October 30th, 2009 at 7:05 PM ^

the score was 13-0 when he did that, i'm not sure why everyone needs to get so upset about it. also the reason the receiver was so wide open? the QB was looking in the opposite direction, that's why the play worked so well.


October 30th, 2009 at 7:31 PM ^

Its pure showboating. It doesnt matter that he was looking the other way, that doesnt mean he had to throw it behind his back. It still would have gotten there quicker if he turned and threw it overhand. Its B.S. because its showboating. I don't like it either.


October 31st, 2009 at 1:47 PM ^

I'm with ya. Do any of you remember being a high school football player? You goof around all the time doing stuff like this after practice; perfecting touchdown dances, gadget plays, THROWING TD PASSES BEHIND YOUR BACK. I know we all did, and BEGGED our coach to let us do some of the stuff we came up with. He finally let us run a couple gadget plays in our last game of the year against a team we knew we would beat. We were 9-0 and knew we had to get serious come playoffs, it was our last chance to relax and have a little fun on the field.

This was most likely the last game of their season, I bet the QB and team in general have been bugging the coach to do this all year. The coach most likely thought it was an unnecessary risk and somewhat "showboaty". He finally caved in their last regular season game and let them try it on a 2-point conversion!!

No harm no foul...ease up a bit.


October 30th, 2009 at 10:30 PM ^

Seemed like a fine play to me. The other team failed to cover the WR, so he threw him the ball. How he got it there doesn't seem as big a deal to me. I would be much more offended if the coach was sending a blitz in the 4th quarter or was pulling flea-flickers are play-actions late in the game. Maybe I'm just missing the point, but I've seen far worse in terms of class.


October 30th, 2009 at 10:43 PM ^

If they were to execute a gadget play to get a guy open in the end zone it would not bother me. But the guy was wide open, so the only point you can be making by throwing it behind your back is..."we think you guys are a joke. It would be funny if we pulled your pants down in front of everybody to let the world know how overmatched you are"
To me it just seems a lack of sportsmanship. Much like what you are saying about blitzing in a fourth quarter (blowout), or using trick plays to run up the score.


October 31st, 2009 at 9:35 AM ^

I agree, but as others have pointed out - it was still a relatively close game and maybe that was a "gadget" play. To the larger point, I guess I come from the school that if you don't like how the other team is scoring, you need to stop them. Again, I'm not for running up the score on an over-matched team, but this wasn't running the score up to embarrass the other team - it was a tricky play that looked kind of cool. The other team may be pissed, but I can't imagine they would be that less pissed than the 58-0 final score. Stuff like this happens all the time in the NBA, yet usually nothing more happens than the guy is fouled hard the next time they come down the court (which is what I would have done here, if anything - pop the guy hard the next time he takes off on a run).

Again, maybe if it felt really staged I would feel differently, but all the other team had to do to stop the play was cover the wide open WR coming across the field.


October 31st, 2009 at 1:25 PM ^

Well, technically this was a 3 pointer over his shoulder, which is close enough.

My bigger issue is that it was a single play in a football game, and the whole issue is that he threw it behind his back to a wide open WR. So if he squared his shoulders, threw it to the WR in a conventional way, then jumped up and down and pulled the "double 6-shooters to point to the sky" a la Brett Favre, then would you have less of an issue with it because he at least threw a conventional forward pass? Listen, if the coach called that in and he was trying to run up the score, then take issue with the coaching philosophy. But it was a fun play and it worked. To me, it was a trick play that worked. I know different context and all, but is this play THAT much different than this one by Boise St? Sure, it led to a win, but it was a trick play using misdirection.


October 31st, 2009 at 12:20 AM ^

Maybe the defense should cover the damn receiver better and then they could pick off that lazy floater.

Seriously, who cares about how the QB got the ball to the receiver if it was a legal play and it was only 13-0 at the time?

You should all stop whining and just take it for what it is: a rare athletic feat that you probably haven't seen before.


October 31st, 2009 at 2:37 AM ^

Agreed. It's not like these kids are forced to play by their schools. Players are prone to hurt feelings by way of dickishly-hilarious plays if they can not defend them. It may be "mean" or "unsportsmanlike", but it was still a legal play that worked.


October 31st, 2009 at 7:04 AM ^

throw the football, it took the same amount of time to flip it behind his back as it would have to just throw it naturally. Also the aggressiveness would have been the same if he just threw it to the WIDE open receiver instead of the Bush League stuff.