Why Didn't We Give Hill The Ball At The 5??

[BFritz21]

On the drive that ended in Dalton's interception, we had the ball on first down on their 5 yard line, ready to punch it in.

First off, why were we in the shotgun all three plays?

Second, why did we pass all three plays?

Third, why wasn't Hill in the game?

Fourth, why didn't we give Hill the ball three times from the 5?

Put him behind a fullback and run him off-tackle and I dare any defense to try and stop him three times.

I love Gio and love his role, but sometimes you need to play big boy power football.

Is it because of Hill's fumbling? At some point, Marvin has to start trusting him again, especially when it means that not trusting him leaves points on the field and, even worse, results in a turnover.

[bengals73]

(11-03-2015, 11:37 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: On the drive that ended in Dalton's interception, we had the ball on first down on their 5 yard line, ready to punch it in.

First off, why were we in the shotgun all three plays?

Second, why did we pass all three plays?  

Third, why wasn't Hill in the game?

Fourth, why didn't we give Hill the ball three times from the 5?

Put him behind a fullback and run him off-tackle and I dare any defense to try and stop him three times.

I love Gio and love his role, but sometimes you need to play big boy power football.  

Is it because of Hill's fumbling?  At some point, Marvin has to start trusting him again, especially when it means that not trusting him leaves points on the field and, even worse, results in a turnover.

I think we were all wondering that .. I know I was furious when Andy got picked off in the end zone .. At LEAST run it twice and then pass - if that doesn't work kick the FG

[djs7685]

If Hill ran into a wall of defenders 3 times in a row, you and others would be complaining that we played too conservatively and that Hue and Marvin are idiots for not being more aggressive near the goal line.

It's a lose-lose situation when it comes to the playcalling for just about every NFL fanbase. There will be a section of the fans that always think the call was "wrong" no matter what. The facts are out there that Hill has had his obvious struggles and that Andy and the passing game has been one of the very best in the league this year. I have no issue with calling passing plays out of the gun in that situation.

[bengals73]

(11-03-2015, 11:44 AM)djs7685 Wrote: If Hill ran into a wall of defenders 3 times in a row, you and others would be complaining that we played too conservatively and that Hue and Marvin are idiots for not being more aggressive near the goal line.

It's a lose-lose situation when it comes to the playcalling for just about every NFL fanbase. There will be a section of the fans that always think the call was "wrong" no matter what. The facts are out there that Hill has had his obvious struggles and that Andy and the passing game has been one of the very best in the league this year. I have no issue with calling passing plays out of the gun in that situation.

I normally don't say anything about the play calling.. I would have liked to see a run there since Hill had been doing pretty good running the ball.  Guess in the end it doesn't matter because they came away with the W

[djs7685]

(11-03-2015, 11:48 AM)bengals73 Wrote: I normally don't say anything about the play calling.. I would have liked to see a run there since Hill had been doing pretty good running the ball.  Guess in the end it doesn't matter because they came away with the W

I'm just saying, I'd bet an awfully large amount of money that Brad would have made a thread called "Why did we get so conservative at the 5?!?!?!" had we been stifled 3 straight times trying to pound it in with Hill fumbling on the 3rd try.

Meh. Maybe not though since it was Hill and Brad thinks we need to give Hill the ball at any cost, whether our offense is really clicking without him or not. (here's where he flips out claiming that I'm "making up bullshit" because he never said the exact words that I'm joking about him saying in the exact order that I have them written)

[XenoMorph]

(11-03-2015, 11:54 AM)djs7685 Wrote: I'm just saying, I'd bet an awfully large amount of money that Brad would have made a thread called "Why did we get so conservative at the 5?!?!?!" had we been stifled 3 straight times trying to pound it in with Hill fumbling on the 3rd try.

Meh. Maybe not though since it was Hill and Brad thinks we need to give Hill the ball at any cost, whether our offense is really clicking without him or not. (here's where he flips out claiming that I'm "making up bullshit" because he never said the exact words that I'm joking about him saying in the exact order that I have them written)

yep thats the way it works... when something doesnt work hinesight is easy to call it out... Someone would have started that thread though

[Goalpost]

Andy has been reading defenses and doing a lot of adjustments this year. This looked like one of them, where he saw Green in single coverage and chose that option 1st. It just didn't work this time.

