fake punt call in the illinois game

Donate To GopherHole




C'mon guys, Crawford had a plow attached. The play looked like the offense was in slow motion while the defense was regular speed. I like the aggressiveness, but a gain of over 10 yards plus the yardage from the punting position is probably a big ask from a not-so-fast guy.
 


Fake punts either work because the receiving team doesn't notice.

Or you're toast.

It's not speed as much as if they notice, it's over.
 






Governor Sibley said:
Crawford would've gotten it if #35 would looked back. He had no one else to block.
Click to expand...
This. #35 didn't realize that Crawford decided to run the fake (according to Fleck this is Crawford's call to make, it didn't come from the sideline). Had he realized, he could have just gotten in the way of the Illinois player that made the stop and Crawford would have gotten the first down.

Crawford made the right read and decision, there was only one player that could have stopped it and unfortunately he made the play.
 

PMWinSTP said:
I believe PJ said the punter makes the call based on the situation.
Click to expand...

Yup. PJ basically said that the Punter has a green light to try - IF he sees that the punt return team is doing something in its formation that would create a chance of success. But - Fleck has the right to put on the Red Light if he doesn't want the punter to try. and in this case, Fleck did not put on the Red LIght.

it's like a base-runner in baseball who has the green light to steal a base unless the 3rd-base coach specifically gives him the Stop sign. (this does not pertain to the Twins because they can't run the bases worth a bleep).
 

This didn't bother me. Bert's face was pretty red so I think it bothered him. Maybe that's why it didn't bother me?
 

If it works, that play is a bold stroke of genius.

If it doesn't work, it's a boneheaded clunker. Since it didn't work, we can say it was ridiculous to send a 50 year old punter who runs like molasses going uphill on a designed gadget play without adequate blocking.


Don't tell anyone, but I liked it.
 



I’m sure it’d be a big topic here had we lost…

I personally didn’t love that we went for it in that game situation, BUT I think giving your players the green light to do that demonstrates a trust that I think inspired the response by our offense.
 

PoockItInfor6 said:
I’m sure it’d be a big topic here had we lost…

I personally didn’t love that we went for it in that game situation, BUT I think giving your players the green light to do that demonstrates a trust that I think inspired the response by our offense.
Click to expand...
And in general, over the past 5 years one of my very few frustrations with PJ has been that we’d often go into a shell playing “not to lose”, so fun to see us throwing caution to the wind and playing to win.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
it's like a base-runner in baseball who has the green light to steal a base unless the 3rd-base coach specifically gives him the Stop sign. (this does not pertain to the Twins because they can't run the bases worth a bleep).
Click to expand...
I was given a hard stop after being thrown out at third in two consecutive Legion games 🥳. Those were fun rides home with the coach, my Dad 🤗.
 

If I remember the play correctly it was a backside rusher who got to it. Great play by that guy. On the front side of the fake very thing worked perfectly.
 

Some guy said:
If I remember the play correctly it was a backside rusher who got to it. Great play by that guy. On the front side of the fake very thing worked perfectly.
Click to expand...
Yep, he had to go a long way to make the stop and he was the only Illinois player who had a chance to do it, if he doesn't get there Crawford easily gets the first down. Just a bummer that LeCaptain didn't realize the fake was on as he could have provided the block Crawford needed.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Yep, he had to go a long way to make the stop and he was the only Illinois player who had a chance to do it, if he doesn't get there Crawford easily gets the first down. Just a bummer that LeCaptain didn't realize the fake was on as he could have provided the block Crawford needed.
Click to expand...
Correct. That’s the danger of a “green light” fake.
Although, if everyone knew it was a fake on the punt team they may not have sold it as well and everything could’ve been different.

Wish the illegal formation didn’t happen so it would’ve been 4th and 7 instead of 4th and 12
 

A fake punt is never 100%, but I do like the chances. This one had a 1% failure rate, unfortunately that was the time to not work. Do it again under the right circumstances in my opinion.
 

I didn't like the timing of it, it flipped momentum and that was a lot of yards to get. I like the aggression though and would much rather have an occasional fake at the wrong time than never doing anything aggressive.
 

