Film Room Breakdown: vs Rice 10/27/24

[SuperHuski]

Let's see if there's any interest in this. This is the Evers fumble play that lead to Rice's only offensive score. It's 3rd and 9 play on UConn's 3rd drive in the first quarter.

Rice is playing Cover-1. Usually means man with a single high safety. Rice is in their usual 3-4 front, showing at least three rushers. It's not clear the intentions of the LBs pre-snap.

UConn is running their typical 11-personnel. A little too typical IMO. You know it's a passing situation. A long passing situation. If I was Rice, I would guess the TE is blocking only, same with the RB. Leaving only three viable targets for the QB. I would not have called this play. There's way too much film on us running this play.

Ok, that's pre-snap. Here's post-snap:

Rice rushes 5, drops back 6. The Cover-1 was actually a disguise, it's a zone coverage. This play has next to no chance of getting 9 yards unless Rice does something awful or UConn does something great. Honestly, great play call on Rice's part.

We actually don't even get to a pass. The blocking failed spectacularly here. There are three rushers to the right side, against 3 blockers. Two rushers to the left against 4 blockers. Still, the protection could have have held if the blockers on the right side coordinated better. The RT got beat here, forcing the RB to help. 1 rusher against 2 blockers. That block barely held. Now you have two delayed rushers going against the lone RG, Fortin. He's screwed. Evers is screwed. Hoeh, the center, should have broken off his block to help Fortin. That didn't happen. Fortin, is trying to decide which to block. His indecision there allowed both to get through.

The best thing Evers could've done is taken the sack, but he's trying too hard to salvage the play. No one was open anyway since 6 people are covering 3 WRs.

What could have been done differently to get a 1st down? Pre-snap, motion the RB out right to spread the defense. Gives Evers a release-valve. I think Rice was expecting that, hence the delayed rushers. Motion the RB out left into a screen pass with the WRs blocking. But really, this play was lost pre-snap. I would've started in a different play design.

My personal commentary:
I know people are piling on Evers and what to blame him for all the offensive woes, but he wasn't setup to succeed on that play. Maybe Fagano doesn't fumble here. Maybe he's experience enough to throw it away; even an intentional grounding is a better outcome. It's not just this play either. The INT wasn't directly Ever's fault. The safety read the screen pass early and #5 Porter didn't execute his blocking assignment at all. It would've been a big play if Porter did, instead it was a big play for the defense.

It's Week 7+ in CFB. By this time, teams will have all the tape in the world on you. It's like that in high school. You gotta introduce wrinkles and variations to your offense at this point. Individually, we have some great, standout players. We're just not playing like a team. Mostly on offense. Defense has been exceedingly fun to watch.

Don't get me wrong. Evers did have lots of accuracy issues. But then again, WRs also had drops. The crazy winds was also a factor too, which was why the run game really needed a big day. I don't know what percentage of the offensive blame should go to Evers. I just know it shouldn't be anywhere near 100%.

 

[Gburyhusky]

Excellent analysis. Would just remind folks that Joe's Temple performance also included a fumble turnover and a bad interception.

 

[Tdaley]

Let's see if there's any interest in this. This is the Evers fumble play that lead to Rice's only offensive score. It's 3rd and 9 play on UConn's 3rd drive in the first quarter.

View attachment 104413

Rice is playing Cover-1. Usually means man with a single high safety. Rice is in their usual 3-4 front, showing at least three rushers. It's not clear the intentions of the LBs pre-snap.

UConn is running their typical 11-personnel. A little too typical IMO. You know it's a passing situation. A long passing situation. If I was Rice, I would guess the TE is blocking only, same with the RB. Leaving only three viable targets for the QB. I would not have called this play. There's way too much film on us running this play.

Ok, that's pre-snap. Here's post-snap:
View attachment 104414

Rice rushes 5, drops back 6. The Cover-1 was actually a disguise, it's a zone coverage. This play has next to no chance of getting 9 yards unless Rice does something awful or UConn does something great. Honestly, great play call on Rice's part.

We actually don't even get to a pass. The blocking failed spectacularly here. There are three rushers to the right side, against 3 blockers. Two rushers to the left against 4 blockers. Still, the protection could have have held if the blockers on the right side coordinated better. The RT got beat here, forcing the RB to help. 1 rusher against 2 blockers. That block barely held. Now you have two delayed rushers going against the lone RG, Fortin. He's screwed. Evers is screwed. Hoeh, the center, should have broken off his block to help Fortin. That didn't happen. Fortin, is trying to decide which to block. His indecision there allowed both to get through.

