North Dakota Play-by-Play

[Lorewarn]

2 hours ago, whateveritis1224 said:

Discussed it elsewhere, but I'm not sure its targeting and unless you're 100% sure, I'm not happy with ejecting people from the game. Both this play and the later one that was also picked up against Thompson should have still been 15 yard penalties (defenseless player and roughing the passer), but I think the refs were thinking about only targeting and not the fact that you have to include the other parts of the penalties to actually call them.

 

 

 

It's 100% targeting. The rule is 'forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player", which that absolutely was. He launched, and hit a receiver in the area with force to the head or neck area. It's not ambiguous.

 

[Archy1221]

4 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

 

It's 100% targeting. The rule is 'forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player", which that absolutely was. He launched, and hit a receiver in the area with force to the head or neck area. It's not ambiguous.

 

Absolutely agree on this one.   It seemed like a textbook case of targeting both at the time of the play and in slo mo reply.  The hit on CT should have been a late hit penalty at the very least too.  

[ZRod]

2 hours ago, Mavric said:

Definitely a mix-up in protection.  Not sure why Banks didn't move outside - he had nothing holding him in.

 

 

Isn't #73 Bando? I think he was slow kicking out because he was initially covered and his guy stunted inside.

 

Also, I feel the tackle should have had a fire call on so he knows the RB is taking the outside rusher, and he can help inside where we got beat. He shouldn't be reaching that far out on an overloaded line to make a block.

[Husker in WI]

18 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Isn't #73 Bando? I think he was slow kicking out because he was initially covered and his guy stunted inside.

 

Also, I feel the tackle should have had a fire call on so he knows the RB is taking the outside rusher, and he can help inside where we got beat. He shouldn't be reaching that far out on an overloaded line to make a block.

 

I'd rather leave the Guard one on one than the RB - I don't know what the call was obviously, and giving the guy a better shove to help out Bando would've been better. I think Benhart had the right idea and just between him and Bando it was not clean - if you got to scheme up that protection against that rush, you'd want everyone blocking who they blocked. Just better, preferably.

[Undone]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Absolutely agree on this one.   It seemed like a textbook case of targeting both at the time of the play and in slo mo reply.  The hit on CT should have been a late hit penalty at the very least too.  

 

And it was at least the 15 yard penalty variety but we didn't even get that. So that drive should have been a 1st & 10 15 yards downfield but it wasn't.

[ZRod]

19 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

 

I'd rather leave the Guard one on one than the RB - I don't know what the call was obviously, and giving the guy a better shove to help out Bando would've been better. I think Benhart had the right idea and just between him and Bando it was not clean - if you got to scheme up that protection against that rush, you'd want everyone blocking who they blocked. Just better, preferably.

Our RB have been excellent this year in one-on-one pickups.

 

Benhardt is shaded on his outside (by the DE who makes the play) and the LB on the LOS is outside the tightend. Benhardt can't pickup both guys, and that's a big reach for him to take the LB. He has to take the DE because he's shaded outside and any move inside crosses his face. That's his man and Bando should assist (obviously better than he did) if he becomes uncovered as he did. Benhardt just can't get beat across his face like that.

[Husker in WI]

40 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Our RB have been excellent this year in one-on-one pickups.

 

Benhardt is shaded on his outside (by the DE who makes the play) and the LB on the LOS is outside the tightend. Benhardt can't pickup both guys, and that's a big reach for him to take the LB. He has to take the DE because he's shaded outside and any move inside crosses his face. That's his man and Bando should assist (obviously better than he did) if he becomes uncovered as he did. Benhardt just can't get beat across his face like that.

 

I still don't know - line play is complicated, you definitely could be right. But I still don't see any way you would draw up a protection that leaves a Guard or tackle free while leaving an RB one one one, however good they have been. Nothing was overloaded, so in my mind we should have an OL on every rushing defender. 

 

The RB can chip to help buy time for Benhart to get out there, and then with more than a high-five from Benhart the DL should be easy for Bando to pick up. Hixson does have to follow the DT crossing his face because the LT/LG are already manned up, but with a 3 on 2 on the right Benhart doesn't have to follow the DE right into Bando. Most likely we could block it up either way, and I don't know what the line call was. 

[Undone]

What's really weird is that I don't think we see this "deer in the headlights" stuff from the O-line on our very first drive of the game. It's like it happens after the first drive in the first half and then they loosen up again and have clear heads.

