CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

3rd and Long is NOT a running down

by Mars · 10/26/2009

Advertisement
M
Mars


Early at UNLV, Anae called for a run on 3rd and 10 near the redzone. BYU gained 3 yards. We kicked a field goal. It was one of my only frustration's that game.



Against SDSU, Anae called for another 3rd and long run. It didn't work then either.



So why should the 3rd and long run play have surprised TCU? It didn't. Of course, add it to the list of things that didn't work against the Horned Frogs (Kind of like how punting the ball away one 4th and 2 from the 50-yard line didn't keep TCU from driving for another touchdown).



So am I wrong to say that "don't run on 3rd and long" is a pretty simple "Football 101" rule? I get that you may want to pull it out of the bag once in a long while, to keep things fresh, mix it up. But three games in a row? I mean, you could at least try a high-risk high-reward run, like a reverse to J.J., but up the gut? Really!?



Again, maybe I'm just an ignorant football fan with a low IQ. I also think interceptions aren't well executed passes, so forgive me for my lack of understanding...
M
mcgregor
Mars wrote:


Early at UNLV, Anae called for a run on 3rd and 10 near the redzone. BYU gained 3 yards. We kicked a field goal. It was one of my only frustration's that game.



Against SDSU, Anae called for another 3rd and long run. It didn't work then either.



So why should the 3rd and long run play have surprised TCU? It didn't. Of course, add it to the list of things that didn't work against the Horned Frogs (Kind of like how punting the ball away one 4th and 2 from the 50-yard line didn't keep TCU from driving for another touchdown).



So am I wrong to say that "don't run on 3rd and long" is a pretty simple "Football 101" rule? I get that you may want to pull it out of the bag once in a long while, to keep things fresh, mix it up. But three games in a row? I mean, you could at least try a high-risk high-reward run, like a reverse to J.J., but up the gut? Really!?



Again, maybe I'm just an ignorant football fan with a low IQ. I also think interceptions aren't well executed passes, so forgive me for my lack of understanding...


This is one of my biggest complaints about Anae. Yes, running on a 3rd and long can stun a defense that is spread out. It can actually be a high-probablity play (which is, from his own words, the hallmark of Anae's offense). But it's only a high-probability play when the defense DOESN'T expect it. Similarly, Anae always tosses the ball on 2nd and short.



This is where Anae fails on game planning. He is failing to see his predictability. You cannot beat athletically superior teams when they know what to expect.
G
Guest
mcgregor wrote:


Early at UNLV, Anae called for a run on 3rd and 10 near the redzone. BYU gained 3 yards. We kicked a field goal. It was one of my only frustration's that game.



Against SDSU, Anae called for another 3rd and long run. It didn't work then either.



So why should the 3rd and long run play have surprised TCU? It didn't. Of course, add it to the list of things that didn't work against the Horned Frogs (Kind of like how punting the ball away one 4th and 2 from the 50-yard line didn't keep TCU from driving for another touchdown).



So am I wrong to say that "don't run on 3rd and long" is a pretty simple "Football 101" rule? I get that you may want to pull it out of the bag once in a long while, to keep things fresh, mix it up. But three games in a row? I mean, you could at least try a high-risk high-reward run, like a reverse to J.J., but up the gut? Really!?



Again, maybe I'm just an ignorant football fan with a low IQ. I also think interceptions aren't well executed passes, so forgive me for my lack of understanding...


This is one of my biggest complaints about Anae. Yes, running on a 3rd and long can stun a defense that is spread out. It can actually be a high-probablity play (which is, from his own words, the hallmark of Anae's offense). But it's only a high-probability play when the defense DOESN'T expect it. Similarly, Anae always tosses the ball on 2nd and short.



This is where Anae fails on game planning. He is failing to see his predictability. You cannot beat athletically superior teams when they know what to expect.


Yes, that is it exactly. It's like Anae has discovered that these "trick" plays often work extremely well, and so ONLY runs them, when in reality they will work much more often if it's not the most common call for that situation.
G
Gunk
Running on third and long only works when you pass on third and long at least 85 percent of the time. When we run almost as much as we pass on third and long, it becomes pretty predictable, as pointed out. What frustrates me even more, is when we run on 1st and 2nd down and don't get much yardage and Anae still chooses to run on 3rd and long..
B
BoiseBYU
Running on third and long can make more sense if you are planning to go on fourth and hopefully shorter...
Advertisement
M
mcgregor
I recall a conversation where Coach Anae was explaining that when playing TCU in 2006 (Beck's career-defining game), he inadvertently thought a 4 and short was in fact a 3rd and short. So he threw a pass to Mike Reed. The defense was completely blown away; they weren't expecting anything of the sort.



Coach Anae made the comment, "They didn't know WHAT we would run after that."



So Anae calls a breakout game off an accident, and has since failed to understand how he called a breakout game.



I probably should stop posting. Sorry, guys.
S
Sammich
mcgregor wrote:
I recall a conversation where Coach Anae was explaining that when playing TCU in 2006 (Beck's career-defining game), he inadvertently thought a 4 and short was in fact a 3rd and short. So he threw a pass to Mike Reed. The defense was completely blown away; they weren't expecting anything of the sort.



Coach Anae made the comment, "They didn't know WHAT we would run after that."



So Anae calls a breakout game off an accident, and has since failed to understand how he called a breakout game.



I probably should stop posting. Sorry, guys.