The best thing Evers could've done is taken the sack, but he's trying too hard to salvage the play. No one was open anyway since 6 people are covering 3 WRs.

What could have been done differently to get a 1st down? Pre-snap, motion the RB out right to spread the defense. Gives Evers a release-valve. I think Rice was expecting that, hence the delayed rushers. Motion the RB out left into a screen pass with the WRs blocking. But really, this play was lost pre-snap. I would've started in a different play design.

My personal commentary:
I know people are piling on Evers and what to blame him for all the offensive woes, but he wasn't setup to succeed on that play. Maybe Fagano doesn't fumble here. Maybe he's experience enough to throw it away; even an intentional grounding is a better outcome. It's not just this play either. The INT wasn't directly Ever's fault. The safety read the screen pass early and #5 Porter didn't execute his blocking assignment at all. It would've been a big play if Porter did, instead it was a big play for the defense.

It's Week 7+ in CFB. By this time, teams will have all the tape in the world on you. It's like that in high school. You gotta introduce wrinkles and variations to your offense at this point. Individually, we have some great, standout players. We're just not playing like a team. Mostly on offense. Defense has been exceedingly fun to watch.

Don't get me wrong. Evers did have lots of accuracy issues. But then again, WRs also had drops. The crazy winds was also a factor too, which was why the run game really needed a big day. I don't know what percentage of the offensive blame should go to Evers. I just know it shouldn't be anywhere near 100%.

Great analysis of some of our issues on offense.

 

[RioDog]

love these analyses! I always learn something. Keep 'em coming!

 

[king conn]

Who's job is it to call these variations you are pointing out here? Can Evers not send the player in motion once he sees and reads the defense? Does he have the capability to read a defense? These are things we really don't know

Almost everyone blames the offensive line when a blitzer comes through unscathed, when in fact it's the QB not noticing they are coming pre snap and calling for a protection

One thing we can kind of figure out is Evers rarely throws beyond his first read and looks anywhere else. So it's more likely he also has trouble reading defenses

 

[gopher2]

Only thing I can see here that might have worked is an out to the single wide receiver.

 

[Jetskies]

genuinely interested in these but attention span not great - if you could include a TLDR one-liner at the end, would be great.

looking forward to more tape analysis

 

[freescooter]

The other thing this shows is that sometimes the other team makes the right call. They have a coaching staff too.

 

[UConnJim]

I'm going to elaborate on this more in a new thread, but Rice is rated the #9 passing defense based on passing yards allowed per game. Superhuski's posted pictures show a great defensive scheme against UConn's pass play.

 

[maple]

But really, this play was lost pre-snap. I would've started in a different play design.

Can you elaborate on this? I've watched football all my life but I can never figure out reading schemes. How would a team line up to better design a normal passing play?

Great write up, btw. Really explains in clear language what happened.

 

[noeynox]

Let's see if there's any interest in this. This is the Evers fumble play that lead to Rice's only offensive score. It's 3rd and 9 play on UConn's 3rd drive in the first quarter.

View attachment 104413

Rice is playing Cover-1. Usually means man with a single high safety. Rice is in their usual 3-4 front, showing at least three rushers. It's not clear the intentions of the LBs pre-snap.

UConn is running their typical 11-personnel. A little too typical IMO. You know it's a passing situation. A long passing situation. If I was Rice, I would guess the TE is blocking only, same with the RB. Leaving only three viable targets for the QB. I would not have called this play. There's way too much film on us running this play.

Ok, that's pre-snap. Here's post-snap:
View attachment 104414

Rice rushes 5, drops back 6. The Cover-1 was actually a disguise, it's a zone coverage. This play has next to no chance of getting 9 yards unless Rice does something awful or UConn does something great. Honestly, great play call on Rice's part.

We actually don't even get to a pass. The blocking failed spectacularly here. There are three rushers to the right side, against 3 blockers. Two rushers to the left against 4 blockers. Still, the protection could have have held if the blockers on the right side coordinated better. The RT got beat here, forcing the RB to help. 1 rusher against 2 blockers. That block barely held. Now you have two delayed rushers going against the lone RG, Fortin. He's screwed. Evers is screwed. Hoeh, the center, should have broken off his block to help Fortin. That didn't happen. Fortin, is trying to decide which to block. His indecision there allowed both to get through.

