerCat91]

The list:

3. Predictable trick play calling. After the Cardinal turnover, I thought, "here comes a trick play." It seemed the entire Stanford defense shared the same thought. And then we saw Thorson go out for a pass. I get McCall's philosophy of putting a dagger into the heart of a bleeding opponent. But, once in a while, let's use the momentum change to run regular plays. It almost seemed like we lost the edge after Stanford smacked it down and then the next one four plays later.
.

I think the trick plays were called because of the turnover and not because there were specific reasons to believe that they would work.

 

[hdhntr1]

The list:

1. Our wide receivers flagged for holding. This issue carries over from the last two seasons. It usually comes on a big play (which is 10-15 yards in NU speak), well down the field when the point of contact has marginal value of freeing the runner.

2. The long snapper can't seem to get the ball to Niswander on the fly. This issue also carries over from last season. Does an excellent job on FGs but not with the punting unit. Had I not been forever scarred by the Miami Ohio game, I'd probably not even notice it. But when the ball gets dribbled back, our punter loses his timing and rushes his punt. Niswander's best kick came about when the ball got back to him on the fly. North also had trouble snapping the ball but seemed like opening kickoff jitters more than anything else.

3. Predictable trick play calling. After the Cardinal turnover, I thought, "here comes a trick play." It seemed the entire Stanford defense shared the same thought. And then we saw Thorson go out for a pass. I get McCall's philosophy of putting a dagger into the heart of a bleeding opponent. But, once in a while, let's use the momentum change to run regular plays. It almost seemed like we lost the edge after Stanford smacked it down and then the next one four plays later.

4. Media overreaction. I've been watching too much of the B1G Channel lately. Imagine if we started last season playing ND, Penn St., Wisconsin, obtained the same results, but then had to play the remaining opponents to end up 5-7. NU may be a "big game" team but the team occasionally loses its focus with more competitive match ups. For this reason, I agree with Fitz's comments, although he has had to apparently walk back his immense enthusiasm immediately after Saturday's game.

5. Too much criticism over missed interceptions. Some of these opportunities were tipped or deflected away from the player's path of travel, none of them were inadvertently thrown into the bread basket of an NU defender, and not even our WRs could catch most of these chances. On the flip side, Thorson's errant throws were ripe for picking only if any those Stanford defenders had exceptional hands and, thankfully, none did.

We have a pretty fine line between success and failure and need to operate penalty free. Fortunately Stanford also shot themselves in the foot with dumb penalties. Yes we need to get the snapping problems corrected as it could cost us. Didn't we use a scholarship on a long snapper a year or so ago? Regarding the trick play you discussed, did not have to have a trick play but stretching the field at that point was reasonable. Media will always overreact. It is their nature. Regarding the reaction to the missed INTs, they are often missed and it indicates our players were in good position. Would have liked to see them but, oh well. But regarding the balls put into opponents hands, way to many of them. There were at least 6 passes (out of 24 attempts) that were put in harms way either by throwing a lateral pass or putting it on the defenders hands. We got away with them but that is way too many. 25% of total pass attempts if not more. Throw that many into harms way and you are asking for problems. Definitely needs to be cleaned up.

 

[hdhntr1]

I think the trick plays were called because of the turnover and not because there were specific reasons to believe that they would work.

Did not necessarily need a trick pass but play action and stretch the field would have been a reasonable move.

 

[NJCat83588]

2. The long snapper can't seem to get the ball to Niswander on the fly. This issue also carries over from last season. Does an excellent job on FGs but not with the punting unit. Had I not been forever scarred by the Miami Ohio game, I'd probably not even notice it. But when the ball gets dribbled back, our punter loses his timing and rushes his punt. Niswander's best kick came about when the ball got back to him on the fly. North also had trouble snapping the ball but seemed like opening kickoff jitters more than anything else.

The long snapping has been problematic. Fitzpatrick is on scholarship and was one of the top snappers in his high school class, so it isn't like they didn't recruit well at that position. Hopefully he can fix it and soon.

 

[hdhntr1]

The list:

1. Our wide receivers flagged for holding. This issue carries over from the last two seasons. It usually comes on a big play (which is 10-15 yards in NU speak), well down the field when the point of contact has marginal value of freeing the runner.

2. The long snapper can't seem to get the ball to Niswander on the fly. This issue also carries over from last season. Does an excellent job on FGs but not with the punting unit. Had I not been forever scarred by the Miami Ohio game, I'd probably not even notice it. But when the ball gets dribbled back, our punter loses his timing and rushes his punt. Niswander's best kick came about when the ball got back to him on the fly. North also had trouble snapping the ball but seemed like opening kickoff jitters more than anything else.

3. Predictable trick play calling. After the Cardinal turnover, I thought, "here comes a trick play." It seemed the entire Stanford defense shared the same thought. And then we saw Thorson go out for a pass. I get McCall's philosophy of putting a dagger into the heart of a bleeding opponent. But, once in a while, let's use the momentum change to run regular plays. It almost seemed like we lost the edge after Stanford smacked it down and then the next one four plays later.

4. Media overreaction. I've been watching too much of the B1G Channel lately. Imagine if we started last season playing ND, Penn St., Wisconsin, obtained the same results, but then had to play the remaining opponents to end up 5-7. NU may be a "big game" team but the team occasionally loses its focus with more competitive match ups. For this reason, I agree with Fitz's comments, although he has had to apparently walk back his immense enthusiasm immediately after Saturday's game.

5. Too much criticism over missed interceptions. Some of these opportunities were tipped or deflected away from the player's path of travel, none of them were inadvertently thrown into the bread basket of an NU defender, and not even our WRs could catch most of these chances. On the flip side, Thorson's errant throws were ripe for picking only if any those Stanford defenders had exceptional hands and, thankfully, none did.

I would add thoroughly outplaying Stanford for the whole game and still having it come down to a single drive. Had Mitchell missed that FG, it would have been one score and plenty of time with Stanford with two TOs. Course we would have been unlikely to try to employ a three man rush under those circumstances.

 

[Fitz51]

The list:

Media overreaction.

Per other threads here, there was next to no media reaction of any sort.

 

[techtim72]

A big part of the running success was due to receiver blocking. They better be good blockers because based on last year they struggle to get open and to catch the ball. Cannot understand why the holding takes place at the most inopportune times, however.

 

[EvanstonCat]

3. Predictable trick play calling. After the Cardinal turnover, I thought, "here comes a trick play." It seemed the entire Stanford defense shared the same thought. And then we saw Thorson go out for a pass. I get McCall's philosophy of putting a dagger into the heart of a bleeding opponent. But, once in a while, let's use the momentum change to run regular plays. It almost seemed like we lost the edge after Stanford smacked it down and then the next one four plays later.

I would add thoroughly outplaying Stanford for the whole game and still having it come down to a single drive. Had Mitchell missed that FG, it would have been one score and plenty of time with Stanford with two TOs. Course we would have been unlikely to try to employ a three man rush under those circumstances.

Even with one score, I was confident that the D would stop them. It was a weird feeling.