That's hilarious! In a sort of depressing way. But still funny.
L
Lawboy
It is not just the down and distance calls that are predictable. It is he overall scheme, how BYU uses the field to attack an opponent that is predictable. Let me ask a few questions t oprovide examples:



1) when the ball is on the left hash mark, name the last time that the WR on the far right side of the field was involved in a pass play?

2) Name the last time you saw a WR catch a pass on a slant or crossing pattern, hallmarks of the 80's offense?

3) Name the last time you saw Pitta or George catch multiple passes over the middle? (1 throw to them in the middle all game v. TCU--catch by Pitta for 22).

4) Name the last time you saw a BYU WR in motion?

5) Name the last time you saw a pass pattern where BYU flooded a specific zone with crosses, motion, etc, in order to try to create a mismatch?

6) Name the last time you saw BYU run any type of trick play?



Basically, BYU run their same stuff all game long, and does not alter. They never made TCU adjust once all game long defensively. Not once. TCU ran the same D formation because it worked. Cover 2 zone with the safeties playing wide splits outside to double Pitta and Geoerge, man to man on the WRs all game. TCU knew beofre a play even happened depending on which side of the field the ball was on that they did not have to defend a section of the field. They also knew BYU would not throw over the middle more than 5 yards or so, so they played shallow but wide splits with the safeties who then followed the TE outside for a double team. With Pitta and George schemed out, max was toast. Tendencies covered. BYU never adjusted, just stubbornly ran their same stuff, hoping for a better result. It was foolishness. So eiiher Max can not run through a progression and throw to the whole field, or Coach Anae can not call a game using the whole field. Both?
C
cachevalleycougar
You must not pay attention to some of these...


Lawboy wrote:

2) Name the last time you saw a WR catch a pass on a slant or crossing pattern, hallmarks of the 80's offense? Every game - at least 2 or 3 times. Most of Chambers' catches on the year are slants; he and Thompson caught slants on Saturday, and Hafoka made a great catch on a cross...

3) Name the last time you saw Pitta or George catch multiple passes over the middle? (1 throw to them in the middle all game v. TCU--catch by Pitta for 22). Most games. Almost all of George's catches are over the middle; Pitta catches them all over

5) Name the last time you saw a pass pattern where BYU flooded a specific zone with crosses, motion, etc, in order to try to create a mismatch? Isn't this the whole idea of bunching 3-4 players to one side like they do a handful of times every game; or putting Pitta in the slot?
L
Lawboy
Thompson--1 play Even if it was, and it worked, why run it 1 time for him? The ball was caught outside the numbers, so not sure we can call it a slant. more of a go and sit. Same goes for Hafoka's catch. Outside the numbers near the sideline. Pitta and George do catch balls over the middle. Not the deep middle, which was my point, never a post pattern. They run 5-7 yards and sit usually, or are outs. slants. And tell me when a WR goes deep middle, my other point. Or catches a ball between the hash marks? The point being, WR's pretty much always stay outside, TE's work the middle, but may run an out. And when you can double Pitta and George, and know the WR stay outside, that is easier to defend. And it was. Chambers plays are WR screens typically. The OU fumble was i like that play, never ran it Saturday. But again, addressing how BYU attacks the field. Or doesn't as the case may be. pointing out tendencies. They work v. SDSU, UNM, USU, not so much v. TCU, OU, etc. Even with Collie last year, he pretty much caught every ball on the outside, and rarely went over the middle. Just saying a Jerry rice style drag pattern would be nice occasionally from motion by a WR. Or putting Jacobsen or Chambers in the slot at times to change a formation, as TCU did with Curley. Mix it up. Make them adjust to our formation changes. If there is a slot guy, it is always Pitta or George, not a WR. Always. Again, they knew it, and schemed it, and we did not adjust because we stick with the same things.
Advertisement
G
Gunk
cachevalleycougar wrote:
You must not pay attention to some of these...



2) Name the last time you saw a WR catch a pass on a slant or crossing pattern, hallmarks of the 80's offense? Every game - at least 2 or 3 times. Most of Chambers' catches on the year are slants; he and Thompson caught slants on Saturday, and Hafoka made a great catch on a cross...

3) Name the last time you saw Pitta or George catch multiple passes over the middle? (1 throw to them in the middle all game v. TCU--catch by Pitta for 22). Most games. Almost all of George's catches are over the middle; Pitta catches them all over

5) Name the last time you saw a pass pattern where BYU flooded a specific zone with crosses, motion, etc, in order to try to create a mismatch? Isn't this the whole idea of bunching 3-4 players to one side like they do a handful of times every game; or putting Pitta in the slot?


I might be wrong, but the vast majority of passes to George or Pitts over the middle are on 3rd and long. I swear, if it's 3rd and long and we don't run it, it's a pass up the middle to Pitta or George, usually threaded between two defenders.
M
Mars
BoiseBYU wrote:
Running on third and long can make more sense if you are planning to go on fourth and hopefully shorter...

AMEN and HALLELUJAH!
M
Mars
Lawboy wrote:
And tell me when a WR goes deep middle, my other point. Or catches a ball between the hash marks? The point being, WR's pretty much always stay outside,

I can't remember the last time BYU threw a deep pass NOT down the sideline.
C
Cougarfan87
1988 v. Texas. Sean Covey to Andy Boyce for a touchdown on BYU's first offensive play of the game. Just kidding. It may have been Chuck Cutler.
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.