3rd and 7.

[Scratchtown]

So I went back to see the play on my DVR and I'm a little miffed at the situation on 3rd and 7. The fact that MR tried to tell us and the media that it was a designed run is 100 percent attempt to cover his arse, hoping that fans in Nebraska are like those in Corvallis. Frankly I almost find it insulting he thinks we're that dumb.

The video is not up on youtube yet so I can't make a gif, but if you go back to the play on 3rd and 7. There are many things that tell me it was a called pass from the get go. Aside from the bone head call even if it was a run (which it wasn't) you potentially lose 6 yards or more because the boot action.

 

1. OLine - stayed home in pass pro. The left side hinge blocked from the start and the left side tried to cave down on the DE to hook. Not drive blocking.

2. Ozibgo - He left the guy he was acting like blocking, if it's a designed run, you stay engaged to let tommy cut up underneath.

3. WR's - Running routes, not stock blocking. Sam Cotton is running a drag from the left of the formation back to the right in a typical "Flood" play.

 

Once the video of play is up, I'm gunna post the gif. Just waiting for someone to post video.

 

 

[huskerfan92]

 

You are right, there's no doubt about it definitely a pass

[BigWillie]

This was mentioned many times last night.

 

Short answer - this is how a bootleg works. RB/FB flare to flats on run side. WRs and TEs run passing routes. Usually have 1-2 lineman pull to show pass block. This is how the backside is supposed to open up for the boot.

[zoogs]

This was mentioned many times last night.

 

Short answer - this is how a bootleg works. RB/FB flare to flats on run side. WRs and TEs run passing routes. Usually have 1-2 lineman pull to show pass block. This is how the backside is supposed to open up for the boot.

Exactly.

 

That said, I do kind of agree that maybe they could have taken more of the blame on their shoulders. Acknowledge that the call wasn't a pass, but focus on taking the blame for the rest of the game instead of making it about that one play. The message should be, "We're all in this together."

 

Then again, I didn't watch the presser so I don't know the context.

 

WRs run routes on bootleg to draw defenders off edges, and RB or FB flare to same side as QB.

 

Nothing out of the ordinary at all about what was going on in the screenshot of the 3rd down play above. If anything, it lends to the idea of why Tommy threw the ball. Defender in his face stopping him from turning corner, defender on inside cutback lane. Ozigbo is releasing from a bad block and has lots of space. Armstong likely thought it was an easy dump off and Ozigbo is in better shape to get the 1st down than he would be. Either way, Tommy has to be aware of the situation there and the best play is just to eat a loss or no gain.

 

I don't even remember what formation we were in on this play, but just an illustration of what a bootleg might look like while run out of I-formation ..

 

And there's the long answer ^

[Redux]

I just watched it. Almost no blame taking, a lot of pointing fingers though.

[huskerfan92]

Bootleg, pass, whatever it was. It was a terrible call. There is no need to get cute on a play like that just hand the ball off and keep the clock running. I think everyone can agree on that.

[WhatDoIKnow]

 

This was mentioned many times last night.

 

Short answer - this is how a bootleg works. RB/FB flare to flats on run side. WRs and TEs run passing routes. Usually have 1-2 lineman pull to show pass block. This is how the backside is supposed to open up for the boot.

Exactly.

 

That said, I do kind of agree that maybe they could have taken more of the blame on their shoulders. Acknowledge that the call wasn't a pass, but focus on taking the blame for the rest of the game instead of making it about that one play. The message should be, "We're all in this together."

 

Then again, I didn't watch the presser so I don't know the context.

 

WRs run routes on bootleg to draw defenders off edges, and RB or FB flare to same side as QB.

 

Nothing out of the ordinary at all about what was going on in the screenshot of the 3rd down play above. If anything, it lends to the idea of why Tommy threw the ball. Defender in his face stopping him from turning corner, defender on inside cutback lane. Ozigbo is releasing from a bad block and has lots of space. Armstong likely thought it was an easy dump off and Ozigbo is in better shape to get the 1st down than he would be. Either way, Tommy has to be aware of the situation there and the best play is just to eat a loss or no gain.

 

I don't even remember what formation we were in on this play, but just an illustration of what a bootleg might look like while run out of I-formation ..

 

And there's the long answer ^

 

 

Just a quick question because I saw you post this diagram in a different thread. In the diagram there is fake to the HB who then goes to the left of the formation while the QB rolls to the right. What we saw yesterday was a fake to the HB and the QB and HB both flowing to the right. Would you call what we saw last night a standard bootleg action or more of a run/pass option action? Again, I'm asking because I don't know.

[Scratchtown]

I understand how boot pass looks like Zoogs, Willie.

 

I don't agree with running the pass concept though in that situation and then telling us it's designed run. Why are we flooding routes to the boot side? Why not NAKED boot it.

