Mercer Press Conference

[The Jackal]

It's not baited into a sucker play. We threw the ball exactly where the play was designed to go.

It is hard to know what would have happened with better throws on both plays. Maybe neither would have been a complete pass. Maybe they both would have been touchdowns. But I've got no issue with the play call, the route, or the decision to whom to throw it. The issue is execution.

[FUBeAR]

It's not baited into a sucker play. We threw the ball exactly where the play was designed to go.

It is hard to know what would have happened with better throws on both plays. Maybe neither would have been a complete pass. Maybe they both would have been touchdowns. But I've got no issue with the play call, the route, or the decision to whom to throw it. The issue is execution.

Kind of some Devil’s Advocate type thoughts on this play/throw…

…cuz FUBeAR is having a hard time rationalizing this…

“Harris has a step on his man, but the ball is so badly overthrown that he's got no chance of even catching it.”

If he had a step on him, how could he have had no chance at catching a ball that is OVERthrown, but was intercepted by the guy that he had a step on?

So…

1) Is it possible that the ‘issue’ here was not so much WHERE the ball was thrown as it was the relative performance (on this play) of the recipient(s) of the throw? Is it possible a 3 year starter CB, with 1 of those years as an All SoCon Freshman Team WR, simply made a better play on a (more-or-less-by-design) 50/50 ball than a True Freshman WR did? If you look when they both come into view to the left of the frame, they are almost shoulder-to-shoulder with the shadow of the ball visible at the Mercer 37 (i.e. thrown way earlier) and both are looking back for the ball. It appears McKee may have picked up the ball faster AND/OR judged the flight of the ball better AND/OR outran Harris to the right spot.

2) Is it possible that the ‘issue’ here was not as much WHERE the ball was thrown as it was WHEN it was thrown? You can see that Harris beats McKee’s press man coverage off the line and we can (almost) see the Safety (in Man Free / Cover 1 coverage, I believe) commits to doubling the post route of the WR from the other side vs. doubling the skinny post Harris ran. FUBeAR had an endzone view of this play & as soon as he saw the Safety commit, he yelled, “GOT ‘EM!” (which roughly translates to “THROW THE BALL TO (grey) #2 RIGHT NOW!”), but the ball did not ‘come out’ for a beat or 2. Now, FUBeAR didn’t have ‘live bullets’ coming at him as #9 did AND FUBeAR doesn’t know the order of primacy of the Retrievers in the route, but he believes IF there was any way the ball could have been delivered a beat or 2 earlier, Harris (probably) would have had a step or 2 on McKee and, worse-case, we would have had an incompletion vs. an interception.

3) Is it possible that the ‘issue’ here was not as much WHERE the ball was thrown as it was TO WHOM it was thrown? As previously noted, FUBeAR believes this is Man Free coverage, but if so, one of the Bears busted the coverage. The Retriever (motioning WR) in the flat on the left is completely uncovered. I think down & distance was 2nd & 8 and, if thrown to, he would need to have run all 8 to pick up the 1st down, but it appears that he could have made it & if he didn’t, we ‘live’ to play another down. Again, route progression may have dictated that Retriever as secondary to the skinny, which, as noted above, was open BEFORE the ball ‘came out.’

So, in conclusion, it’s possible that the ‘issue’ was a combination of all 3 of these suppositions… OR … maybe, it was just a bad throw.

[The Jackal]

It's not baited into a sucker play. We threw the ball exactly where the play was designed to go.

It is hard to know what would have happened with better throws on both plays. Maybe neither would have been a complete pass. Maybe they both would have been touchdowns. But I've got no issue with the play call, the route, or the decision to whom to throw it. The issue is execution.

Kind of some Devil’s Advocate type thoughts on this play/throw…

1) Is it possible that a 3 year starter CB, with 1 of those year’s as an All SoCon Freshman Team WR, simply made a better play on a (more-or-less-by-design) 50/50 ball than a True Freshman WR did? If you look when they both come into view to the left of the frame, they are almost shoulder-to-shoulder with the shadow of the ball visible at the Mercer 37 (i.e. thrown way earlier) and both are looking back for the ball. It appears McKee may have picked up the ball faster AND/OR judged the flight of the ball better AND/OR outran Harris to the right spot.

2) Is it possible that the ‘issue’ here was not as much WHERE the ball was thrown as it was WHEN it was thrown? You can see that Harris beats McKee’s press man coverage off the line and we can (almost) see the Safety (in Man Free / Cover 1 coverage, I believe) commits to doubling the post route of the WR from the other side vs. doubling the skinny post Harris ran. FUBeAR had an endzone view of this play & as soon as he saw the Safety commit, he yelled, “GOT ‘EM!” (which roughly translates to “THROW THE BALL TO (grey) #2 RIGHT NOW!”), but the ball did not ‘come out’ for a beat or 2. Now, FUBeAR didn’t have ‘live bullets’ coming at him as #9 did AND FUBeAR doesn’t know the order of primacy of the Retrievers in the route, but he believes IF there was any way the ball could have been delivered a beat or 2 earlier, Harris (probably) would have had a step or 2 on McKee and, worse-case, we would have had an incompletion vs. an interception.

