One of the major concerns during his transition from college to the NFL draft was his high pressure-to-sack percentage. In my previous analysis, I covered the first 11 sacks of the season in chronological order, and today I will complete the breakdown of the remaining 10. ESPN credits him with 22 sacks, although one sack from a game against Army remains elusive. If you missed the initial part of this breakdown, you can catch up by clicking here. Let’s delve into the remaining sacks.
**Sack 12**
**Situation:** Third and five from the 48-yard line.
**Play Analysis:** On third and five, LSU executes a sprint rollout play. Daniels receives the snap and rolls out to his right, with the offensive line moving with him to maintain the pocket’s mobility. The formation has two receivers on the right, used to create traffic for a third receiver motioning across and sprinting to the flat. The play successfully develops, freeing the receiver as he heads to the flat while a trailing defender navigates around traffic. Daniels hesitates on the throw, allowing the defender to recover. Once the defender regains position, he’s in a prime spot to intercept any pass attempt, effectively eliminating the play’s sole viable option. The other two receivers are not viable targets but serve to create traffic for the intended receiver. With no alternative, Daniels attempts to scramble, yet the defense secures the edge and tackles him behind the line of scrimmage.
**Learning Opportunity:** Simply put, hesitation is unacceptable in such situations. The play is designed to target one receiver, and the design successfully exploits the created traffic, freeing the receiver. Daniels must release the ball promptly and provide his receiver an opportunity to convert the first down. If the receiver fails to achieve the first down, it isn’t Daniels’ responsibility, but he must recognize beforehand that there’s only one real option. If the route were indeed covered, Daniels would need to improvise and deviate from the script, which was not the case here. When a play is tailored to target a specific receiver and the design functions as intended, timely execution is imperative.
**Sack 14**
**Situation:** First and 10 from the eight-yard line.
**Play Analysis:** Later in the Missouri game, LSU initiates another drive starting deep within their territory, at their own eight-yard line. They opt again for an aggressive play, this time incorporating a double move on the right side and a seam route on the left. Familiar with the concept of a “sluggo-seam,” where the outer receiver executes a slant-and-go (sluggo) double move, Daniels hopes to capitalize on the deep safety movement faked by the sluggo, redirecting to the seam route on the opposite side of the field. Although not a precise “sluggo-seam,” LSU uses a stutter-go instead, maintaining the same objective.
Daniels snaps the ball and immediately eyes the double move, executing a shoulder fake as part of the maneuver. However, the cornerback retreats deep in a Cover-3 alignment, effectively neutralizing the double move option. Daniels lingers on the route slightly longer, anticipating his receiver might break away from the cornerback, but it quickly becomes evident that the route is unproductive. Daniels senses pressure within the pocket and adeptly maneuvers by stepping up and then rolling out to the right. Nevertheless, the defense employs zone coverage, and upon Daniels’ scramble, the flat defender swiftly identifies and converges on him, making the tackle out of bounds, resulting in a sack.
**Learning Opportunity:** Initially, Daniels should incorporate a more convincing pump fake. His half-hearted shoulder fake lacks the effectiveness to deceive defenders into anticipating an actual throw. Daniels must practice executing a genuine pump fake, employing a full wind-up and feigned throw, rather than merely a shoulder movement, to convincingly deceive NFL-level defenders that a pass attempt is imminent. However, more importantly, Daniels needs to promptly acknowledge when a route is inactive, as he did not do so here. Despite realizing that the route was ineffective following the fake, Daniels persisted with it, possibly due to his high level of trust in Malik Nabers. However, Daniels cannot fall prey to fixating on his primary receiver simply because of their status.
Daniels should have promptly recognized the route’s futility, prompted by the cornerback’s sinking back into a Cover-3 position. Certainly, Daniels could have attempted the pump fake to gauge the cornerback’s reaction but should have quickly moved on afterward. Had Daniels executed a more robust pump fake and then swiftly redirected his attention, he might have identified the open seam route on the opposite side of the formation. Alternatively, he might have advanced to target the curl route, as the flat defender was delayed in reacting.
Credit is due to Daniels for evading initial pressure by stepping into the pocket and finding an escape route. Additionally, he deserves praise for avoiding a significant hit after beginning to scramble. In similar scenarios last season, Daniels frequently attempted to cut back inside or upfield to evade a tackle, in pursuit of maximizing yardage. Ideally, Daniels should prioritize reaching the sideline and accepting a nominal loss of one yard, categorized as a sack, rather than cutting inside towards multiple defenders and risking a substantial hit for the sake of a few extra yards.
