»
Topic: New Story: Cover 11? Mannequin Challenge play? Venables and players explain unusual play
Replies: 45   Last Post: Dec 6, 2016 6:46 PM by: Spud®
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 45  

New Story: Cover 11? Mannequin Challenge play? Venables and players explain unusual play


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 1:01 PM
 

 
Cover 11? Mannequin Challenge play? Venables and players explain unusual play

Mannequin challenge. Cover 11. Whatever you want to call it, it didn’t work. Late in the third quarter of Saturday's ACC Championship Game victory over Virginia Tech, the Hokies trailed 35-14 and faced a 3rd-and-9 with their season on the line. Full Story »



I was wondering how many "Alligators" they were counting to.

[2]
Posted: Dec 5, 2016 1:12 PM
 

Or is it "Mississippis"?


Re: I was wondering how many "Alligators" they were counting to.


Posted: Dec 6, 2016 6:33 PM
 

You people critiquing a win with almost if's and buts We won The OC play calling is not killing us we have scored a lot of points and defense missed an assignment but I am sure all of these former All Pro players and coaches commenting on this thread with their years of experience of playing and coaching are all UN-defeated A BUNCH OF DUMB A$$'S


Re: New Story: Cover 11? Mannequin Challenge play? Venables and players explain unusual play

[2]
Posted: Dec 5, 2016 1:13 PM
 

Gotta love Boulware. "30 seconds to throw to a 7'5" guy." Tigers keep it fun, but I want my hair back.


Dumnest call in the HISTORY of college football

[3]
Posted: Dec 5, 2016 1:28 PM
 

3rd & 12. Had them on their heels. They had all but given up! No momentum at all. Then they threw up a prayer because THAT play gave Evans 15 seconds to survey the field. Gave them a spark, some hope. Bought them almost all the way back. Almost got so cute, it cost a chance at the playoff. Not just you though, coach V. The offensive coordinators went against their credo. Take what the defense gives you. Well, all night there were 8+ men in the box. Once Foster started dialing up,pressure the ONLY pressure beating calls I saw was a few quick slants. You kept trying to run up the gut against 8+ in the box. Kind of like banging your head against a block wall. When you have that type of front PLUS blitzes you run quick slants plus screens. Pressure beaters. There's a LOT to clean up if we don't want an early exit from the playoff. You know Fuente said in the post game press conference he was going for two for sure on that last drive. I'm not so sure he wouldn't have gotten it. I saw complacency when we got a 21 point lead. Then, they took all the momentum. We had a hard time taking it back. I had hoped Dabo had learned the lesson of taking his foot off the gas with a lead. He has to stop this! He needs the killer instinct!
That's all I have to fuss about! Great win! Now, we need to keep piling up ACC titles to build the lead bigger over the semi holes from Tallahassee. Great to be on top again! If we play two complete games, and Dabo keeps his foot on the pedal we celebrate! Hope to see you guys in Tampa!


Re: Dumnest call in the HISTORY of college football


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 1:29 PM
 

Dumbest can't believe spell check didn't get that. It sure changes everything else without my permission


Nope...."Merriweather".***


Posted: Dec 6, 2016 6:46 PM
 



2018 white level member

No . . .

[1]
Posted: Dec 5, 2016 1:31 PM
 

I mean, your points are good. All of them. But that wasn't nearly as dumb as deciding to call a pass play (or option, whichever it was) on SECOND AND GOAL AT THE THREE WITH 6 minutes left and an 8 point lead against Pitt. DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB!!!


Re: No . . .


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 2:45 PM
 

Unfortunately, Clemson could not run the ball at all against Pitt, forcing DW4 to throw a gazillion passes.


Yes, it was DUMB.

[1]
Posted: Dec 5, 2016 3:44 PM
 

Clemson didn't need a TD. Run the ball twice and the clock. Then kick a FG. About 4 minutes would be left with an 11 point lead. Game over.


Re: Yes, it was DUMB.


Posted: Dec 6, 2016 3:54 PM
 

You are right. A field goal would have sealed the victory..... well, maybe. An 11 point lead in that game, the way the defense was playing. Who knows? But it sure would have increased Clemson's chances of winning quite a bit.


Re: No . . .


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 5:33 PM
 

Or the same game where we are 4th and an inch at the goal line and run a play out of the frickin shotgun!!??!!


If you really believe that, google Kevin Steele Baylor

[2]
Posted: Dec 5, 2016 1:33 PM
 

fumble.


