Musings

This topic has 12 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago by EagleMountainUte.

Viewing 3 reply threads

Author

Posts
- 12/09/2019 at 11:55 AM #116904
  14
  
  Stone
  Participant
  
  The two moments against Oregon that stood out to me as critical were:
  
  1. Utah’s first offensive possession. Granted, it was a quick possession, but everything was clicking so nicely to start. Running well, passing well, moving the chains…. Really tough to have lost that drive on downs close to the red zone. Frankly, I am pretty sure the spot on the 2nd down of the final set of downs was wrong (didn’t seem critical at the moment), and the chains should have moved after that play–which would have eliminated the need for those two short Moss runs (that were stopped by Oregon). Also, on the replays of the 3rd and 4th down, it looked like there were holes open…but for whatever reason, that is not where Moss ran. The way that drive ended was a huge hit because the offense looked so alive up to that point…and did not really look the same after that. The stops on 3rd and 4th down seemed to change the Oregon D’s mentality the rest of the way.
  
  2. When Herbert missed the snap in the second half. Utah had just scored, the defense had been playing really tough, and there seemed to be a momentum shift. Had Utah’s defense (instead of Herbert) recovered that ball, there would have been some very strong momentum in Utah’s favor, and Utah would have been down only 20 to 14. Alas, Oregon recovered and Utah made nothing of the immediately following offensive drive (in fact, Oregon ended up getting a field goal after Utah’s drive stalled).
  
  Ultimately, it was a tough loss to swallow on Friday after the sugarplums that were dancing in our heads (e.g., playoffs, Rose Bowl).
  
  As for the bowl game, we all wanted more, but the angst over UVA and Baylor getting a top bowl is overblown. Those teams got top bowls not because of bias, but because their conference champions are in the playoffs. Utah would be in the Rose Bowl if Oregon had not lost to ASU (because Oregon would have then likely been invited to the playoffs). Because the Pac12 did not get a team in the playoffs, its 2nd place team ends up getting the shaft compared to the conferences that do have a playoff rep.
  
  The Alamo Bowl is a great bowl. Is a matchup with a 7-5 great? Well, again, it is just the way things fell this particular year. The other options, due to bowl tie-ins and the way the Big12 went this year (with only 2 strong teams and one of those teams in the playoffs) left us with the following options: Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State, and Texas. Of those, I gotta say, the Texas matchup is most appealing.
  
  Overall, what a great season! Such a fun group of student athletes. This team has been so fun to follow and support all year. The team obviously has weaknesses, but they were fantastic overall. I do not relate with the meltdowns I saw from some fans, disparaging the o-line, coaches, etc. The team lost in the Pac12 championship and had 11 dominant wins…that does not = awful (as some were saying–get some perspective, people!). This has been a really fun year. Of course, we all wanted more, but only 1 team–the eventual NC–is fully satisfied every year. Aside from the Fiesta Bowl and Sugar Bowl seasons, this has been my favorite year as a Ute football fan.
- 12/09/2019 at 12:07 PM #116905
  
  UtesRock
  Participant
  
  The bad spot on third at the 40, first drive. We went for it on 4th, that however, was a no gainer.
  - 12/09/2019 at 12:42 PM #116908
    4
    
    Stone
    Participant
    
    The unfortunate spot I am thinking of was the pass to Vickers on 2nd down. It was 2nd and 4 to go. Vickers was pushed out of bounds, but it looked like he had made it beyond the chains. Moss then had two runs of no gain.
- 12/09/2019 at 12:33 PM #116906
  1
  
  UteThunder
  Participant
  
  3 things from the game that, if they go differently, would have completely changed the course of that game.
  
  1. The 3rd/4th and short to go situations. If we pick those up, or at least kick the FG on the couple we could have, Oregon doesn’t get so much momentum and we are playing with more confidence.
  
  2. The Breeze targeting that was overturned. That kid made plays the whole game. If the targeting had been upheld, who knows how things would have gone. (I agree with the targeting being overturned, so this isn’t a complaint about the officiating.)
  