The best thing Evers could've done is taken the sack, but he's trying too hard to salvage the play. No one was open anyway since 6 people are covering 3 WRs.

What could have been done differently to get a 1st down? Pre-snap, motion the RB out right to spread the defense. Gives Evers a release-valve. I think Rice was expecting that, hence the delayed rushers. Motion the RB out left into a screen pass with the WRs blocking. But really, this play was lost pre-snap. I would've started in a different play design.

My personal commentary:
I know people are piling on Evers and what to blame him for all the offensive woes, but he wasn't setup to succeed on that play. Maybe Fagano doesn't fumble here. Maybe he's experience enough to throw it away; even an intentional grounding is a better outcome. It's not just this play either. The INT wasn't directly Ever's fault. The safety read the screen pass early and #5 Porter didn't execute his blocking assignment at all. It would've been a big play if Porter did, instead it was a big play for the defense.

It's Week 7+ in CFB. By this time, teams will have all the tape in the world on you. It's like that in high school. You gotta introduce wrinkles and variations to your offense at this point. Individually, we have some great, standout players. We're just not playing like a team. Mostly on offense. Defense has been exceedingly fun to watch.

Don't get me wrong. Evers did have lots of accuracy issues. But then again, WRs also had drops. The crazy winds was also a factor too, which was why the run game really needed a big day. I don't know what percentage of the offensive blame should go to Evers. I just know it shouldn't be anywhere near 100%.

Great breakdown, but 9-24, is what it is. In his worst day Fagnano is 50 percent passer.

Where Evers has issues is too many easy throws he misses. Not even downfield throws. 1st play from scrimmage against Wake he has a RB, (i believe) in the flat and his throw is so poor the receiver falls trying to make the catch. It was an easy 1st down. Instead incomplete pass on the first 3 and out drive of the day. An average college QB hits more of those than he misses.

 

[Chin Diesel]

Can you elaborate on this? I've watched football all my life but I can never figure out reading schemes. How would a team line up to better design a normal passing play?

Great write up, btw. Really explains in clear language what happened.

The sentences before the one you mentioned had a few suggestions:

What could have been done differently to get a 1st down?
1. Pre-snap, motion the RB out right to spread the defense. Gives Evers a release-valve. I think Rice was expecting that, hence the delayed rushers.
2. Motion the RB out left into a screen pass with the WRs blocking.

But really, this play was lost pre-snap. I would've started in a different play design.

Putting players in motion across the field helps the QB see if the defense is playing man or zone or forces a potential blitzer to stay home since there is now an RB in space out in the flat.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Let's see if there's any interest in this. This is the Evers fumble play that lead to Rice's only offensive score. It's 3rd and 9 play on UConn's 3rd drive in the first quarter.

View attachment 104413

Rice is playing Cover-1. Usually means man with a single high safety. Rice is in their usual 3-4 front, showing at least three rushers. It's not clear the intentions of the LBs pre-snap.

UConn is running their typical 11-personnel. A little too typical IMO. You know it's a passing situation. A long passing situation. If I was Rice, I would guess the TE is blocking only, same with the RB. Leaving only three viable targets for the QB. I would not have called this play. There's way too much film on us running this play.

Ok, that's pre-snap. Here's post-snap:
View attachment 104414

Rice rushes 5, drops back 6. The Cover-1 was actually a disguise, it's a zone coverage. This play has next to no chance of getting 9 yards unless Rice does something awful or UConn does something great. Honestly, great play call on Rice's part.

We actually don't even get to a pass. The blocking failed spectacularly here. There are three rushers to the right side, against 3 blockers. Two rushers to the left against 4 blockers. Still, the protection could have have held if the blockers on the right side coordinated better. The RT got beat here, forcing the RB to help. 1 rusher against 2 blockers. That block barely held. Now you have two delayed rushers going against the lone RG, Fortin. He's screwed. Evers is screwed. Hoeh, the center, should have broken off his block to help Fortin. That didn't happen. Fortin, is trying to decide which to block. His indecision there allowed both to get through.

The best thing Evers could've done is taken the sack, but he's trying too hard to salvage the play. No one was open anyway since 6 people are covering 3 WRs.

