"I just didn't have an issue playing for OT." Serious question - as another poster here mentioned, let's say Wisconsin starts overtime and gets a FG. Then we get the ball...do you like, just play for a 2nd overtime then?
YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!!!!
- Thread starter spartanhusker
- Start date
Amateur hour for sure. I was definitely errr...talking loudly to the TV on that. How much does this staff make again?
Of course not. There's nothing else beyond OT other than the game ending and time isn't a factor at all.
Good thought experiment though.
It is a good thought experiment. And there is something beyond OT - another OT if you should choose to try to engineer that outcome as opposed to a win. Time/clock is a valid part of the equation in in regulation as opposed to overtime, but there are several other variables related to these scenarios that also cannot be overlooked or explained away so simply.
How are some comparing last week to this week? Last week we were tied at home. This week we were down on the road. Way different scenarios. If you don’t see it, then you don’t know football
Let’s dumb it down for you. Last week we go up by a FG. This week we go up with a TD.
Let’s dumb it down for you. Last week we go up by a FG. This week we go up with a TD.
That was Herm Edwards btw. 🙄.. Yeah Rhule should have been playing for the win but if we turn it over it's the complete opposite. Frustrating to see this team continue to come up short week by week.
Purdy didn't necessarily have to pass. 1:30 left on the clock with 2TO, it's 1st down, and the run is there. Why the blue blazes do you not try and win the game Right. Freaking. There??
If we throw the ball attempting to win the game in regulation and it gets picked, there'd be no bitching here about 1) Just play for OT, or 2) Why are we throwing the ball?
There would be, and those people would be absolutely wrong.
I don’t disagree. I was frustrated watching it unfold as well. But we’ve seen this song and dance before against Minnesota and against Maryland. Different circumstances, but picks in the end zone in both instances.
I would have liked to see us try to get a TD, but I also get the decision that was made. Turned out to be the wrong decision, but I get it. That’s all.
If we throw the ball and win, there’d be no discussion either other than what ball game we are going to. Or last week if we go for 3, get it, then the MD FG at the end doesn’t beat us
We have the same dam outcome genius. We lose. So not throwing lead us to the same outcome as did throwing a pick. Only outcome that wins is throwing and doing it well.
I have always disliked the 'playing not to lose' mentality. Seems to cause us to lose games more often than not.
If the team does end up losing while giving it their all to go for 6 and a win, there is no shame.. But to drain the clock playing for OT while in an opponent's red zone with nearly a minute on the clock and 3 timeouts is truly shameful.
Last edited:
No, where I’m struggling is you act like the outcome was better. Or are shocked that, in the case we lose, regardless of how, that we are pissed.
Also, as an argument, think some of us would have found nobility in going for the win in regulation. We sure found nobility in going for 2 against Miami when a tie wins a ship
I have a hard time believing posters would find it noble if we tried to win and turned it over. For what it’s worth.
I’m with you. We should have gone for it. But the same people upset about playing it safe would have lost it if we took a sack that made a short kick another 42 yarder that we might miss.
The last 3 losses were mostly on this dipshit. Not just this one. Goes with his .500 record. But he's building....
Well ... maybe we call a screen play ... maybe a defender slips and our receiver jukes a guy and gets the ball down to the 3 yard line. Now we have a first down with 55 seconds and 3 time-outs. 1st play is a tush push ... that gets us down to the one yard line. Next play is a tush push and that gets us into the end zone.
Now I'm not claiming any of that is automatic. But you at least try something safe in regulation to win. That's how Saban does things. He plays to win. On the other hand Ferentz plays [not to lose] and has been doing that his entire career. And that's good enough for the retards that border us. Playing for the tie is playing not-to-lose. Bob and Tom played to win. It's in our DNA.
Now don't accuse me of wanting Rhule fired or replaced. I don't want that. But I also don't want him to be so risk averse that he limits our ceiling.
He’s building with mid 3*. Just be patient. He’ll be in Texas in no time and be able to be a top 30 program.
I like what I'm seeing outside of the QB spot. Rhule is improving every position but doesn't have a trigger man. Keep recruiting, keep developing, get a QB. I like where this is heading, unfortunately it's ugly in Y1.
It's another example of high dollar coaches making the game too complicated. It happens often across the sport.
Maybe all NU games can be on streaming platforms next year to avoid showing our ineptness to the masses any further.
Maybe all NU games can be on streaming platforms next year to avoid showing our ineptness to the masses any further.
Last edited:
Wait, but we did throw the ball to the end zone to try to win. We'd just let so much time tick off that we were in a position that trying one of those was the only option we had to to win the game. So, there goes that part of your horrible argument.
At any time with around +/- a minute left with all 3 timeouts at or near the red zone and Wisconsin on the ropes, you absolutely understand that you are in a position to win this thing with a touchdown. You have plenty of time. You're moving the ball. You've always got the field goal for the tie as a last resort.
Maybe you dumb down your play calls with high percentage plays only, due to what happened last week and the fact that Purdy doesn't have much experience, etc. But you absolutely at least try it with some semblance of a cohesive game plan. What you don't do is decide to settle for the tie with all of that...then decide, oh wait no let's play for the win...oh wait no we screwed that up I guess we'll settle for the tie.
Another postern mentioned something about it seeming like Rhule was trying to throw the game. I think that's a little extreme, and I don't necessarily buy that conspiracy theory. But It was that level of bad for sure.
