I liked the fake field goal call.

[Palatine]

Fakes are one of those things that are brilliant when they work and a bad call call when they don't. Regardless, I liked the call.

First, it takes guts to make those calls. Never saw one from Edsall or P.

Second, it means we have one in our playbook. And if this is exhibition season, it might help us work out the kinks.

Third, it puts the fake on film for all our future opponents. It will take the reckless abandon out of future opponents rush on FGs. That should help slow it down.

Yeah, it didn't work. But it should pay dividends in the future. And I like the attitude it shows from Diaco.

 

[WestHartHusk]

I didn't like it (certainly not 4th and LONG), and I am confused by it. HCBD is telling us we don't have the personnel to go for the win and that we are working with a pared-down playbook (evidenced by the '22' formation in the 4th quarter), but we are practicing fake FG's? I would much rather that preparation be spent developing an effective play-action and second receiver.

 

[06029]

Fakes are one of those things that are brilliant when they work and a bad call call when they don't. Regardless, I liked the call.

First, it takes guts to make those calls. Never saw one from Edsall or P.

Second, it means we have one in our playbook. And if this is exhibition season, it might help us work out the kinks.

Third, it puts the fake on film for all our future opponents. It will take the reckless abandon out of future opponents rush on FGs. That should help slow it down.

Yeah, it didn't work. But it should pay dividends in the future. And I like the attitude it shows from Diaco.

But the kicker needs work from that hash mark too.

I'm done with discussing the strange calls from the last game. Hopefully next week there won't be so many to discuss.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

You would like it. He needed a million yards. You're asking your back up punter to run a million yards. It was a designed run.

Again he needed a million yards. That play had a zero percent chance of working. Oh but it puts in on film and may give our kicker an extra second. Good Lord.

 

[tiger8mush]

4th & 16, take the 3 points.

That drive started on the UCONN 19. Cochrane got them to the BYU 17 before Whitmer was brought in. 3 consecutive plays Whitmer was flushed ... 1 yd scramble, 5 yd sack, 2 yd sack. Ugh. 4th & 16, cut your losses and get the 3 points.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

4th & 16, take the 3 points.

That drive started on the UCONN 19. Cochrane got them to the BYU 17 before Whitmer was brought in. 3 consecutive plays Whitmer was flushed ... 1 yd scramble, 5 yd sack, 2 yd sack. Ugh. 4th & 16, cut your losses and get the 3 points.

Or just straight up go for it. Much better chance of hitting Davis for 17 yards than asking Feagles to outrun the entire D around the end.

 

[Palatine]

You would like it. He needed a million yards. You're asking your back up punter to run a million yards. It was a designed run.

Again he needed a million yards. That play had a zero percent chance of working. Oh but it puts in on film and may give our kicker an extra second. Good Lord.

I'm not sure it was a designed run. Where did you hear that? I thought we had a guy behind the defense.

Besides, something obviously went wrong. So, if you're judging the decision by results alone, of course, you're right. But also obviously the play designed to pick up 17 yards or it would not have been tried. And the long distance also made it less like to be sniffed out. And as I said, I also appreciate the aggressiveness.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I'm not sure it was a designed run. Where did you hear that? I thought we had a guy behind the defense.

Besides, something obviously went wrong. So, if you're judging the decision by results alone, of course, you're right. But also obviously the play designed to pick up 17 yards or it would not have been tried. And the long distance also made it less like to be sniffed out. And as I said, I also appreciate the aggressiveness.

The only people I saw down the field were linemen. I don't buy the aggressive argument. Going for it on 4 & 3 from your own 20 yard line in the first quarter of a tie game is aggressive, but still dumb.

 

[Dooley]

Or just straight up go for it. Much better chance of hitting Davis for 17 yards than asking Feagles to outrun the entire D around the end.

Agree. We have a better chance at getting the 1st down with Cochran at QB and Davis lined up out wide than we do with a backup punter running a bootleg. Either take the 3 points or keep your offense on the field and go for it.

Ironically, that particular fake FG probably would have worked better in the 4th Q given the yardage needed and the time of game.

 

[joey3$trike$]

It was also Feagles first game, he wanted to make sure he got a participation trophy. One of the worst calls I ever witnessed, high school level type call, especially at my first college game. I lost my after that one (sorry to BYU family up top in sec. 222), if I'd known the game was going to be treated as an exhibition on Espn with National Audience, I wouldn't have gone. Like Coach Edwards said YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME! UGh, I'll save another rant, I think the last 3 years of debauchery and conference realignment, and p5 doing whatever they want, plus Espn Friday night game left me pretty riled up. I did enjoy the kids kept fighting back, something we didn't see too much last year. I understand wanting to see the kids play, just proves to show how bad things really are. I hope things straighten out in time for conference play, I expect an 0-3 start with this exhibition mindset though.

 

[sdhusky]

You would like it. He needed a million yards. You're asking your back up punter to run a million yards. It was a designed run.

Again he needed a million yards. That play had a zero percent chance of working. Oh but it puts in on film and may give our kicker an extra second. Good Lord.

I'm not sure it was a designed run. I think nobody was open.

 

[Jax Husky]

Fakes are one of those things that are brilliant when they work and a bad call call when they don't. Regardless, I liked the call.

First, it takes guts to make those calls. Never saw one from Edsall or P.

Second, it means we have one in our playbook. And if this is exhibition season, it might help us work out the kinks.

Third, it puts the fake on film for all our future opponents. It will take the reckless abandon out of future opponents rush on FGs. That should help slow it down.

Yeah, it didn't work. But it should pay dividends in the future. And I like the attitude it shows from Diaco.

I didn't have an issue with faking instead of the points, but not on 4th and a bazillion. just take the points and the momentum there.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I'm not sure it was a designed run. I think nobody was open.

I'll have to watch the replay. If nobody was open, throw it up for grabs.

 

[BugsyCT]

Wasn't a horrible call to try to be innovative, but it was horribly executed (nobody could even get downfield to catch it for Pete's sake), and against a team like BYU it had next to zero chance of working.

 

[sdhusky]

I'll have to watch the replay. If nobody was open, throw it up for grabs.

That can give up a big play the other way. I have no problem with the fake other than it didn't work

 

[ATLDYKA]

It was still early enough where I would have taken the points. However, the learning thing here and I haven't seen it mentioned is the fact that if you don't make the first down it is going to be a turnover, so why the player just ran out of bounds and didn't atleast throw it up, maybe get a pass interference and maybe a catch and at worse an interception which would have resulted in better field position for us. So to me it's a chance to teach.

 

[Palatine]

Wasn't a horrible call to try to be innovative, but it was horribly executed (nobody could even get downfield to catch it for Pete's sake), and against a team like BYU it had next to zero chance of working.

I agree except I don't see BYU as the 1985 Bears