Film Room MJ GIFS from the VT Game

[Rock]

Fwiw, I'm pretty sure that the play calls were not the question. The question was whether the "read" was directed from the sideline in some cases.

Except for the touchdown run, all of the gifs are option plays.

80-85% of them were designed QB runs.
He was never gonna pitch it.. Trust me.

Did he miss reads, sure... but he was keeping the ball most of the time.

 

[bravejason]

Fwiw, I'm pretty sure that the play calls were not the question. The question was whether the "read" was directed from the sideline in some cases.

Possibly, it could have been. I remember some people said that in Nesbitt's first year the reads were pre-determined. I've no idea if that was true of not. Might be a good question for a call-in show.

 

[B Lifsey]

Possibly, it could have been. I remember some people said that in Nesbitt's first year the reads were pre-determined. I've no idea if that was true of not. Might be a good question for a call-in show.

Then, I don't think they would not be reads. They would be designated keeps or pitches...which is what Rock is stating, designated keeps.

 

[bravejason]

80-85% of them were designed QB runs.
He was never gonna pitch it.. Trust me.

Did he miss reads, sure... but he was keeping the ball most of the time.

In the game, sure, I think there were a high percentage of call QB keeps. But not in the gifs above. You wouldn't leave two defenders unblocked on a designed QB keeper unless you knew for sure that the defense was going to defend the dive and the pitch. Moreover, in two of the gifs, the ball was pitched.

Also, a refusal to pitch can be due to the QB being uncomfortable with pitching (a common trait of new QB's), a bad read, or an order from the sideline to keep. It's hard or impossible to tell the difference in a replay.

My belief is that CPJ would not run an option play and the associated blocking scheme without confidence that the QB would make the reads. If the QB isn't making the reads (e.g., he keeps regardless) or misses lots of reads, then the QB isn't going to play or the play calling and blocking schemes are going to change.

 

[bravejason]

Then, I don't think they would not be reads. They would be designated keeps or pitches...which is what Rock is stating, designated keeps.

Seeing that Rock liked your post, it sounds like we have a difference of terminology. To me a pre-determined read is when the QB is told what to do when he would otherwise have a post-snap choice. For example, the play call is triple option, but the QB is instructed to give/keep/pitch regardless of the defense's reaction.

If the play is to be a designated keep or pitch, then you would run a specific, non-option play to that effect. It may look like option, but it isn't option and the blocking scheme changes accordingly. The QB follow, is a good example. It looks like option keep, except there are no unblocked defenders.

 

[Rock]

In the game, sure, I think there were a high percentage of call QB keeps. But not in the gifs above. You wouldn't leave two defenders unblocked on a designed QB keeper unless you knew for sure that the defense was going to defend the dive and the pitch. Moreover, in two of the gifs, the ball was pitched.

Also, a refusal to pitch can be due to the QB being uncomfortable with pitching (a common trait of new QB's), a bad read, or an order from the sideline to keep. It's hard or impossible to tell the difference in a replay.

My belief is that CPJ would not run an option play and the associated blocking scheme without confidence that the QB would make the reads. If the QB isn't making the reads (e.g., he keeps regardless) or misses lots of reads, then the QB isn't going to play or the play calling and blocking schemes are going to change.

Not hard to tell the difference when you know what was called.

 

[Rock]

In the game, sure, I think there were a high percentage of call QB keeps. But not in the gifs above. You wouldn't leave two defenders unblocked on a designed QB keeper unless you knew for sure that the defense was going to defend the dive and the pitch. Moreover, in two of the gifs, the ball was pitched.

Also, a refusal to pitch can be due to the QB being uncomfortable with pitching (a common trait of new QB's), a bad read, or an order from the sideline to keep. It's hard or impossible to tell the difference in a replay.

My belief is that CPJ would not run an option play and the associated blocking scheme without confidence that the QB would make the reads. If the QB isn't making the reads (e.g., he keeps regardless) or misses lots of reads, then the QB isn't going to play or the play calling and blocking schemes are going to change.

In the game yes. GIF's no.
The game plan was for him to run it most of the time.

 

[Rock]

And that is my last post on the subject.
You guys are guessing and I KNOW what was called and the plan was.

