FB: Duke 30, Northwestern 23

[hustleplays]

the WR screens were really effective in the first half because we established a downfield passing attack and a running attack. In the second half when we got too conservative, they were not as effective.

I agree with this.

Also, am I the only one who is holding his breath against a pick 6 when we throw so many bubble screens? Several times, Gunnar nicely passed over/through one or more NW defenders, but the needle seemed pretty fine. One of the corners catches it going forward and he's gone.

That point aside, I was gobsmacked by how good we looked in the 1st half, how creative and aggressive the play calling was. I kept yelling to no one in particular, Who are these guys? What happened to them? Don't worry, I gleefully and gratefully accepted their transformation. And I'm glad that the 2nd half swoon didn't sink them. They did show heart in fighting back, holding the line. Thank you, Marty, for doing your part. He is one impressive QB. I have not seen, since the last NFL game, such vicious punches for turnovers. Not for the faint of heart.

I like Moore in there very much. He must make it much more difficult to DC's to plan, before and during the game. I would also like to see the alternating be unpredictable. I think the QBs should be able to adjust to that more easily than defenses.

And, yes, some read options and other kinds of options, would make it more challenging for the defense and be fun to watch.

Happy to say that I'm looking forward to next week more eagerly than I thought I would be. So happy to be wrong!

[budwom]

^ concerning the bubble screens, I agree. Just wait and see, when we play teams with quicker cornerbacks, someone is going to anticipate that (because we do it so often) and that's not a good thing.

[arnie]

Opening line against Kansas 11.5 has now moved to Duke -14. Didn’t realize Jayhawks that bad as I thought they were improved this year.

[duke2x]

Opening line against Kansas 11.5 has now moved to Duke -14. Didn’t realize Jayhawks that bad as I thought they were improved this year.

They have been blown out by Baylor and Coastal Carolina. They barely beat a NCA&T level team in game 1.

I've seen this movie before in 2018 and 2019 when Vegas has those odds. They did go up to BC a couple years ago (2019?) and win by 20.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Has anyone seen or heard an explanation for the phantom pass interference call on the interception? What does the ref think he saw that made him throw his hankie? Inquiring minds want to know?

[Acymetric]

Hate that I wasn't able to watch this game, but glad I turned out to be one worth finding a recording! Let's see if we can get to 3-1 the hard way next week!

[budwom]

They have been blown out by Baylor and Coastal Carolina. They barely beat a NCA&T level team in game 1.

I've seen this movie before in 2018 and 2019 when Vegas has those odds. They did go up to BC a couple years ago (2019?) and win by 20.

yeah, Coastal and Baylor are decent teams, but clearly this is a team we can aspire to beat.

[DoubleBlue]

Has anyone seen or heard an explanation for the phantom pass interference call on the interception? What does the ref think he saw that made him throw his hankie? Inquiring minds want to know?

The only explanation I can think of is if Blackwell pushed off the intended receiver as the pass was in the air. The throw was way short and he then was in position to make the interception. I'd like to see the video replay if anyone can find it. The time was with 4:32 left in the game.

[DoubleBlue]

Here it is. The full game replay is at https://nfl-video.com/cfb/ncaa_colle...ball/2-1-0-623

The camera was not on the receiver until the throw was in the air and you can see Blackwell at the edge of the screen on the lower left (1st image). If there was a push off it was minimal... seems like just incidental contact. The replay (2nd image) had a better angle but again it was a bit late to conclude anything.

Blackwell PI.jpg Blackwell PI2.jpg

[DU82]

The only explanation I can think of is if Blackwell pushed off the intended receiver as the pass was in the air. The throw was way short and he then was in position to make the interception. I'd like to see the video replay if anyone can find it. The time was with 4:32 left in the game.

It was that or their feet tangled up before any of the video replays switched from the QB to the receiver. I’ll note the receiver never turned, but kept going in the same direction.

Without seeing what happened before the interception I can’t say if it was a bad call or not. Unlike the fourth down play that proceeded it. Didn’t know you could tackle the receiver before he caught the ball.

[robed deity]

It was that or their feet tangled up before any of the video replays switched from the QB to the receiver. I’ll note the receiver never turned, but kept going in the same direction.

Without seeing what happened before the interception I can’t say if it was a bad call or not. Unlike the fourth down play that proceeded it. Didn’t know you could tackle the receiver before he caught the ball.