What could have been done differently to get a 1st down? Pre-snap, motion the RB out right to spread the defense. Gives Evers a release-valve. I think Rice was expecting that, hence the delayed rushers. Motion the RB out left into a screen pass with the WRs blocking. But really, this play was lost pre-snap. I would've started in a different play design.

My personal commentary:
I know people are piling on Evers and what to blame him for all the offensive woes, but he wasn't setup to succeed on that play. Maybe Fagano doesn't fumble here. Maybe he's experience enough to throw it away; even an intentional grounding is a better outcome. It's not just this play either. The INT wasn't directly Ever's fault. The safety read the screen pass early and #5 Porter didn't execute his blocking assignment at all. It would've been a big play if Porter did, instead it was a big play for the defense.

It's Week 7+ in CFB. By this time, teams will have all the tape in the world on you. It's like that in high school. You gotta introduce wrinkles and variations to your offense at this point. Individually, we have some great, standout players. We're just not playing like a team. Mostly on offense. Defense has been exceedingly fun to watch.

Don't get me wrong. Evers did have lots of accuracy issues. But then again, WRs also had drops. The crazy winds was also a factor too, which was why the run game really needed a big day. I don't know what percentage of the offensive blame should go to Evers. I just know it shouldn't be anywhere near 100%.

Fagnano should be starting. Mora playing NIL favorites.

 

[maple]

The sentences before the one you mentioned had a few suggestions:

What could have been done differently to get a 1st down?
1. Pre-snap, motion the RB out right to spread the defense. Gives Evers a release-valve. I think Rice was expecting that, hence the delayed rushers.
2. Motion the RB out left into a screen pass with the WRs blocking.

But really, this play was lost pre-snap. I would've started in a different play design.

Putting players in motion across the field helps the QB see if the defense is playing man or zone or forces a potential blitzer to stay home since there is now an RB in space out in the flat.

Gotcha, appreciate the explanation.

 

[ZooCougar]

Let's see if there's any interest in this. This is the Evers fumble play that lead to Rice's only offensive score. It's 3rd and 9 play on UConn's 3rd drive in the first quarter.

View attachment 104413

Rice is playing Cover-1. Usually means man with a single high safety. Rice is in their usual 3-4 front, showing at least three rushers. It's not clear the intentions of the LBs pre-snap.

UConn is running their typical 11-personnel. A little too typical IMO. You know it's a passing situation. A long passing situation. If I was Rice, I would guess the TE is blocking only, same with the RB. Leaving only three viable targets for the QB. I would not have called this play. There's way too much film on us running this play.

Ok, that's pre-snap. Here's post-snap:
View attachment 104414

Rice rushes 5, drops back 6. The Cover-1 was actually a disguise, it's a zone coverage. This play has next to no chance of getting 9 yards unless Rice does something awful or UConn does something great. Honestly, great play call on Rice's part.

We actually don't even get to a pass. The blocking failed spectacularly here. There are three rushers to the right side, against 3 blockers. Two rushers to the left against 4 blockers. Still, the protection could have have held if the blockers on the right side coordinated better. The RT got beat here, forcing the RB to help. 1 rusher against 2 blockers. That block barely held. Now you have two delayed rushers going against the lone RG, Fortin. He's screwed. Evers is screwed. Hoeh, the center, should have broken off his block to help Fortin. That didn't happen. Fortin, is trying to decide which to block. His indecision there allowed both to get through.

The best thing Evers could've done is taken the sack, but he's trying too hard to salvage the play. No one was open anyway since 6 people are covering 3 WRs.

What could have been done differently to get a 1st down? Pre-snap, motion the RB out right to spread the defense. Gives Evers a release-valve. I think Rice was expecting that, hence the delayed rushers. Motion the RB out left into a screen pass with the WRs blocking. But really, this play was lost pre-snap. I would've started in a different play design.

My personal commentary:
I know people are piling on Evers and what to blame him for all the offensive woes, but he wasn't setup to succeed on that play. Maybe Fagano doesn't fumble here. Maybe he's experience enough to throw it away; even an intentional grounding is a better outcome. It's not just this play either. The INT wasn't directly Ever's fault. The safety read the screen pass early and #5 Porter didn't execute his blocking assignment at all. It would've been a big play if Porter did, instead it was a big play for the defense.