[Sovereign Nation]

This might help a bit in understanding the reason for passing in that situation.

Clock Management.

We were down 4 points. 2 field goals to take the lead. It was halfway through the 4th quarter so we wanted to be aggressive but also thinking about conserving time if we needed it.

So if we pass 3 times and INC, the clock is stopped all 3 times. We kick a FG and now down by 1 point. Defensively we knew we could get the ball back and if nothing else get back down field for another FG to go up by 2 and hopefully kill as much time in the process as we could.

If the Steelers were to score a TD after the 1st field goal they would have only been up by 8, basically we didn't stop them defensively, then we would have had the time to go down and score a TD and 2 point to tie it.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-03-2015, 11:44 AM)djs7685 Wrote: If Hill ran into a wall of defenders 3 times in a row, you and others would be complaining that we played too conservatively and that Hue and Marvin are idiots for not being more aggressive near the goal line.

It's a lose-lose situation when it comes to the playcalling for just about every NFL fanbase. There will be a section of the fans that always think the call was "wrong" no matter what. The facts are out there that Hill has had his obvious struggles and that Andy and the passing game has been one of the very best in the league this year. I have no issue with calling passing plays out of the gun in that situation.

Well I would have certainly liked to see at least one running attempt instead of that 10% chance fade to AJ on 1st down. 

[djs7685]

(11-03-2015, 12:32 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well I would have certainly liked to see at least one running attempt instead of that 10% chance fade to AJ on 1st down. 

I don't think it would have been wrong to try the run there either, I just really don't think throwing the ball 3 times is such terrible playcalling as some do.

Hindsight is 20/20 with a lot of people. If the third pass was a TD instead of an INT, this thread doesn't exist and not 1 person complains about what was called. I just don't see the point in a thread like this when it's just yet another "Hill needs the ball regardless of anything else working" rant from Brad.

[WhoDeyWho]

(11-03-2015, 11:54 AM)djs7685 Wrote: I'm just saying, I'd bet an awfully large amount of money that Brad would have made a thread called "Why did we get so conservative at the 5?!?!?!" had we been stifled 3 straight times trying to pound it in with Hill fumbling on the 3rd try.

Meh. Maybe not though since it was Hill and Brad thinks we need to give Hill the ball at any cost, whether our offense is really clicking without him or not. (here's where he flips out claiming that I'm "making up bullshit" because he never said the exact words that I'm joking about him saying in the exact order that I have them written)

He's been pretty good scoring the ball in the red zone this year.  Couldn't fault them for handing the ball off at least twice after Gio got the first.  

Just stupid play calling by Hue.  For a guy who said we were going to have a physical run identity, we didn't show it there.  

[ItsOdellThurman]

The first play to AJ was rushed and very dumb. Not only did Andy panic and throw it too quick, AJ had single coverage and got the worst possible jump off the LOS possible. He took a slight jam and literally never got more than 3 yards off the LOS when Dalton sailed it 5 yards over his head. You have single coverage on the strong side with a 5'11 CB. At least wait until he's in the end zone and give him a chance to catch it. AJ knows that throw is coming, he needs to be much more aggressive off the line.

[WhoDeyWho]

(11-03-2015, 12:23 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: This might help a bit in understanding the reason for passing in that situation.

Clock Management.

We were down 4 points.  2 field goals to take the lead.  It was halfway through the 4th quarter so we wanted to be aggressive but also thinking about conserving time if we needed it.

So if we pass 3 times and INC, the clock is stopped all 3 times.  We kick a FG and now down by 1 point.  Defensively we knew we could get the ball back and if nothing else get back down field for another FG to go up by 2 and hopefully kill as much time in the process as we could.

If the Steelers were to score a TD after the 1st field goal they would have only been up by 8, basically we didn't stop them defensively, then we would have had the time to go down and score a TD and 2 point to tie it.

Time was not a factor at all in that situation.  

