WKU Football: There’s No Way Around It — Sanford Doomed The Toppers
The opening drive on Saturday was a beauty for the Tops — a nice balance of six pass plays (only two of which went for 10 yards or less…
The opening drive on Saturday was a beauty for the Tops — a nice balance of six pass plays (only two of which went for 10 yards or less outside of the red zone) and five runs (two of which — the opening two plays of the game, mind you — went for negative yardage, setting the Tops up in an early third and long).
It was a nice throwback to the days of Brohm and dominance, especially with plays like consecutive passing plays of 15+ yards and, while the Brohm era would have seen a bit better average yards per carry on the running side of things, a touchdown on the opening drive of the game is hard to be upset with.
Following a defensive stop, the Tops had an opportunity to really put the pressure on and go up two scores early by doing what worked before.
However, the Tops chose to do something different instead.
For reasons that I still don’t fully comprehend, Mike Sanford opted to put in Drew Eckels for the opening two plays, in which the Tops gained a grand total of one yard.
After the game, he was asked about the decision and his answer, honestly, made zero sense.
After going 73 yards on the opening drive of the game, the Tops combined for 11 yards in nine plays (three straight three and outs) for the rest of the half.
The Tops settled for a field goal after going 72 yards in nine plays, threw a pick six and fumbled the ensuing kickoff before getting on the scoreboard with six again, which came with 13:48 left to play in the game on White’s 25-yard touchdown to Cameron Echols-Luper which, at the time, made it 30–16.
Now, I’ll fully admit we don’t know what would have happened if White had stayed in the game for that second drive. It could have been the same result, or it could have replicated the opening drive, and everything in between.
But, Sanford’s “reasoning” behind putting Eckels in makes no sense to me. First off, if Sanford really wanted to “diversify the run game,” then why is Eckels passing on first down?
Secondly, the Tops rushed 19 times in the game, including Eckles’ one carry. D’Andre Ferby had 13 of those touches; Ferby also carried the ball on four of the Tops’ five running plays in that opening drive (Jakari Moses, who inexplicably had only two carries, got the other). If you’re wanting to diversify the run game, the second series in the game is not the time to do that, especially when Ferby had been doing fine enough to trust on the opening drive again that, I remind you, the Tops’ matched 70+ yards down the field to put points on the board.
Third, I’m troubled by Sanford’s use of the word “opportunity.” If the Tops had been successfully using play action and getting defenders to either bite or not bite, or if the running game had been gashing the Herd defense for 50 yards every drive, and then Eckles is put in, then yes, the “opportunity” has arisen for a different look. But that isn’t what happened. What Sanford calls “opportunity,” I call “forcing,” and as we’ve established, it wasn’t warraned.
If you’ve been with us all season long, you know that I — nor really anyone on the writing staff — is in “Fire Sanford,” mode like a lot of WKU fans are. But, it’s hard to see, understand or agree with the logic/reasoning behind why Eckles was put in the game so early and, despite the decision coming in the second series of the game, can be easily directed to what made the offense look so out of whack for the rest of the game.