It's Week 7+ in CFB. By this time, teams will have all the tape in the world on you. It's like that in high school. You gotta introduce wrinkles and variations to your offense at this point. Individually, we have some great, standout players. We're just not playing like a team. Mostly on offense. Defense has been exceedingly fun to watch.

Don't get me wrong. Evers did have lots of accuracy issues. But then again, WRs also had drops. The crazy winds was also a factor too, which was why the run game really needed a big day. I don't know what percentage of the offensive blame should go to Evers. I just know it shouldn't be anywhere near 100%.

Sorry. Turn those drops into completions and that’s a brutally bad day. And some of those drops were due to terrible throws made by Evers.

It just seems like this whole post was intended to show that he isn’t performing badly. Performing badly would actually be an improvement.

 

[Windham4th]

OC should take some blame here for calling the same plays over and over getting the same result. Evers can toss it when in pocket, but we constantly have him throwing on the move and throwing to guys still behind LOS. Is that by design? It seems like it is and it is awful. The touchdowns he tossed against Wake were the types of throws he is capable of. Just need to execute those types of plays as a more traditional passing QB.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

Should be a dump option to the rb.

 

[ZooCougar]

OC should take some blame here for calling the same plays over and over getting the same result. Evers can toss it when in pocket, but we constantly have him throwing on the move and throwing to guys still behind LOS. Is that by design? It seems like it is and it is awful. The touchdowns he tossed against Wake were the types of throws he is capable of. Just need to execute those types of plays as a more traditional passing QB.

Pretty much every FBS QB can and should make those throws. People here are so accustomed to bad QB play that when they see something like that they think NFL talent. Nope.

 

[Windham4th]

Pretty much every FBS QB can and should make those throws. People here are so accustomed to bad QB play that when they see something like that they think NFL talent. Nope.

Man you love to make giant leaps in your logic. His TDs were "what he is capable of", not "he is the next Babe Laufenberg".

I am not sure I have ever mentioned NFL here much less with NE.

Your responses are the typical attack mode before absorbing what was actually said.

Now go back to your job as NFL talent evaluator for the Carolina Panthers and leave the rest of us alone.

 

[noeynox]

Man you love to make giant leaps in your logic. His TDs were "what he is capable of", not "he is the next Babe Laufenberg".

I am not sure I have ever mentioned NFL here much less with NE.

Your responses are the typical attack mode before absorbing what was actually said.

Now go back to your job as NFL talent evaluator for the Carolina Panthers and leave the rest of us alone.

I mean if we are being honest, if a QB isn't able to throw TD passes to receivers in 1 on 1 coverage why is he on the field? Evers problems are the short and intermediate passing game are way too inconsistent.

 

[SuperHuski]

I'm glad that you guys are finding some value in this. Slow day at work today, so I've been thinking more about how to change up our play design. One caveat here is that I haven't been tracking our play calls because I don't have access to an all-22 angle (overhead view that shows all the players on the field at the same time for the duration of the game).

My biggest gripe about our offense is the very basic, very vanilla passing schemes. I don't think our receivers read the defense or adjust their routes based on what the defense is showing. So if the defense is showing zone, run this set of routes. If the defense is showing man, run this other set. This is obviously much harder to do, but you will see this in high level CFB offenses.

I would like us to incorporate more advanced concepts like Mesh and Flood. Mesh route concepts are essential crossing routes (aka rub routes) scheme designed to create traffic and confusion for defenders, especially effective against man coverage. Flood route concepts are a passing scheme that’s designed to “flood” one side of the field with multiple routes at different depths, creating a high-low read for the quarterback. This is effective against zone coverage since it stretches defenders vertically, making it difficult for one defender to cover multiple levels.

So Mesh beats man. Flood beats zone. (very much simplifying this)

Here is an example of mesh route design using 11-personnel:

The dark green lines are where and how the skill players are supposed to run. The middle is intentionally congested to cause confusion or set picks so that someone will get opened. This type of offense will beat a man defense, especially if the defender is trailing closely.

And here's a flood route design, also in 11-personnel:

The starting formation looks a bit different from what UConn runs, but it's still an 11-personnel set, just condensed. It's a Kyle Shanahan speciality. The idea behind this scheme is to flood one side of the field with different levels of receivers. In all zone defenses there is usually one man per zone area and with this type of concept, there's too many people per zone for a defender to cover.

In the past, we would complain about our WRs never getting open. Part of it is because we don't scheme them to be open. So depending on what the defense shows us, man vs zone, both the skill players and the QB should be on the same page as to what routes to run, dynamically. All this happens pre-snap.

Maybe we do have some of this in our playbook. I don't think so, however. I broke down another of Evers' INT from the Wake Forest game. It seems like our WR routes are set from the start of the play. A lot of Evers' INTs seem to be because the defender knew where he was throwing. Sure, we can say that Evers locks onto his WR, but the particular INT against Wake, that wasn't the case.

With all that said, I didn't write all this just to defend Evers. I just think he's getting a disproportionate amount of the blame when there's multiple ways we can be better as an offense.

 

[maple]

@SuperHuski thank you for the detailed write-up.

I would assume it is standard for FBS level players to learn how to read and react to defensive schemes. However if we're playing more "vanilla", with just one set line-up per snap, would the assumption be that we don't have enough high football IQ players? Or is it more than coaches are just playing it safe? Or something else?

Also, re: our defensive players. Have they been switching schemes depending on what the opposing offense shows at the line? Or is it just more vanilla and they happen to be really good at adjusting on the fly?

 

[AllHusky]

I mean if we are being honest, if a QB isn't able to throw TD passes to receivers in 1 on 1 coverage why is he on the field? Evers problems are the short and intermediate passing game are way too inconsistent.

Not a film breakdown guy, but I feel like over the course of the year there must have upwards of 20 touch passes that Nick couldn't make. He makes half and it changes the trajectory. Cut the WR easy catch drops in half and we are doing ok.

 

[AllHusky]

I'm glad that you guys are finding some value in this. Slow day at work today, so I've been thinking more about how to change up our play design. One caveat here is that I haven't been tracking our play calls because I don't have access to an all-22 angle (overhead view that shows all the players on the field at the same time for the duration of the game).

My biggest gripe about our offense is the very basic, very vanilla passing schemes. I don't think our receivers read the defense or adjust their routes based on what the defense is showing. So if the defense is showing zone, run this set of routes. If the defense is showing man, run this other set. This is obviously much harder to do, but you will see this in high level CFB offenses.

I would like us to incorporate more advanced concepts like Mesh and Flood. Mesh route concepts are essential crossing routes (aka rub routes) scheme designed to create traffic and confusion for defenders, especially effective against man coverage. Flood route concepts are a passing scheme that’s designed to “flood” one side of the field with multiple routes at different depths, creating a high-low read for the quarterback. This is effective against zone coverage since it stretches defenders vertically, making it difficult for one defender to cover multiple levels.

So Mesh beats man. Flood beats zone. (very much simplifying this)

Here is an example of mesh route design using 11-personnel:
View attachment 104477
The dark green lines are where and how the skill players are supposed to run. The middle is intentionally congested to cause confusion or set picks so that someone will get opened. This type of offense will beat a man defense, especially if the defender is trailing closely.

And here's a flood route design, also in 11-personnel:
View attachment 104478
The starting formation looks a bit different from what UConn runs, but it's still an 11-personnel set, just condensed. It's a Kyle Shanahan speciality. The idea behind this scheme is to flood one side of the field with different levels of receivers. In all zone defenses there is usually one man per zone area and with this type of concept, there's too many people per zone for a defender to cover.

In the past, we would complain about our WRs never getting open. Part of it is because we don't scheme them to be open. So depending on what the defense shows us, man vs zone, both the skill players and the QB should be on the same page as to what routes to run, dynamically. All this happens pre-snap.

Maybe we do have some of this in our playbook. I don't think so, however. I broke down another of Evers' INT from the Wake Forest game. It seems like our WR routes are set from the start of the play. A lot of Evers' INTs seem to be because the defender knew where he was throwing. Sure, we can say that Evers locks onto his WR, but the particular INT against Wake, that wasn't the case.

With all that said, I didn't write all this just to defend Evers. I just think he's getting a disproportionate amount of the blame when there's multiple ways we can be better as an offense.

Wow, great stuff. Do you think that Nick has trouble with decision making during the play? I notice alot of times that I end up groaning and saying "how could he throw that, can't he see there is a much better option clearly available"?

Thanks for doing this, very edifying to a person who hasn't coached or played the game.