Hunts' Interception

After watching the game highlights over and over, my impression from the live broadcast was confirmed. Darian moved left and as he was moving initially, Cates was a way further outside, and not even in the TV picture when Darian pitched the ball. The play was zone option. The only Rider near Hunt was Joel Bell, who was behind Hunt. Darian pitched it directly to Hunt. How could DD not see there was no eligible Rider receiver within 5 yards?
I firmly believe that Doug Berry has ruined the confidence that coaches Lapo and Austin built in DD. Ken Miller is a great OC but he is very weak as a HC. He may have been nominated twice for HC honors, but that is not necessarily because of his coaching, but because of the players execution in 2008 and 2009. Now we have the Winnipeg buffoons for coaches and GM.

It was a broken play. I think that Stu Foord should have been the recipient of the shovel pass but I think he missed the call. As for Hunt he was in the backfield untouched and should have been blocked. Shovel pass plays are dangerous at the best of times and require have to be executed with precision in order to succeed.

no, Durant didn't look before he pitched it. he assumed that Cates was there.

if Durant had actually LOOKED! before he pitched he would have realized that Cates wasn't there!

but he took it for granted.

Sounds like a Kevin Glenn special to me :wink:

That play is designed to be automatic. The shovel recipient is supposed to be there, Durant shouldn't really have to look, because somebody is supposed to be there. Looking back, we never had much success in recent years with this play. I don't blame anybody specifically because I don't know.

Unless you're in the Rider meetings before and after this play, then there's no way anybody really knows who was at fault . . . Therefore blame a coach?

That blame works if you want to, but even still, that play might've worked perfectly in practice. BC just dominated our O-line (that never happens :roll: ) too much and destroyed the play's potential.

Agreed. The beauty of a play like this is that the QB is not remotely looking at the receiver. That is supposed to be what throws the D off. It is high risk - high reward. If it works, it is a big play...if it is broken up...well...you see what happens.

This play should be scrapped from our playback, it was intercepted against Montreal earlier in the year as well, and those are the only two times I can recall it being run.

I have recalled seeing the offence run it successfully before (more than once); they've run it with Cates, and sometimes with Dressler. I am beginning to wonder about the football knowledge of someone who blames a coach when a shovel pass play goes awry--the person to blame here is the prospective receiver who had a brain fart and was not where he was supposed to be when Darian turned to throw it!! The moment it happened I right away said, "The receiver was not where he was supposed to be!!" My friend watching the game with me said that he thought it was just an improvised play out of something else, but when I pointed out the details of the formation, he had to agree with me that it was a planned shovel pass...but you cannot blame the coach when the receiver makes a goof like this one was...!

agreed.

They actually run this a fair amount. for sure once every couple games....I would say more.

Nobody seems to mind it when it works. It just doesn't get attention until it fails. I would say that if anything it has been run so much that D that study the footage are starting to recognize it.

I say keep it. It works more times then it doesn't. Need AS MUCH variety as possible in our play calling.

No one is criticizing the play. It is the execution. And for some peoples education, the QB has to read the DE or outside backer, but he also has to see the receiver and time it perfectly. To suggest it is a blind automatic pitch is JUST NOT TRUE. Any one who has played the position knows both elements are absolutely necessary!!

I agree...No one was criticizing the play itself (I was criticizing the execution of it right from the start!) But if you look at this whole thread, what do we see in the first post? Not just criticism of the execution...but criticism of the coach as well. And my point is this: that has nothing to do with the problem of execution that took place with this play. And I certainly wouldn't call on a coach to remove it from their playbook just because it was on this occasion not executed properly.