There has been much consternation among WVU fans about Noel Devine's role (or utter lack thereof) in WVU's offense in the second half of the Gator Bowl.  Namely, Devine's five second-half carries for 41 yards appeared to be woefully inadequate, especially after he had gashed FSU's defense for 127 yards on 11 first-half carries.  Couple Devine's lack of involvement with a grand total of 7 second-half points and a resulting 33-21 loss for the Mounties, and one has to wonder what might have been if WVU had stuck to its early game plan and kept feeding Devine.  At first glance, the issue would look to be a colossal coaching blunder.  But, as always, there may be more to the story than we had originally thought.  I tried unsuccessfully to find a video replay of the game on the internet.  If anyone knows of a website where I could actually re-watch the game (I know, I'm a glutton for punishment), please apprise me.  Absent video evidence, I went back and examined the play-by-play drive chart in an effort to determine whether the coaches used Devine in the most optimum fashion.  Breakdown after the jump.

First, a word of caution.  Being confined to a play-by-play drive chart and my foggy memory of the actual events, there are things we can't know.  We can't know whether a play was a zone read or a designed run.  We can't know whether an audible was called based on FSU's defenisve alignment.  And we can't know exactly what was going through the coaches' minds in the 20-30 seconds they have to call a play---injuries, attempts to take advantage of certain matchups, attempts to set up certain plays, adjustments based on certain plays that succeeded or failed earlier in the game, potential adjustments to FSU stacking the box after Jarrett got hurt, and so on and so forth.

WVU got the ball for the first time in the half at our own 38 down 16-14 with 12:15 to go.

1 - Devine rush for 2 yards.

2 - Incomplete to Arnett.

3 - Complete to Austin for 19, plus 15 for facemask, plus 13 for personal foul.

1 - Smith fumbles the snap, loss of 7.

2 - Complete to Jock for 4.

3 - Incomplete pass.

4 - Missed FG.

The main issue on this drive was the fumbled snap.  Who knows what play was called there, but not only did it burn a down, it put WVU behind the chains and basically forced us to pass.  I don't remember whether the pass to Jock was a screen or something over the middle, but I really don't have a problem with throwing something short and trying to get it to third and manageable.  On third and 13, maybe you can run a draw with Devine, but I'm sure people would've complained about that as well.  Maybe you give it to Noel on first down again, but on the other hand, you don't want to get too predictable running on first down every time.  All in all, I think this series of calls is defensible and should have resulted in a FG, which would've given us back the lead.

Next drive started down 16-14 at our own 24, 6:10 left in the quarter.

1 - Incomplete pass.

2 - Devine rush for 5.

3 - Smith rush for loss of 2.

4 - Punt.

I don't remember what the third down play call was here.  I'm guessing it was either a pass or a zone read that got blown up.  Maybe you give it to Devine on third down here via a draw or screen.  But it's easy to second-guess.  Again, I'd argue that the series is defensible, but Noel probably should have had an extra touch here somewhere.

Next drive starts at the WVU 20 down 23-14 with 3:50 to go.

1 - Devine rush for 34.

1 - Smith rush for 5.

2 - Devine rush for 1.

3 - Complete to Starks for 9.

1 - Complete to Devine for 13.

1 - Devine rush for loss of 1.

2 - Jock rush for 7.

3 - Complete to Starks for 7.

1 - Clarke rush for 5 - TD.

Honestly, I don't know how anyone could argue with the playcalling here.  We executed and converted a couple key third downs, Devine ran well, and the drive resulted in a TD.  The main thing I noticed here is that Devine limped off after his last carry and was replaced by Jock.  Nobody said anything about it at the time, but I have to wonder if the injury (tweak?) had any effect on his carries from that point on.  Yes, he continued to play in the 4th quarter, but was he being used as a decoy?

Next drive starts at the FSU 35 with 8:51 to play, down 30-21.

1 - Smith rush for 2.

2 - Smith rush for 0.

3 - Pass incomplete.

4 - False start, pass to Lyons incomplete.  Turnover on downs.

To me, this is the worst series we had.  Devine has to touch the ball at least once here, whether it be via screen, draw, swing pass...something.  And probably on first down.  That play appeared to be a zone read, and when the DE crashed on Noel, Smith kept for a gain of 2.  At that point, you have to know you're going to go for it on 4th down.  So that's where I would make certain that Noel touches the ball.  Granted, they may have audibled based on a defensive alignment or something, but the play ended up being a pass and Geno dropped the ball after being flushed from the pocket.  Not a good play.  The third down play call was fine---screen to Jock---but the execution was lacking and the pass got batted down at the line.  If they complete it, it probably sets up third and short.  Instead, the play is blown up and on fourth down we get a false start then have to chuck it up to our worst receiver when Geno gets pressured again. 

Final drive started on WVU 20 down 33-21 with 2:02 to play.

Every play was a designed pass that ended in a sack, a completion, an incompletion, or a short rush by Geno after being flushed from the pocket.

At this point, the game was essentially over.  We had to pass, and there really wasn't much need to get Noel the ball for any reason.  I can't find a half-by-half breakdown, but overall FSU held a 37-23 advantage in time of possession.  In the second half, FSU ran 34 plays compared to 31 for WVU, 10 of which were on the last drive.  So on 21 meaningful second half snaps, Noel had 5 rushes and 1 catch.  There were probably 3 times when he legitimately could have touched the ball and didn't.  Would that have made the difference?  Maybe.  Maybe he picks up a first down on third and five and extends a drive that ends in a touchdown.  Personally, I would've liked to have found out.  But based on this breakdown, his lack of touches isn't nearly as glaring as many made it out to be.

The problem as I see it is that this game was a microcosm of the entire season.  There was a graphic during the bowl game showing that approximately 25% of Devine's carries go for zero or negative yardage.  That presents a problem in an offense designed to methodically move the ball down the field and that for one reason or another lacks the ability to consistently complete passes over 10 yards.  I'm not saying it's Devine's fault---it may be the offensive line.  But nevertheless, it's reality.

If Devine loses yardage on first down, it puts us in a second and long situation and forces us to play catch-up the rest of the series.  So that's the danger of continually feeding Devine---the offense gets behind the chains and the offense sputters unless the quarterback can make up for those negative plays.  Of course, he's going to break off a couple long runs every game too.  When he does, those are the drives that end up in touchdowns.  So at least in part, that's why the offense is inconsistent.  It starts and stops based almost entirely on Devine's ability to make positive yardage. 

That puts the coaches in a difficult situation.  You simply can't ignore Devine's gamebreaking ability.  But the more you feed him, the more you risk those negative plays.  Then you have the whole injury issue, which we saw in the Cincy and Louisville games.  I'm not sure what the answer is.  Obviously Devine needs touches and he needs to get them in ways that put him in the best chance to generate the most yardage.  But he continually seems to make negative plays that hinder the offense's ability to put together a long drive.  While I don't necessarily think the coaches have maximized his abilities, I do appreciate the issues they are forced to consider in making those decisions.

Hopefully the coaches will have another year to figure things out, but I'm not exactly counting on it.  And despite our frustrations, Noel has simply been a joy to watch these last three years.  He has been a human highlight reel on the field and an exemplary Mountaineer off it, and regardless of his decision, we will wish him all the best.