I agree. I don't think you need to put TK in that situation. He isn't going to keep it, and we are ignoring what KSU's front seven was showing.
I certainly believe Neal didn't help is QB. He made no effort whatsoever on that play. He has a responsibility to read the defense just as much as TK does on that play. He pretty much stood there and watched.
I think Neal is the poster-child for this team when it comes to effort and execution. With a few exceptions they are inconsistent when it comes to effort and execution.
"You get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right."---Penn Jillette
"It's what I do, I drink and I know things."---Tyrion Lannister
This exactly! It was no fluke we went down the field and scored on 3 plays following the pick 6. Josh opened the playbook in order to both respond with points, and to re-inflate TK's confidence. You can claim we might have had that drive w/o the pick 6, but that's unknowable -- I'll just claim with certainty that the pick 6 changed our plan for the next possession and it worked out for us. And TK was sharp the rest of the game.
That's why the 1st and goal at the 4 series irked me the most. You can recover from things that happen early in the game. But in that last series, we knew it could well be our last possession and it turned out that way. We had to get points and even though we had to keep the FG available (sigh), a TD was far preferable given the time remaining. Running into a goal line defense 3 times to prove our diks were bigger smacked of low IQ football.
I can't comment on Neal's effort in general as I haven't watched him closely. But it was certainly poor execution on that play. He made no attempt to create separation on that route. No juke inside and especially, no drive downfield to try to get the corner to turn his hips or at least force him to stop looking at TK. It was just a lazy, rounded off out pattern that allowed the DB to cover him and watch TK at the same time. Hope that's not the way it was drawn up.
Not sure how anyone would assume that if TK did pump fake that Neal would break off his route up field anyway.
Bazinga
I don't either. And I'm not assuming that if my posts implied as much. I would have liked to see a crisper out route on that play and maybe the DB has to start back pedaling. The option I would have expected from TK would be to see the DB has inside position and just air mail the ball high and out of bounds and hope the next play works better.
I'm sure there are plays that would have had a better outcome, but when you start talking about that, you're entering the "It's a great call if it works, it's a terrible call if it doesn't" area.
The corner is lined up in soft coverage, he doesn't jump the route until after the snap, and it's a aggressive/risky play because he was "all in". If TK reads his press, then Neal takes the out and up for a TD. It was just a mistake. Like I said above, even the most veteran players make mistakes, and that was TK's for the day.
Any pass in that area can be risky, which is why Heupel called the option. Ultimately, there's no magic play call there, but I think the call was fine. It just wasn't executed.
I don't give Heupel a pass when he makes bad calls (or has a bad game), but this wasn't one of those situations. The Neal interception and series of plays at the goal line (at the end of the game) were questionable (at best), but overall I thought this was one of Heupel's best games.
I don't understand how people can continue to put the blame on Heupel for that play.
TK has the option to hand off the football (or keep it himself). Hell, he didn't even progress through his reads, he was going to Neal before the ball was snapped. How is that on Heupel?
I know there are plenty of folks unsatisfied with JH, and there's plenty of evidence to back up that criticism, but pointing at this play as being a bad play call seems off base to me. If the play works, nobody gives it a second thought. Nobody.
I'm assuming Neal knows how to play the position (granted, that could be a bad assumption). We coach it in high school, so I'm assuming it's coached at OU, but when the safety on your side commits to the middle of the field (or the run), and the corner presses down, it's an automatic 'go' if the initial route isn't there. At that point, you're in one-on-one coverage, with the CB a step behind. It may not always lead to a TD, but it should always be in the WR's mind.
The only time he doesn't have the option available is when the call is a give to the RB. Since we run from the pistol the majority of time, it looks just like a zone read, but there's never an option for TK to keep the ball. On the run/pass option, TK always has the option to hand off or pass. In fact, we've run that same play in every game this year, and quite a few times against KSU.
Even Cody Thomas ran the play (it resulted in a pass to Shepard). It's not a difficult play, and it's certainly not too complex for Knight. For whatever reason, he didn't see the CB sitting on the route and threw the ball. Just a mistake. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yep. Every single play presents risk the other team will score whether your team is on offense, defense or ST. This play is being picked on because of the outcome. I'm sure there are many other plays we ran with higher than average turnover risk, but it didn't happen so it's not questioned. There are definitely plays that I question such as coaches opting to go for 2 too early in the game. But execute it well and convert the 2 points is the best way to cover up a questionable decision.
That's why the OC position at OU is almost a 'no-win' position. It's probably that way at every program.
When we used Neal to throw the TD against TCU (or WVU, can't remember), I thought "what a great call!". When we used him last week, I thought "what a terrible call!". The truth is, all calls that result in gains are "good", and the ones that don't work are "bad". That's just how we, as fans, view these things. 20/20 hindsight is great that way.
I griped about it against WV also.. I don't like putting the ball in someone else's hands in the RZ..Middle of the field? sure..
The only reason the WV made more sense is that the QB play wasn't as good as it was Saturday.
Bazinga
Where I differ after talking with some former players is putting the blame on JH when 4 people are involved in the play call process..Too many IMO.
Bazinga
Funny, that's exactly how I felt about that play against WVU. Meh, but okay it worked. I was less critical against KSU because it was farther out, but not far enough - agree, it should be near the middle of the field where it's clear they were fooled or not.
But don't get me wrong, I do like gadget plays and think they serve a good purpose outside pure entertainment. They must be used sparingly and in the right situation, not just because it was practiced that week.