[djs7685]

(11-03-2015, 12:41 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: He's been pretty good scoring the ball in the red zone this year.  Couldn't fault them for handing the ball off at least twice after Gio got the first.  

Just stupid play calling by Hue.  For a guy who said we were going to have a physical run identity, we didn't show it there.  

Andy has been pretty good this year, I'm sure you've noticed, not to mention his full compliment of weapons including a top WR in A.J. Green.

It was just fine play calling by Hue.

[WhoDeyWho]

(11-03-2015, 12:43 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Andy has been pretty good this year, I'm sure you've noticed, not to mention his full compliment of weapons including a top WR in A.J. Green.

It was just fine play calling by Hue.

"Fine" play calling would have at least resulted in a FG.  

[Luvnit2]

(11-03-2015, 11:37 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: On the drive that ended in Dalton's interception, we had the ball on first down on their 5 yard line, ready to punch it in.

First off, why were we in the shotgun all three plays?

Second, why did we pass all three plays?  

Third, why wasn't Hill in the game?

Fourth, why didn't we give Hill the ball three times from the 5?

Put him behind a fullback and run him off-tackle and I dare any defense to try and stop him three times.

I love Gio and love his role, but sometimes you need to play big boy power football.  

Is it because of Hill's fumbling?  At some point, Marvin has to start trusting him again, especially when it means that not trusting him leaves points on the field and, even worse, results in a turnover.

There were 2 key plays on that portion of the drive.
1. The non holding or pass interference call against AJ on 2nd down, 1st he was held 10 yards into the endzone (no contact after 5 yards) and then was pushed out of bounds.
2. The pick was a bad read by AD in my opinion.

But, we should have 1st and goal from the 1 or first and goal from the 2 and half at a minimum.

That was a huge non call and no doubt blown call.

[djs7685]

(11-03-2015, 12:46 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: "Fine" play calling would have at least resulted in a FG.  

Lol.

Did Hue make Andy throw that 3rd pass exactly how he did?

Let's be honest, if that's a better throw and ends up a TD and not an INT, you're not having this conversation with anybody.

Play calling was fine, execution wasn't so hot. Meh. It would have been fine if they tried 1 or 2 rushes as well, but they didn't, and it still wasn't an issue. This is a top notch passing team this year, playing to your strength doesn't seem like such an awful idea.

Hindsight is 20/20 with you too it seems.

[WhoDeyWho]

(11-03-2015, 12:48 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Lol.

Did Hue make Andy throw that 3rd pass exactly how he did?

Let's be honest, if that's a better throw and ends up a TD and not an INT, you're not having this conversation with anybody.

Play calling was fine, execution wasn't so hot. Meh. It would have been fine if they tried 1 or 2 rushes as well, but they didn't, and it still wasn't an issue. This is a top notch passing team this year, playing to your strength doesn't seem like such an awful idea.

Hindsight is 20/20 with you too it seems.

OK.  3 Passes (the last being intercepted) were totally cool given how well the RBs were running the football.  

Got it.  

[djs7685]

(11-03-2015, 12:49 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: OK.  3 Passes (the last being intercepted) were totally cool given how well the RBs were running the football.  

Got it.  

Yes, calling 3 passes was fine when you have one of the best passing offenses in the NFL.

The execution just wasn't there. You can't cry about the OC's calls when it was just flat out poor execution by the players.

Like I said, 1 run/2 pass or 2 run/1 pass would have been a fine choice there too. There are a lot of options when you're that close to the goal line. Not many plays outside of telling the QB to close his eyes, turn around, and kick the ball into the stands is really "bad play calling" in that situation when you have the most efficient passing offense in the NFL and a solid run game.

One of those passes is executed better and we don't have this conversation. If Hill runs up the gut 3 times for 0 yards and a fumble, then we'd have a different conversation about how they were too conservative. OCs are always damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[*ochocincos*]

Pittsburgh is only allowing 3.8 YPA in the run game whereas their pass defense is much worse. From the 5, it wouldn't have exactly been a gimme TD to rush with Hill. Now if it was from the 2, that's a different story and would have made more sense to try and run at least once.