You guys see this from the USC/UCLA game? Were the Trojans just lucky? I'm not sure how you plan this exactly ...
[video]http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=21462935[/video]
[video]http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=21462935[/video]
I've seen various teams try that play over the years...you need good actors to pull it off.You guys see this from the USC/UCLA game? Were the Trojans just lucky? I'm not sure how you plan this exactly ...
[video]http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=21462935[/video]
Came here to point this out. Ryan Davis got a good return out of it.That cow school to the west ran that play last week. It work as well.
Fortunately, you don't get returns on our punter.Came here to point this out. Ryan Davis got a good return out of it.
If he doesn't win the Guy, the trophy has no meaning for me anymore.Fortunately, you don't get returns on our punter.
Found one. He was about one foot away from the sideline when he made the catch. I thought he was closer than that.I wish I had a better angle. I'd like to see how close he was to stepping out of bounds when he caught it.
It was a bad punt. But USC was smart enough to have a play available for something like that, and players with the intelligence to pull it off.How was that a trick play? No way they could know what side punt was going to. Looks to me UCLA screwed the pooch, expected it to go left and it went right, as all of UCLA was headed left, that is just bad play by UCLA, USC got lucky. Appears UCLA wanted returner on left to get it and punter shanked it right. How is that some mystical USC play? UCLA messed up or so it appears to me. They all went left thinking punt was going that way, punter shanked it or they were all backwards on what side to defend. Not sure why USC gets credit for anything but a lucky break bahahahahahaha OH I know it is USC so it must have been a master play call.
I cannot remember the team but a few years back one team had a great return guy and punters kicked off to the side to limit his return area. They countered it by lining up 2 returners right next to each other and as ball was hiked they split off to each side. Even when their best guy did not get the right side they had a guy to cover it a little better. Seems to me 2 return guys one on one side one on the other makes for better chance of getting a shank or a directed punt covered faster, less running to the ball. Now they seem to love the rugby low kick to negate great run back returners. I like our style HIGH and LONG, kills return chances. BUT you have to have a great punter like we have. If we punt I want to be at mid field or further back so JK can BOOT it. When across the 50 he has to pull back some and that is hard to do.It was a bad punt. But USC was smart enough to have a play available for something like that, and players with the intelligence to pull it off.
I suspect that they noticed a tendency by this punter to sometimes miss punts to his right and had this in their pocket for the game in case it happened. So, it was clearly something that was practiced, so it qualifies as a trick play not just a fluke return.
Yep, after watching it the other day it could have only been because of good film study.It was a bad punt. But USC was smart enough to have a play available for something like that, and players with the intelligence to pull it off.
I suspect that they noticed a tendency by this punter to sometimes miss punts to his right and had this in their pocket for the game in case it happened. So, it was clearly something that was practiced, so it qualifies as a trick play not just a fluke return.
If he doesn't win the Guy, the trophy has no meaning for me anymore.[/QUOTE
I was saying the same thing the other day. He wasn’t eligible last year because he didn’t have enough punts. Anyone else know the particulars or qualifying for the Guy Award?