  3. The snap that went over Herbert’s head. If we recover that fumbled snap back by the goal line, the game changes completely.
  
  Oh well, Oregon made the plays and we looked like we had already booked our flight for the CFP.
  - 12/09/2019 at 12:40 PM #116907
    4
    
    Stone
    Participant
    
    That’s right, I almost forgot about the Breeze targeting! He was so disruptive in the game, had that call not been overturned, his loss would have been a big deal.
  - 12/09/2019 at 12:46 PM #116909
    3
    
    EagleMountainUte
    Participant
    
    Curious why you don’t think the Breeze hit to Huntley wasn’t targeting? I want to hear your reasons.
    
    Huntley was “defenseless” for this reason: a ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped
    
    Leading with helmet, shoulder forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.
    Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of his helmet.
    
    Breeze keeps his face mask up I could see the defense for overturning it. By rule he should have been ejected. Also the fact that Huntley is going to the ground or being thrown is not a defense it is the way Breeze initiate contacts not Huntley’s defenseless results in being overturned.
    - 12/09/2019 at 12:58 PM #116910
      
      UteThunder
      Participant
      
      In my opinion, the only reason his helmet hit Huntley’s was because Huntley was falling down. In other words, Breeze was coming in lower than head level and had no intention of hitting Huntley high. Huntley fell into the line of fire, so to speak.
      
      That said, I was surprised they overturned it because we have seen hits that weren’t nearly as bad be upheld.
      - 12/09/2019 at 1:03 PM #116912
        1
        
        EagleMountainUte
        Participant
        
        So I updated my post. But the way Huntley was defenseless isn’t a reason to overturn the call. My brother in law said that to. Which doesn’t make sense because he still lowers his head and is initiating contact with his crown. Remember this way of tackling is not just to protect Huntley it is to protect the person doing the contact.
      - 12/09/2019 at 1:08 PM #116913
        
        EagleMountainUte
        Participant
        
        Also the tackle on Huntley was a horse collar as well. I will flame the refs for that series. Fine if you don’t want to get someone ejected but they should have given 15 yards for tackling Huntley and holding onto to the top of his pads.
      - 12/09/2019 at 3:54 PM #116940
        1
        
        PhiladelphiaUte
        Participant
        
        It looked like a textbook case for “targeting” to me too. I get that Huntley’s helmet was a moving target, as he was already going down, but…
        
        1) That’s one of the reasons why Breeze shouldn’t have hit him.
        
        2) If you watched Breeze’s approach, just look at his arms. Were they outstretched to latch onto a runner? No. They were tucked into his chest, with the intent to spear the runner.
        
        3) And then of course he lowered his helmet, and led with it.
        
        CLEAR case for targeting!
    - 12/09/2019 at 4:13 PM #116944
      1
      
      Charlie Foxtrot
      Participant
      
      IMO the other reason I think that a targeting call may be warranted is because of when the hit takes place. Huntley has already been engaged and is in the process of being tackled and pulled to the ground. The safety coming in and making a hit at that point is questionable and the fact that he lowers his helmet and hits with the crown (whether intentional or not) tips the scale to targeting in my mind.
      
      I know Huntley is a runner and not a passer in this situation, but it still seems like the saftey is getting involved in the play a little bit late.
- 12/09/2019 at 4:08 PM #116943
  1
  
  M-dash
  Participant
  
  The no call that really got me frustrated was the hit by 25 on Huntley after he released the pass to Dixon (I think). The pass was ruled complete but then correctly overturned. If anyone can explain how the hit on Huntley on that play was not targeting, I’d welcome the insight. The crown of 25’s helmet hits face mask as he’s releasing the pass. Seemed textbook targeting to me.
  - 12/09/2019 at 4:26 PM #116947
    
    EagleMountainUte
    Participant
    
    The only thing I have seen is people argue against his intent. He didn’t INTEND to do harm. Well all of the rules in football much like traffic laws your intent doesn’t matter.
Author

Posts

Viewing 3 reply threads

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.