Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    19698
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Dahobbs last won the day on September 20

Dahobbs had the most liked content!

Reputation

23030 Surly 1%

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think the call was overly complicated. If the RB lined up on the other side, McDonald would have blitzed, and Taaffe would have rotated over. I think we were trying to trick them and then they played us by leaving our edge unblocked. Again, he is tracking the RB immediately. He isn't doing that as a spy. Whether it was just a stupid design or if McDonald busted and was supposed to rotate immediately rather than show blitz, I'm not sure.
  2. Unfortunately, they're into that.
  3. Nah, he isn't watching the QB. He is looking straight at the running back from the beginning. That's his man. I think what was said earlier is correct: we expected the RB to chip Taaffe to buy time for McDonald to get over.
  4. That would make sense. Taafe turns as soon as it becomes clear the RB isn't chipping.
  5. Honestly, I think is just an example of outsmarting ourselves with the call. McDonald starts running to the back almost immediately, so I have to think it is his man. The pressure look from Taafe was probably supposed to coincide with McDonald rotating over.
  6. Yeah, this one is on Manny. Look how we play it up top and look how Manny responds once the TE passes the LB. He knows he fucked up.
  7. I'm not entirely convinced Taafe is busting. I think that is what he is being told to do. He is attacking too aggressively (and consistently) for me to think it is purely player error.
  8. Watching the replay, it appears to actually be over and past his hands rather than through them. Agree with the Brett Favre-ish analogy, but not necessarily in a bad way. I think Sark would focus on him hitting the corner route that appeared open a moment before he bailed the pocket rather than worrying about that throw.
  9. Where do you see him hating on Arch? I don't understand posts like this. You're seeing something that simply isn't there.
  10. I understand the rule. As Twice indicated, the intent is to identify those sorts of forcible contact that go beyond making a normal football tackle. The examples listed as "indicators of targeting" are meant to be objective indicators of that. I don't think this play qualifies. He didn't lead with his helmet. Contact with the helmet may have been first, but it wasn't because he had his helmet down or out in front such that he was leading with it. His helmet was in a natural position for his body, upright, and his eyes facing forward. If you actually go and look at the NCAA's example books, that sort of play is specifically called out as not targeting. I think the closest indicator the play qualified for is "launching," but even then it wasn't a particular clear example of it.
  11. Contact doesn't make it a penalty. There has to be an "indication of targeting" and there really wasn't. It was a normal football tackle where forcible contact to the head/neck area occurred incidentally.
×
×
  • Create New...