Not even close tot he dumbest

[2]
Posted: Dec 5, 2016 2:06 PM
 

It was a bad call because the DB/LB that was supposed to blitz didn't. It wasn't really that unusual a call, but it looks crazy because the DB/LB read screen way too early and never followed through with their blitz.

Venables is taking the blame not really for the call, but for not having the team ready to execute it. Hence it shouldn't have been called if not everyone was on the same page.

But I've seen much dumber play calls. The Kevin Steele one mentioned in this thread is perhaps the worst.

2018 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg


Here's that Baylor play


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 2:14 PM
 

https://youtu.be/BUNaarTm7n4?t=262

In case the time doesn't come through it's at 4:22

And an article on the call:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/ten-years-ago-today-unlv-beat-baylor-100-yard-fumble-return-thomas

2018 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg


Maybe the "dumnest" call but not


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 2:17 PM
 

.as "dumn" as that spelling of dumbest :)

By the way, saying it almost cost our shot at a playoff is dumn too.

Please find more significant things to fuss about, or perhaps take the high road and just take joy in the win. It's not like we have to find something to complain about every game and use hindsight to second guess calls.. even in victory.


Re: Maybe the "dumnest" call but not


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 2:22 PM
 

Right - one play doesn't cost you a game (or playoff spot in this case). Hey, at least they were all responsible enough to admit how stupid it was and to make pretty clear we won't be seeing that again!


Re: Maybe the "dumnest" call but not


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 3:32 PM
 

That field goal against NC State would have....I do get your point...


Re: Maybe the "dumnest" call but not


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 5:23 PM
 

But if some of this stuff we complain about, they will cost us a game in future games if it isn't fixed by like yesterday!!!

2018 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: Dumnest call in the HISTORY of college football

[1]
Posted: Dec 5, 2016 5:14 PM
 

I think that I called every run play except for a couple, and one of those DW4 threw it to Gallman with him in coverage over toward the side lines and he got no where, maybe a yard. I know our OC's are good couches, but our play calling needs a ton of work bc our play calling couldn't get in a play calling book for absolute Rookies!!!

2018 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: Dumnest call in the HISTORY of college football


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 11:27 PM
 

The fake handoff then deshaun keeper then short pass over to Gallman work d really good. Had them totally faked out.


Re: Dumnest call in the HISTORY of college football


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 5:59 PM
 

I assume the college team you coach is undefeated!


Re: Dumnest call in the HISTORY of college football


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 11:04 PM
 

Yep, our OC play calling has gotten predictable and stubborn. It's gonna cost us. We've got to upgrade


I still don't see the wisdom in that . . .

[1]
Posted: Dec 5, 2016 1:28 PM
 

I mean, as coaches, do they not talk to the offense about sometimes having multiple options in a particularly quirky or rare formation? Was it ENTIRELY unforseeable that VT might have, say, an A option and a B option for that play? Anything else at all? I get protecting against what you guess will be a tendency . . . but no blitzing at all? None? I mean, crap, Jerod had what, about three hours to decide back there?

For goodness sake, it's 3rd and 9. Why not blitz at least a bit, just to force the decision to be quick and the target more shallow.


He said it was "supposed to be" a zone blitz, which if


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 1:36 PM
 

executed correctly could have need a good call. Thankfully it didn't cost the team the game.

2018 student level member

You are right sir . . . that will


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 1:54 PM
 

teach me to only read half the article!


Re: I still don't see the wisdom in that . . .


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 6:00 PM
 

It was a zone blitz where the blitzer missed the read


The photo for this is perfect

[1]
Posted: Dec 5, 2016 1:30 PM
 

Our guys back there looking like, "What do we do? What do we do?" And their quarterback back there, both feet on the ground, calmly taking his time and looking at his receivers, saying, "Do I throw to him? How bout him - nah. Maybe him? Maybe over there? I like THAT guy - here it comes!"

So has this made ESPN's Not-Top-10 plays?


I know, right? Doesn't it sort of look

[1]
Posted: Dec 5, 2016 1:32 PM
 

like Jerod is posing for a photo? LOL.


Looks like he's signaling a waiter


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 2:15 PM
 

or maybe playing "eanie-meanie-miney-moe" with his receivers...

either way, he didn't catch a tiger by the toe, he got a full fist of ****s!


Re: The photo for this is perfect


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 1:59 PM
 

More like ESPN's "You had one job" segment.