Good day.

 

[AE 87]

80-85% of them were designed QB runs.
He was never gonna pitch it.. Trust me.

Did he miss reads, sure... but he was keeping the ball most of the time.

80-85% of the plays in the gifs? Obviously, we ran a lot of straight follow plays. Discussion is this thread was about the plays in the gifs.

 

[Rock]

80-85% of the plays in the gifs? Obviously, we ran a lot of straight follow plays. Discussion is this thread was about the plays in the gifs.

no in game. sorry.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

My understanding is that if the O-lineman is bypassing the D-lineman, then it cannot be a chop block even if there is incidental contact or if the D-lineman engages the bypassing O-lineman. In the past, this has been a point on which CPJ has had to educate the officials. Possibly this was also a source for some of the chop block complaining (probably a distant second behind the misuse of 'chop' to refer to all forms of low blocking). People were seeing the high-low contact, but missing the fact that the high blocker wasn't engaging the D-lineman. That said, the refs sometimes call chop blocks that aren't and sometimes don't call chop blocks that are. However, I don't see how you can't keep the OG's at home to avoid the possibility of phantom chop clock calls without fundamentally altering the offense.

I found this recent rule modification concerning chop blocks:

2-3-3 – Chop Block
It is not a chop block if the blockers opponent initiates the contact.

http://miaa.net/gen/miaa_generated_bin/documents/basic_module/2015_NCAAMIAA_Football_Rules.pdf

That said, it's a judgement call on the refs part as to who initiates contact. Unfortunately, far too many chops have been called on us when the defense has initiated contact or even held our blocker who is charging to the next level.

In addition to the subjectivity involved, the refs are conditioned to look for it even when it's not there thanks to all the whining and belly aching of opposing coaches, fans and tv commentators. In that light, I think it would be much better if we attacked high with the blocker that is now going low. Then there is no way a poor judgement by an official can kill a play/drive that may affect an outcome.

 

[bravejason]

I found this recent rule modification concerning chop blocks:

2-3-3 – Chop Block
It is not a chop block if the blockers opponent initiates the contact.

http://miaa.net/gen/miaa_generated_bin/documents/basic_module/2015_NCAAMIAA_Football_Rules.pdf

That said, it's a judgement call on the refs part as to who initiates contact. Unfortunately, far too many chops have been called on us when the defense has initiated contact or even held our blocker who is charging to the next level.

In addition to the subjectivity involved, the refs are conditioned to look for it even when it's not there thanks to all the whining and belly aching of opposing coaches, fans and tv commentators. In that light, I think it would be much better if we attacked high with the blocker that is now going low. Then there is no way a poor judgement by an official can kill a play/drive that may affect an outcome.

I don't disagree. Though, in some cases I don't know that blocking high is feasible. For example, I'm not sure that the OT can reliably get in front of 3-tech DT in order to block him high, not with wide linemen splits anyway. If he tries to block high from the side, he might wind up pushing the DT into the play instead.

Eventually, I think either the rules or the officiating will make cut blocking infeasible or outright impermissible and at that point the offense will evolve or be abandoned (certainly, it has evolved already to work at those high schools where cut blocks prohibited). I suspect that CPJ has thought about running the offense without the cut blocks, but as far as I can tell he and Sewak aren't going to remove cut blocks until it becomes necessary to do so. Maybe it's no big deal either way, but obviously they think continuing to cut is preferable at this point.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I don't disagree. Though, in some cases I don't know that blocking high is feasible. For example, I'm not sure that the OT can reliably get in front of 3-tech DT in order to block him high, not with wide linemen splits anyway. If he tries to block high from the side, he might wind up pushing the DT into the play instead.

Eventually, I think either the rules or the officiating will make cut blocking infeasible or outright impermissible and at that point the offense will evolve or be abandoned (certainly, it has evolved already to work at those high schools where cut blocks prohibited). I suspect that CPJ has thought about running the offense without the cut blocks, but as far as I can tell he and Sewak aren't going to remove cut blocks until it becomes necessary to do so. Maybe it's no big deal either way, but obviously they think continuing to cut is preferable at this point.

You don't have to remove them completely. Just avoid them when blocking someone being scraped or passed.