The 4th down play is exactly why football is so annoying to me. If the Duke receiver hadn't caught the ball, it was more likely PI would have been called. So, it's almost as if he was penalized for making a great play. This stuff happens all the time and PI has huge ramifications, especially in the NFL.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

It was that or their feet tangled up before any of the video replays switched from the QB to the receiver. I’ll note the receiver never turned, but kept going in the same direction.

Without seeing what happened before the interception I can’t say if it was a bad call or not. Unlike the fourth down play that proceeded it. Didn’t know you could tackle the receiver before he caught the ball.

Yeah, we saw the tangled feet on the replay, but that was certainly incidental contact and neither player went down and is (almost) always a no call. Hence the reason for my original question.

[TruBlu]

The refs thought the Duke defender was Grayson Allen???

[DU82]

Yeah, we saw the tangled feet on the replay, but that was certainly incidental contact and neither player went down and is (almost) always a no call. Hence the reason for my original question.

I Agree with you, typically tangled feet going for the ball is incidental contact.

Regarding the other unusual reffing issue (besides the early tackle on our 4th down play), the holding up of play for substitution. I think it was more noticeable than usual because, one the free doing it was a woman, and two, the NW players sure took a long time getting off the field. On the first, my view was that it was also that she held her arm up in a stop position, rather than just stand between the center and QB like many others, so more unusual (something we’ll all probably watch for this coming week with the Big 12 refs that I assume will work the game.) On the second, they could have given them a warning, but NW was smart in their actions. They were moving off the field, just not sprinting. We certainly shouldn’t have subbed on the first down play late in the first half that ended up costing us our last timeout.

I’ll note that in the NC A&T game, a delay of game penalty was given to the A&T defense for not getting on the field quickly after their kickoff. So the refs can warn/penalize the defense in these situations.

Other than the two PI calls/non-calls, I thought the game was called well (there’s always a few calls we question, of course.)

[budwom]

I don't want to re-litigate this topic, but I think it often works to our detriment that our CBs don't look for the ball most of the time, they clearly play the man...I know some programs teach this, but really good CBs stay with their man AND turn around.

[DoubleBlue]

I don't want to re-litigate this topic, but I think it often works to our detriment that our CBs don't look for the ball most of the time, they clearly play the man...I know some programs teach this, but really good CBs stay with their man AND turn around.

I think that's a difficult balance. If you turn your head too soon you may lose a step and the receiver then has a clear path for a catch. If you keep your eyes on the receiver you may block off the path of the ball, even if you're not sure where it is. The really good CB's know when to turn their head to see the ball in flight, while still staying in stride. It may be more a question of experience and skill than coaching or fundamentals.

[budwom]

I think that's a difficult balance. If you turn your head too soon you may lose a step and the receiver then has a clear path for a catch. If you keep your eyes on the receiver you may block off the path of the ball, even if you're not sure where it is. The really good CB's know when to turn their head to see the ball in flight, while still staying in stride. It may be more a question of experience and skill than coaching or fundamentals.

it's definitely not easy, and kids learn to do it as they advance, as you say. But it can be frustrating watching our defensive backs running stride for stride with receivers, only to have the ball zip over their shoulders into the receiver's hands.

[PDDuke85]

it's definitely not easy, and kids learn to do it as they advance, as you say. But it can be frustrating watching our defensive backs running stride for stride with receivers, only to have the ball zip over their shoulders into the receiver's hands.

Or, making premature contact with the receivers incurring legitimate pass interference penalties. All I know is, Mrs PDDuke85 is tired of me yelling “look back” so often.

Despite it all, happy with the win and moving on to Kansas.

[budwom]

Or, making premature contact with the receivers incurring legitimate pass interference penalties. All I know is, Mrs PDDuke85 is tired of me yelling “look back” so often.

Despite it all, happy with the win and moving on to Kansas.

Ha, we have a virtual chorus in WW (when we can actually go), half the section is screaming Look Back!

[luvdahops]

it's definitely not easy, and kids learn to do it as they advance, as you say. But it can be frustrating watching our defensive backs running stride for stride with receivers, only to have the ball zip over their shoulders into the receiver's hands.

Shouldn't be an either/or proposition. Part of running stride by stride with the receiver should be watching his eyes/head to see when he looks up for the ball, and reacting quickly to that. Playing that way does take experience, but it's what good DBs do at all levels.