3) Is it possible that the ‘issue’ here was not as much WHERE the ball was thrown as it was TO WHOM it was thrown? As previously noted, FUBeAR believes this is Man Free coverage, but if so, one of the Bears busted the coverage. The Retriever (motioning WR) in the flat on the left is completely uncovered. I think down & distance was 2nd & 8 and, if thrown to, he would need to have run all 8 to pick up the 1st down, but it appears that he could have made it & if he didn’t, we ‘live’ to play another down. Again, route progression may have dictated that Retriever as secondary to the skinny, which, as noted above, was open BEFORE the ball ‘came out.’

So, in conclusion, it’s possible that the ‘issue’ was a combination of all 3 of these suppositions… OR … maybe, it was just a bad throw.

I do not really disagree with any of this. All could be true.

This appears to be a deep crossing route concept with max protection. I agree with you that it looks like man free coverage. Mercer is putting their best CB (McKee) on Furman's deep threat WR (Harris).

It could be an open question as to whether Mercer's free safety gets out of position. I can see the benefit of sticking with Miller as he crosses the field and bracketing him. I can also see where it's not a great idea to let Harris get behind you. It could be that Mercer played the odds and thought their likelihood of success doubling Miller and covering Harris was better than the opposite.

In terms of who to throw it to, you raise a good point. Even with a better throw this is not exactly a play where Mercer loses track of the deep crossers. The idea behind the concept is you need enough time for these guys to come open downfield. Here, Mercer's got the two deep men pretty well covered.

The question is, then, why not go to the outlet? In my understanding of this route combination, if the downfield crosses are covered then you go to the outlet. It's hard for a defense to cover both the deep and the flat. Instead of a comparatively low percentage throw downfield, why not hit the flanker coming out of the backfield?

[The Jackal]

I should post script that watching these plays is one of the reasons I maintain a relatively positive outlook.

I think the playcall is fine. We have good protection for the QB. The players are going where they are supposed to go. We have open receivers. This isn't a play where Mercer out-recruited us, or needed better facilities, or has better coaches. There's a positive play to be made here, we just didn't make it.

[FU3]

That is one O play of many in a game in which we scored 3 points. My concern is the lack of productivity of our scheme and whether we are utilizing the skill sets of our players correctly (the results would say no). As you have observed we keep failing at the same things over and over and somehow expect them to change.

[The Jackal]

That is one O play of many in a game in which we scored 3 points. My concern is the lack of productivity of our scheme and whether we are utilizing the skill sets of our players correctly (the results would say no). As you have observed we keep failing at the same things over and over and somehow expect them to change.

I think this is a fair criticism. The question that escapes us is "why?"

I was perusing the Tennessee Tech game highlights (I prefer to watch the other team's highlights as it tends to focus on what Furman is doing wrong). There's a great end zone camera angle (0:26) on a terrible play from Furman inside the 5 where the offense managed to avoid disaster.

This is head scratching stuff for me. It appears we are running load option to our right/defense left.

I think I have some issue with the scheme here. This appears to be a load/lead option, though I'm not entirely sure we clearly identify who we are intending to option. We leave unblocked (1) the DE (#55), (2) the S (#20), and (3) the LB (#18). Again, I don't know what the play call his here, but I'm pretty sure we aren't supposed to leave all three of those guys unblocked and then run at them. Our RB and RT, the two primary blockers to the play side, both manage to block nobody.

Again, I think you see a bit of the issue with not having the QB with the run threat. Sisson, as he frequently does, immediately pitches it. I assume that's what our play calls for, because its hard to imagine he's reading #20 and then tries to pitch it while he's draping the running back.

This is the sort of stuff that's killing us. Key down and distance. Need to move the ball. Screw it up. There's a running lane there, but we can't get to it because no-one blocks anyone.

The question that I keep coming back to is whether our coaches are making this unnecessarily complex. Hendrix has mused the same in some of his post game comments - are we asking too much? Should we simplify this sort of play, and let our athletes be athletes. You've got one of the nation's best running backs in the backfield and we can't get him the ball because our blocking scheme is confused and DBs are running free into our backfield.

[Furmanoid]

Maybe we rely too much on our superior intelligence and plan to win with complicated stuff instead of just good blocking and running. Maybe that’s supposed to offset some perceived deficiency in physicality or something. But coaches can sometimes overcomplicate stuff so much that NOBODY, not even our best day school academy guys, can learn it. Especially not when they are also taking real college courses instead of doing FBS coloring books.

[The Jackal]

Maybe we rely too much on our superior intelligence and plan to win with complicated stuff instead of just good blocking and running. Maybe that’s supposed to offset some perceived deficiency in physicality or something. But coaches can sometimes overcomplicate stuff so much that NOBODY, not even our best day school academy guys, can learn it. Especially not when they are also taking real college courses instead of doing FBS coloring books.

I know a lot of what we do is supposed to have a lot of "window dressing," WRs coming out of the backfield, running backs lined up at WR, TEs all over the field, etc.

Sometimes I wonder, though, if we wouldn't be better served to line up and hit someone. If we have to go back to basics, go back to basics. We cannot get on the 5 yard line and run to a side where we don't block three defenders.