#2Gopher said:
A fake punt is never 100%, but I do like the chances. This one had a 1% failure rate, unfortunately that was the time to not work. Do it again under the right circumstances in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I have a hard time believing that requiring a punter scampering 22+ yds has a 1% failure rate.

It only took 1 guy to thwart it, what it 2 Illini recognized it?

While not in favor of the call, I still didn't hate it. At least they forced them to start over midfield. Unfortunately it gave Illinois momentum, but the Gophers got it back.

All good.
 

Ope3 said:
I have a hard time believing that requiring a punter scampering 22+ yds has a 1% failure rate.

It only took 1 guy to thwart it, what it 2 Illini recognized it?

While not in favor of the call, I still didn't hate it. At least they forced them to start over midfield. Unfortunately it gave Illinois momentum, but the Gophers got it back.

All good.
Click to expand...
There was a look that they were keying on and they got it. Crawford saw it and made the call. If their backside defender doesn't make a great play it works perfectly. 1% failure rate is probably too low but all the ingredients were there for a successful fake it just didn't work out.
 

If I was the coach with a punt that had a fake option to be determined strictly by the punter mid-play, I would put some hard limit on when to try it based on the distance to the first down. For example, anything over 4th and 7+ would be a red light on the fake regardless of what you see from the defense. When you add in the 15ish yard drop the punter starts with, 22+ yards is just too long to make with any regularity. Unless your punter has well above average speed (for a punter), they stand a good chance of being run down by the other team's defense before making the first down. Just like we saw on Saturday. Punt return teams are usually stacked with guys that have pretty good speed.

So, while the coaches didn't specifically call for the fake punt, they should've told the punter to kick the ball no matter what, IMO.
 

HopHead said:
If I was the coach with a punt that had a fake option to be determined strictly by the punter mid-play, I would put some hard limit on when to try it based on the distance to the first down. For example, anything over 4th and 7+ would be a red light on the fake regardless of what you see from the defense. When you add in the 15ish yard drop the punter starts with, 22+ yards is just too long to make with any regularity. Unless your punter has well above average speed (for a punter), they stand a good chance of being run down by the other team's defense before making the first down. Just like we saw on Saturday. Punt return teams are usually stacked with guys that have pretty good speed.

So, while the coaches didn't specifically call for the fake punt, they should've told the punter to kick the ball no matter what, IMO.
Click to expand...
Someone earlier posted that Fleck said the kicker aways has the green light unless Fleck gives them the hard red light.
 

I mean we could go back and forth on this for days, and I understand what people are saying that the 12 yard distance is a lot to cover, but one of the ideas of a fake punt is that it generally works better when not expected (duh). A 4th and 3 means the defense is much more likely to be defending against one, whereas a 4th and 12 leaves them more susceptible to a fake.
 


I'm always a go-for-it, fake punt, fake kick, onside kick, etc. guy. I have no issue with trying to get the first down. The manner in which they decide to do it, with an old guy who's packing a few more extra lbs. than your average punter attempting an outside run, that's another kettle of fish altogether.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Yep, he had to go a long way to make the stop and he was the only Illinois player who had a chance to do it, if he doesn't get there Crawford easily gets the first down. Just a bummer that LeCaptain didn't realize the fake was on as he could have provided the block Crawford needed.
Click to expand...
The other way of looking at it is that if you have a slow punter running for it, all it takes is one defender to notice.

Don’t mind faking. Like the aggressiveness but a lot to ask athletically of a punter.
 

WoodburyTim said:
The other way of looking at it is that if you have a slow punter running for it, all it takes is one defender to notice.

Don’t mind faking. Like the aggressiveness but a lot to ask athletically of a punter.
Click to expand...
True but there was clearly something in how Illinois was lined up that Crawford was looking for and he saw it so he went for it.

As has been covered, it was Crawford's call. Fleck didn't tell him to do it, also didn't tell him not to do it. He took a chance because he thought he could make it and he would have if LeCaptain makes a block to slow down the only player on the field that had a shot of stopping him.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom