Why no screen passes????

[zoogs]

Some people need to get into coaching, though, for real. Brent Venables doesn't have a clue what he is doing if he can be outschemed that easily.

I will say that Brent owned Shawn in the chess match last night, especially as the game wore on. Our man landed some punches in the first half before getting beat down in the second. But anyone who thinks it is this straightforward to simply outscheme a DC like Venables is sort of fooling themselves. The same way you are fooling yourself if you think Bo, Shawn, and these offensive coaches don't know the abilities and strengths of their own players as well as we do. For instance those who know more come out and say things like Taylor's skills don't include throwing on the run, or now that he has trouble with the touch passes on screens. But in fans' imaginations this is simply untrue. When what you imagine players can do does not match up with reality, it becomes really easy to draw up any killer gameplan against anyone.

Bottom line is we have had to play to Taylor's strengths this year, which limits us a lot on offense schematically, but has shown itself to be worth it, at least when he is healthy and has those strengths.

 

[Husker Richard]

Zoogies, what punches did Watson land in the first half? A 66-yd TD by Helu that was just as much a defensive lapse as a genius offensive playcall? A wildcat TD pass on an incredible play by Burkhead after excellent field position setup by an INT?

I loved his idea to call some designed QB runs. Zac Lee would've executed those better than a gimpy Martinez.

Get off Watson's jock. You know just as well as anyone (except for Watson) that a simple screen pass is an effective counter to a blitz-happy team.

 

[zoogs]

How about two long methodical drives? The first one before Taylor threw a pick. The second one where we marched down the field in two minutes, with two money throws by Martinez, including a 20-yarder to Reed that set us up in field goal position. Come on, Martinez running the 2 minute drill? That was impressive.

I don't know why people will continue to discredit getting the ball into our playmakers' hands and watching them make plays. Our line made key blocks (Williams took out two guys almost at once at the LOS), we caught OU not loading up for the run in the middle and once Helu got past the line he busted them for it.

Jliehr explained why the screen pass might not be an effective tool in the arsenal. Obviously, you know what we are capable of doing better than Watson. Better drop him a line; he might need the info for the bowl game.

 

[JTrain]

Some people need to get into coaching, though, for real. Brent Venables doesn't have a clue what he is doing if he can be outschemed that easily.

I will say that Brent owned Shawn in the chess match last night, especially as the game wore on. Our man landed some punches in the first half before getting beat down in the second. But anyone who thinks it is this straightforward to simply outscheme a DC like Venables is sort of fooling themselves. The same way you are fooling yourself if you think Bo, Shawn, and these offensive coaches don't know the abilities and strengths of their own players as well as we do. For instance those who know more come out and say things like Taylor's skills don't include throwing on the run, or now that he has trouble with the touch passes on screens. But in fans' imaginations this is simply untrue. When what you imagine players can do does not match up with reality, it becomes really easy to draw up any killer gameplan against anyone.

Bottom line is we have had to play to Taylor's strengths this year, which limits us a lot on offense schematically, but has shown itself to be worth it, at least when he is healthy and has those strengths.

In the same paragraph you manage to deride fans for thinking they know the players' strengths and then claiming that "those who know more" (which apparently includes you) actually do know the players' strengths.

I promise you that Taylor is capable of throwing a screen pass. And to think that calling for more screen passes against the type of aggressive pass rush OU was bringing wouldn't have had a higher chance of success than the type of dropback passes that our offense attempted is nonsense. Nobody is saying that simply calling a bunch of random screens is somehow the magic bullet that would have beaten OU and Venables with ease. Just that a well-timed screen thrown in at the proper situations would have been better chance of picking up crucial first downs as well as forcing the defense to be less aggressive with the pressure. Of course this idea is not rocket science and it doesn't have to be. It's Football 101. It's checkers. And probably playing checkers is enough to give you two FGs in the second half to win the game. Watson was playing Hungry Hungry Hippos.

 

[zoogs]

To qualify: I don't know a thing personally, and only go off what I hear from those who do know more about the situation and Taylors' skills. I don't think you can guarantee Taylor's skill level/comfort with the screen pass, either. How much of that is speculation? We've seen it before but you have to weigh that against something like "He struggles with his touch sometimes on these passes."

 

[JTrain]

Hell TM struggles with everything in the passing game at this point. But I like the chances of him getting the ball to Burkhead on a misdirection screen more than 90% of the pass plays that actually got called. And the potential reward for a screen that catches OU off guard is so much higher than a three-yard slant to a slow WR.

On 2nd and 7 of our last drive, 1:30 to go and OU knowing that we were likely to pass with clock becoming an issue, Watson called a play from four-wide that had three of the four receivers running 10+ yard routes. The only short route was Broekemeier way over at the sideline on TM's blind side. OU brought seven and our guys didn't stand a chance. That about summed it up for me.