[Mavric]

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

Isn't #73 Bando? I think he was slow kicking out because he was initially covered and his guy stunted inside.

 

Yeah, thanks.  Typed the wrong name.

 

I guess I can see that.  Just reacted slowly I guess.

 

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

Also, I feel the tackle should have had a fire call on so he knows the RB is taking the outside rusher, and he can help inside where we got beat. He shouldn't be reaching that far out on an overloaded line to make a block.

 

This would definitely have helped.  But it would be better to not leave the RB by himself if you have enough guys to pick everyone up.

[ZRod]

1 hour ago, Husker in WI said:

 

I still don't know - line play is complicated, you definitely could be right. But I still don't see any way you would draw up a protection that leaves a Guard or tackle free while leaving an RB one one one, however good they have been. Nothing was overloaded, so in my mind we should have an OL on every rushing defender. 

 

The RB can chip to help buy time for Benhart to get out there, and then with more than a high-five from Benhart the DL should be easy for Bando to pick up. Hixson does have to follow the DT crossing his face because the LT/LG are already manned up, but with a 3 on 2 on the right Benhart doesn't have to follow the DE right into Bando. Most likely we could block it up either way, and I don't know what the line call was. 

It's not really drawn up that way, it's just a basic pass pro and everyone needs to know their rules of engagement, which can change after the snap.

 

The right side was a hat on a hat at the snap. TE covered, RT covered, RG covered (and C is covered). You know the TE has to run his route, so the line is now overloaded to the right side. It's 2 on 3 meaning the RB has to come help. Somebody makes a "fire right" call (or whatever we use) and RB acknowledges that he's going to pickup the blitzer on that side.

 

At the snap the assumption is RB takes blitzer, RT takes DE, and RG takes DT.

 

After the snap the DT stunts inside away from RG, so RG becomes free. RG assignment now changes to head on a swivel make sure no one replaces the DT (they don't), then help out with the nearest defender, if that's good then find any free rushers. RB and RT assignment stays the same. The only way RT helps RB is if RG has the DE locked down, which he's barely engaged on the play...

 

I'm guessing either RT didn't hear the RB acknowledge the fire call, or he didn't trust the RB and sacrificed his block. Either way he just needs to do his job of taking the DE and we'd be fine.

[Undone]

^^^^^^^Give this man a beer!

[Husker in WI]

3 hours ago, ZRod said:

It's not really drawn up that way, it's just a basic pass pro and everyone needs to know their rules of engagement, which can change after the snap.

 

The right side was a hat on a hat at the snap. TE covered, RT covered, RG covered (and C is covered). You know the TE has to run his route, so the line is now overloaded to the right side. It's 2 on 3 meaning the RB has to come help. Somebody makes a "fire right" call (or whatever we use) and RB acknowledges that he's going to pickup the blitzer on that side.

 

At the snap the assumption is RB takes blitzer, RT takes DE, and RG takes DT.

 

After the snap the DT stunts inside away from RG, so RG becomes free. RG assignment now changes to head on a swivel make sure no one replaces the DT (they don't), then help out with the nearest defender, if that's good then find any free rushers. RB and RT assignment stays the same. The only way RT helps RB is if RG has the DE locked down, which he's barely engaged on the play...

 

I'm guessing either RT didn't hear the RB acknowledge the fire call, or he didn't trust the RB and sacrificed his block. Either way he just needs to do his job of taking the DE and we'd be fine.

Appreciate the breakdown, I feel like I know quite a bit of Xs and Os but OL is definitely a weakness for me. Sounds easier to clean up than just flat out getting beat at least!

[ZRod]

41 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

Appreciate the breakdown, I feel like I know quite a bit of Xs and Os but OL is definitely a weakness for me. Sounds easier to clean up than just flat out getting beat at least!

No worries. Line is all I ever played and understand. It's literally just a game of numbers and leverage. When it comes to passing routes and exploiting a secondary I'm clueless, but like I said this was as basic as a pass pro can get. No pulling, no motion, no swinging gate. It's just a straight up protection, and the number one rule is don't get beat across your face to the inside.

[Mavric]

Hard to tell if this was really zone read or not because the DE soft plays it so much.  But it does look like the option would have gone big.

 

 

[Mavric]

Thompson sure loves him some Boerkircher.  Or maybe he just loves TEs and Boerkircher is who is playing right now.

 

But this is a nice concept and a good read/throw by Thompson.