First of all, our friend @jack66 did a really good analysis yesterday of the "lull" so here's that link.
https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threa...alled-in-sequences.248561/page-2#post-4372194
I agree with most of what he said and I'll throw in a few things here. First, PSU really didn't play poorly at all in the 3rd and 4th Quarters. But everytime a drive got going, maybe one thing would stall it out. In one case it was the INT on a very poorly thrown ball by Cliff. Hamler was WIDE OPEN and had left the Safety in the dust. If Cliff had led him, it was an easy TD pass/catch.
But there was one play that, as a former OCoord, left me grinding my teeth and muttering about Rahne. That Reverse to Hamler (and IMO it was totally a call for the Reverse and not a read), was simply an AWFUL call at that particular time of the game. PSU was driving once again, running the ball, short passes, and moving in for an inevitable score. So on 1st and 10 at the 22 yardline going in, Rahne called that Reverse, which blew up and lost 8 yards. End of drive.
My thought during the game and even now is, "WTF was he THINKING?" The play call didn't fit the flow of the game. PSU was gashing the right side of the Purdue DLine for 4 - 8 yards at a pop on the ground. So WHY WHY WHY call THAT play? When I talk about "sequencing" plays, THAT is an example of NOT sequencing them. Playcalling is as much an art as it is a science, and the feel and flow of the game at that point in time dictated more runs and short passes...Purdue was on the ropes and going down for the count.
As brilliantly as Rahne had called the game up to that point, THAT play put a damper on his overall effort for the day.
ANYWAY, in subsequent drives PSU had just enough mistakes to stall each time...two holding calls, missed blocks (Miranda didn't have a good game at all), Cliff confused by the coverages, etc. Purdue was shifting their DBs around prior to the snap and Cliff seemed confused in his pass reads. Rahne DID the right thing and started calling a lot of run plays and short passes, which negated any confusion by his QB. But then PSU would take a long shot against what THEY thought was Man Coverage, but actually was a LOT of Zone Coverage, which took away the deep ball.
Finally I think Rahne said, "F-ck it, let's just knock them off the ball and pound the ball downfield." Which they did via the "Cain Train".
But overall, except for that one really poor call, the playcalling was excellent but the execution left a lot to be desired. I don't think the Offense lost total focus. It just seemed that one player at a time screwed up enough to thwart any scoring drives. Too many mistakes, missed blocks by the OLine and the WRs, bad reads by Cliff, etc. PSU could have scored again except for the Levis fumble, and maybe fans would have felt better about a 42 - 7 score as opposed to 35 - 7.
When evaluating a game as it's in progress I always try to remember what a famous college/pro coach told me one time. I was talking to a guy that oldtimers might remember, John Ralston who coached at Stanford and became Dick Vermeil's "mentor" here with the Eagles. Anyway, Ralston told me at a clinic where I was picking his brain to NOT do one thing in particular, and to this day I remember how he told me: "The Number One cause of poor coaching and sexual dysfunction are one in the same...NEVER evaluate the performance DURING the performance." It's sound advice, and it's why I avoid the in-game thread like the plague.
https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threa...alled-in-sequences.248561/page-2#post-4372194
I agree with most of what he said and I'll throw in a few things here. First, PSU really didn't play poorly at all in the 3rd and 4th Quarters. But everytime a drive got going, maybe one thing would stall it out. In one case it was the INT on a very poorly thrown ball by Cliff. Hamler was WIDE OPEN and had left the Safety in the dust. If Cliff had led him, it was an easy TD pass/catch.
But there was one play that, as a former OCoord, left me grinding my teeth and muttering about Rahne. That Reverse to Hamler (and IMO it was totally a call for the Reverse and not a read), was simply an AWFUL call at that particular time of the game. PSU was driving once again, running the ball, short passes, and moving in for an inevitable score. So on 1st and 10 at the 22 yardline going in, Rahne called that Reverse, which blew up and lost 8 yards. End of drive.
My thought during the game and even now is, "WTF was he THINKING?" The play call didn't fit the flow of the game. PSU was gashing the right side of the Purdue DLine for 4 - 8 yards at a pop on the ground. So WHY WHY WHY call THAT play? When I talk about "sequencing" plays, THAT is an example of NOT sequencing them. Playcalling is as much an art as it is a science, and the feel and flow of the game at that point in time dictated more runs and short passes...Purdue was on the ropes and going down for the count.
As brilliantly as Rahne had called the game up to that point, THAT play put a damper on his overall effort for the day.
ANYWAY, in subsequent drives PSU had just enough mistakes to stall each time...two holding calls, missed blocks (Miranda didn't have a good game at all), Cliff confused by the coverages, etc. Purdue was shifting their DBs around prior to the snap and Cliff seemed confused in his pass reads. Rahne DID the right thing and started calling a lot of run plays and short passes, which negated any confusion by his QB. But then PSU would take a long shot against what THEY thought was Man Coverage, but actually was a LOT of Zone Coverage, which took away the deep ball.
Finally I think Rahne said, "F-ck it, let's just knock them off the ball and pound the ball downfield." Which they did via the "Cain Train".
But overall, except for that one really poor call, the playcalling was excellent but the execution left a lot to be desired. I don't think the Offense lost total focus. It just seemed that one player at a time screwed up enough to thwart any scoring drives. Too many mistakes, missed blocks by the OLine and the WRs, bad reads by Cliff, etc. PSU could have scored again except for the Levis fumble, and maybe fans would have felt better about a 42 - 7 score as opposed to 35 - 7.
When evaluating a game as it's in progress I always try to remember what a famous college/pro coach told me one time. I was talking to a guy that oldtimers might remember, John Ralston who coached at Stanford and became Dick Vermeil's "mentor" here with the Eagles. Anyway, Ralston told me at a clinic where I was picking his brain to NOT do one thing in particular, and to this day I remember how he told me: "The Number One cause of poor coaching and sexual dysfunction are one in the same...NEVER evaluate the performance DURING the performance." It's sound advice, and it's why I avoid the in-game thread like the plague.