 

It's actually not really a Boot in the way I've learned it (not that it matters) Boot is a fake to the opposite side of boot, Roll is faking run to the same side, which is what happened. (But who cares...)

 

Obviously there are different philosophies and concepts with the boot/roll series.

 

I think that his choice in that series was ridiculous and my issue is with Riley telling us and the media that it was designed Run, when, at best it was a run/pass option.

 

Maybe that's overly critical but you aren't talking to Beaver fans anymore Mr Riley.

[Scratchtown]

 

 

This was mentioned many times last night.

 

Short answer - this is how a bootleg works. RB/FB flare to flats on run side. WRs and TEs run passing routes. Usually have 1-2 lineman pull to show pass block. This is how the backside is supposed to open up for the boot.

Exactly.

 

That said, I do kind of agree that maybe they could have taken more of the blame on their shoulders. Acknowledge that the call wasn't a pass, but focus on taking the blame for the rest of the game instead of making it about that one play. The message should be, "We're all in this together."

 

Then again, I didn't watch the presser so I don't know the context.

 

WRs run routes on bootleg to draw defenders off edges, and RB or FB flare to same side as QB.

 

Nothing out of the ordinary at all about what was going on in the screenshot of the 3rd down play above. If anything, it lends to the idea of why Tommy threw the ball. Defender in his face stopping him from turning corner, defender on inside cutback lane. Ozigbo is releasing from a bad block and has lots of space. Armstong likely thought it was an easy dump off and Ozigbo is in better shape to get the 1st down than he would be. Either way, Tommy has to be aware of the situation there and the best play is just to eat a loss or no gain.

 

I don't even remember what formation we were in on this play, but just an illustration of what a bootleg might look like while run out of I-formation ..

 

And there's the long answer ^

 

 

Just a quick question because I saw you post this diagram in a different thread. In the diagram there is fake to the HB who then goes to the left of the formation while the QB rolls to the right. What we saw yesterday was a fake to the HB and the QB and HB both flowing to the right. Would you call what we saw last night a standard bootleg action or more of a run/pass option action? Again, I'm asking because I don't know.

 

It's a "Roll" action.

 

Roll = Fake to the same side of play

Boot = Fake away from the play

[desertshox]

wouldnt you want the other 10 guys selling the pass to disguise that it is a bootleg run?

[Scratchtown]

wouldnt you want the other 10 guys selling the pass to disguise that it is a bootleg run?

Depends on design and philosophy and also the situation in the game. Its not black and white like that.

 

It also wasn't a bootleg.

[RADAR]

So I went back to see the play on my DVR and I'm a little miffed at the situation on 3rd and 7. The fact that MR tried to tell us and the media that it was a designed run is 100 percent attempt to cover his arse, hoping that fans in Nebraska are like those in Corvallis. Frankly I almost find it insulting he thinks we're that dumb.

 

The video is not up on youtube yet so I can't make a gif, but if you go back to the play on 3rd and 7. There are many things that tell me it was a called pass from the get go. Aside from the bone head call even if it was a run (which it wasn't) you potentially lose 6 yards or more because the boot action.

 

1. OLine - stayed home in pass pro. The left side hinge blocked from the start and the left side tried to cave down on the DE to hook. Not drive blocking.

2. Ozibgo - He left the guy he was acting like blocking, if it's a designed run, you stay engaged to let tommy cut up underneath.

3. WR's - Running routes, not stock blocking. Sam Cotton is running a drag from the left of the formation back to the right in a typical "Flood" play.

 

Once the video of play is up, I'm gunna post the gif. Just waiting for someone to post video.

 

 

It was a pass play without throwning a pass, Tommy was to run it only. Please try to keep up, you have no clue what it going on.

 

 

[Scratchtown]

 

 

It was a pass play without throwning a pass, Tommy was to run it only. Please try to keep up, you have no clue what it going on.

 

 

 

Right. LOL!

 

It's crap design. Especially with the situation.

[hskrfan4life]

Janovich was getting positive yards before that and Illinois knew we were running the ball and couldn't stop it. It's Sunday and I still can't believe what happened yesterday.

[Count 'Bility]

Im more concerned with the actual call and the management of the game situation. I still think folks are prying way to hard at his comments. Even if it was a pass play, and told Tommy not to pass and just run and so on, what they say is not a lie. And it's not throwing a guy under a bus. You cant go from demanding full accountability in the Alex Lewis situation to demanding a cover up for your qb that may have screwed up. Thats hypocrisy at the most basic definition.

 

All Riley and Langsdorf did was answer a question. Which is a hell of a lot more than "you saw it. You tell me". They answered a question in what I believe actually is an honest manner. I'm more concerned with wrapping my head around the situation on the field and how that was handled. Thats where the game was lost. Not some answer to a question.

 

Tommys a veteran player who's shown self accountability. He can handle it.