Didn't realize this about the OT play call

lo country

lo country

Moderator
Staff member
Didn't realize this until I just read the article. I understand Reilly out, but Westy and Morgan. They were killing it. And to switch formations up? I like Tommy's improvement. Gotta give Langs credit, BUT this is an example IMO of trying to be cute. Damn, man go with what scored 23 points in the 4th.......Stay with what was working UNTIL they stop us. Very Beckesque. And then to count on TA going through his reads is something that was never his strong suit....

Riley particularly liked Langsdorf's call on the first play of overtime - which resulted in Tommy Armstrong throwing an interception. None of Armstrong's targets for NU's big comeback - Jordan Westerkamp, Brandon Reilly or Stanley Morgan - were even on the field. Instead of keeping the flow of the shotgun spread offense, Langsdorf chose an I-formation tight end throwback play into the sideline. Tight end Cethan Carter was covered but the running back, Riley said, was open.

"That was a heck of call by Danny," Riley said. "Tommy just didn't get quite through the progession."
 
I don't have a problem with the play call, and if TA throws that ball to the back of the end zone instead of the front, I think Allen catches it for a TD. But HOW could you not have our best three WRs in the game in OT? That's mind bottling.

 
I would've liked to have had our playmakers in there if we were going to take a shot at the end zone on that first play.

By that comment about Tommy not getting through his progression, I'm thinking the play didn't develop like they wanted and was actually never intended to be the home run ball. Maybe.....I could be wrong.

Tommy is playing incredibly, but no doubt he loved to take those shots still. Too bad that one didn't work out.

Pretty big difference TheSker in a coach explaining what happened on the play by saying Tommy didn't get through the progression, versus a HC that never seemed to have an explanation for anything other than "the players didn't execute" for five years. Didn't sound like Riley was blaming anybody.

 
True2tRA said:
I would've liked to have had our playmakers in there if we were going to take a shot at the end zone on that first play.

By that comment about Tommy not getting through his progression, I'm thinking the play didn't develop like they wanted and was actually never intended to be the home run ball. Maybe.....I could be wrong.

Tommy is playing incredibly, but no doubt he loved to take those shots still. Too bad that one didn't work out.

Pretty big difference TheSker in a coach explaining what happened on the play by saying Tommy didn't get through the progression, versus a HC that never seemed to have an explanation for anything other than "the players didn't execute" for five years. Didn't sound like Riley was blaming anybody.
Click to expand...
On the road. OT. First play. Run the ball. Oh, and execute.

 
Can't believe we'd try to change formations between plays. That's so adorable it hurts
default_biggrin.png


 
True2tRA said:
I would've liked to have had our playmakers in there if we were going to take a shot at the end zone on that first play.

By that comment about Tommy not getting through his progression, I'm thinking the play didn't develop like they wanted and was actually never intended to be the home run ball. Maybe.....I could be wrong.

Tommy is playing incredibly, but no doubt he loved to take those shots still. Too bad that one didn't work out.

Pretty big difference TheSker in a coach explaining what happened on the play by saying Tommy didn't get through the progression, versus a HC that never seemed to have an explanation for anything other than "the players didn't execute" for five years. Didn't sound like Riley was blaming anybody.
Click to expand...
i think I heard the TE got chucked and thrown off route. Also, Tommy scrambled to the wrong side, or back side away from TE. Havent watched the game on TV yet, but did we ever run a successful play action out of "I" formation? I know Tommy took a sack on it earlier in the game when we were 3rd and 1.
 
Riley specifically mentioned today that the play was called in an attempt to exploit the third string safety they had in at that point due to the two ejections. That's pretty smart, IMO. Any good coach should look to take advantage of the weaknesses the opponent presents. It's a fundamental tactic.

As for how the play unfolded, I think you just had a kid in TA that had just led one of the most unbelievable comebacks we've ever seen to force OT who felt like he could do no wrong. Most everything he did worked before that. He probably got a little too amped, a little nervous when the progression broke down and what he wanted wasn't there... And tried to force a big throw. Unfortunate, but I can see now how easy that'd be.

Sure, the sub outs of the WRs may have been "Beckian."

But I've been watching Beckian offense for four years now courtesy of the man himself. Can't fault the new guys three games in when Beck got four years. In three games, I already feel better about what I'm seeing than I would've with Beck, even if it's not at all perfect.

Right now, it's the lesser of two evils. And I expect it to improve. Soon.

 
True2tRA said:
I would've liked to have had our playmakers in there if we were going to take a shot at the end zone on that first play.

By that comment about Tommy not getting through his progression, I'm thinking the play didn't develop like they wanted and was actually never intended to be the home run ball. Maybe.....I could be wrong.

Tommy is playing incredibly, but no doubt he loved to take those shots still. Too bad that one didn't work out.

Pretty big difference TheSker in a coach explaining what happened on the play by saying Tommy didn't get through the progression, versus a HC that never seemed to have an explanation for anything other than "the players didn't execute" for five years. Didn't sound like Riley was blaming anybody.
Click to expand...
Correct. And one of Tommy's down sides is seemly always looking for the home run instead of the first down and continuation of the drive. Allen was wide open, though.

 
I have no problem with the play call and the receiver was wide open in the end zone. I was just absolutely shocked when it fell so short. It really wasn't even that far of a throw.

 
I said it earlier that the play call was a good one, they tried to target the 3rd string saftey. It wouldn't of really mattered if Westy,Morgan and Reilly were in either, it was just that poor of a thrown ball.

But let's get all mad about putting subs in, and then get mad when theyou don't sub in anyour RB, or o lineman. That works

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top