Re: New Story: Cover 11? Mannequin Challenge play? Venables and players explain unusual play


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 2:15 PM
 

Hate to offer a negative thought in the middle of all of our excellent accomplishments thus far, but what is our problem with containing opposing offenses midway through 3rd quarter and all of the 4th quarters? Back in the late 90s and early 2000s, I used to root for the Tigers to get up by 3 scores, to avoid a loss. Maybe those years continue to haunt me, but starting to feel like that again. Good thing that we have the talent that we do on offense to score quickly. But a few times, that hasn't gone well for us - Pitt, for example. Thankfully - it's our sole blemish on the year. Is it the type of defense we play at those points in the game? Or are we simply not playing as well at those points? The secondary is what sticks out to me versus the D-line. I hope it's something we focus on - it seems to be our biggest weakness and we don't have many. Go Tigers!


you really think so coach ??***


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 2:31 PM
 




BUT...if VTEC had thrown a screen and our D knocked the ball

[1]
Posted: Dec 5, 2016 2:43 PM
 

down or intercepted it, it would have looked like a great call.

2018 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

it probably would have been a great call if the player that


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 3:21 PM
 

was supposed to blitz read his keys and blitzed. but everyone makes mistakes. Just watch a Panther game or two, you'll see mistakes all over the place on defense.


Re: it probably would have been a great call if the player that


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 3:32 PM
 

Those kind of mistakes may be gotten away with against Northwestern and VaTech, but probably not against
Ohio State.


Or had Ryan Carter run around the receiver and picked it...


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 6:37 PM
 

instead of waiting behind him to make the tackle...

It's not like he didn't have about 5 seconds with the ball in the air to run around and make a play.

All-in-all, though, the Cover 11 was a "cute call." We don't need cute calls. Keep doing what got you a 21-point lead. It ain't rocket science.

2018 orange level member

Had Ryan Carter picked it...or tackled the tall guy!


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 9:17 PM
 

Sometimes the best play a DB can make is to just tackle the guy before the ball gets there--it would have turned a 42 yard completion into a 15 yard penalty! Move on without as much momentum hopefully...


Re: New Story: Cover 11? Mannequin Challenge play? Venables and players explain unusual play


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 4:28 PM
 

The best thing about this play is that we will never use it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

military_donation.jpg

Re: New Story: Cover 11? Mannequin Challenge play? Venables and players explain unusual play


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 4:29 PM
 

The best thing about this play is that we will never use it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

military_donation.jpg

Re: New Story: Cover 11? Mannequin Challenge play? Venables and players explain unusual play


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 4:49 PM
 

True. It does give one a laugh to look at it ii. Hindsight.


Re: New Story: Cover 11? Mannequin Challenge play? Venables and players explain unusual play


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 4:49 PM
 

True. It does give one a laugh to look at it ii. Hindsight.


Re: New Story: Cover 11? Mannequin Challenge play? Venables and players explain unusual play


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 5:02 PM
 

I'm not and never have been a coach, but, IMO Carter should have tackle that 6'7" receiver as soon as he saw the ball was coming to him. Anything over 15 yard gain, our guy should be getting a PI call against on that play when he is that overly matched behind a big 6'7" receiver as good as that one is. I know they all are taught not to interfere with a receiver, but when it's a gain that big, I say put him on the ground before the ball lands in the receivers hands, Just my opinion!!!


Message was edited by: allorangeallthetime52®


2018 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Not just your opinion... mine, too


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 6:41 PM
 

Either knock him down, or run around him and pick the #### ball. Don't just wait behind him to (maybe) make the tackle after a 50 yard gain.

2018 orange level member

Here's the difference between Fuentes and E-Scott


Posted: Dec 5, 2016 5:53 PM
 

they obviously did a good job of self-scouting, which has been one of our problems on offense all year. That isn't to say E-Scott are poor OC's but I'm still not sold they are on elite level. Perhaps with some more time, they will be. In fairness, I will say I thought a few of our plays were very well designed as well.
Thankfully we have ample talent to make enough plays in critical situations but would like some more creativity on the offensive side at times.
Give VT credit though, really a scrappy and fairly talented team.

2018 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgtbn_110.gif

Re: New Story: Cover 11? Mannequin Challenge play? Venables and players explain unusual play


Posted: Dec 6, 2016 12:06 PM
 

Keep the pressure on, and that's the difference between Venables and a Saban coached team.
We could have sealed the deal with that play.

2018 white level member

Replies: 45  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: South Carolina
FOR SALE: 2-4 tickets together in the lower deck north or south stands great seats in sections: UI(4), UL(4), ...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
5358 people have read this post