I can't believe there is anyone on earth who doesn't realize what a horrible mismanagement the end of that game was. It was more than just bad clock management. It was egregiously bad coaching.
Last edited:
Totally.
But maybe we call a screen play, it gets read by the DL and it gets picked. Ho-boy the outrage by fans...
Saban has the best player in the country. A little different than what Rhule has to work with. Same with TO when he coached. I don't think Rhule will limit his play calling after he gets some more talent and has been here longer than 1 year.
I didn't even make an argument in the post you responded to. I was asking a question, which you didn't answer.
I agree, but the question is, how do we try and get into the endzone? Do we risk passing? That's been known to bite us in the butt before when near the endzone. Or do we just run with 3 straight times?
The final pass play in regulation was just a play to take a shot, but know that's it's probably going to just kill time. It wasn't a play designed to "win the game". Basically you hope coverage gets busted so you do win the game, but if we needed a TD, that's not what we're running.
The thinking process you made up wasn't so.
It wasn't horrible clock management when their goal was to kick the FG. They managed the clock exactly how they wanted to.
Now, you can argue the decision to not be more aggressive was horrible, I get that.
But then it goes back to, what plays are you running with 1:25-ish left? 2nd and 3 at Wisconsin 19 yard line?
He did. Once. Which is all we had time for after he botched everything to that point.
Sure, why not? At least try something. What if coverage busts so you do win the game? I guess that would be a stupid argument. Who would ever make that point?
Oh, wait, you just did. You're literally saying we should have only taken a chance at winning the game, if coverage breaks down or something, ONE time. Any more than that would have been too risky. But one was okay.
Then why not just take a knee? Why go from, "oh we're for sure just kicking a field goal here" to "oh crap we might actually have a chance to win this thing in regulation" to "shit, we didn't leave ourselves enough time"? If you believe for a half a second that the end of that game was handled exactly how they wanted, I have a bridge to sell you. He literally put that on display for all the college football world to see.
Any play other than the none and then one because that's all he had time for. Rhule looked like a turtle last night. Turtled to not try to win (the aggressive part you're talking about) and a turtle on his back the last +/- minute not having a clue what he wanted to do (the part you're refusing to see).
I get it, from a fan standpoint the thought of busting a run in the redzone for a TD. You want to see that. But if you're being honest with yourself, you know running it 3 times was going to net the same result.
Well yes. Attempting more passes is riskier.
The pass play we ran was low risk. Because of that, the probability of scoring was also lower.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't Rhule's thought process. I can't answer something that was made up.
No, be specific. What plays do you run? 2 straight dives, option, RPO, screen play (RB or WR), QB keeper, any combination of pass plays across the middle?
Hindsight is always 20/20, but quite frankly, the way the game played out at the end, the only way we had a chance to win was if we were down 4 and forced to go for the touchdown.
I came for the football, I stayed for ' Florida Man's' superior display of argumentative skills.
I don't know that. You don't know that. Rhule didn't know that. Nobody on earth knows that. The only thing 100% of everyone on earth knows is that the result of doing nothing will result in nothing.
What was the probability of scoring when doing nothing? I understand the low risk = lower probability of scoring. But I also understand that the lowest probability of scoring (zero) is doing nothing.
Sure any of the above. I don't care what plays you run. The risk reward thing is obvious. You're missing the point entirely, which is probably why you're buying that the whole thing was handled right.
It's two arguments...
1) I guess we can argue, as you stated, whether settling for a field goal to go to overtime or trying to win it in regulation was the right call. However, generally that argument is made when deciding whether to go for it on 4th and short, not with over a minute left with all the momentum and the defense on the ropes with all three timeouts. I don't think there's a fanbase on earth that would be okay with that if, in fact, that was the plan.
2) IF that was really the plan and how it was handled. This one isn't debatable. It was clear the plan flopped around and it was mismanaged. The clock was being "managed" as if settling for the field goal was the plan. Until it wasn't. With 13 seconds left, that "plan" left the building and he then decided to go for the win. To spell it out in crayon for you, he didn't manage the clock to go for the win in regulation. And he didn't call the plays to settle for the field goal. He did neither correctly. Clear as day he didn't have a plan and once he determined what it was, it was too late because he'd let the clock get to :13. It was beyond egregious and I can't believe you or anyone actually believes that it wasn't.
What about the other side of the equation?
If we were to throw it, who would you put out there to catch it?
We have;
- a midget.
- laziest route runner in college ball.
-various others who've had very little consistent success.
- Tight End who's only involvement this year had to do with his best friend playing qb.
Not saying they are all really, really poor choices but I'd be hard pressed to trust any of them in this situation.
Then again, Rhule trusts a really scary 60 percent field goal kicker over this. He botched one attempt badly and his 'good' field goal was pretty sketchy.
If we were to throw it, who would you put out there to catch it?
We have;
- a midget.
- laziest route runner in college ball.
-various others who've had very little consistent success.
- Tight End who's only involvement this year had to do with his best friend playing qb.
Not saying they are all really, really poor choices but I'd be hard pressed to trust any of them in this situation.
Then again, Rhule trusts a really scary 60 percent field goal kicker over this. He botched one attempt badly and his 'good' field goal was pretty sketchy.
Tell us more about that .500 record.
Please continue to leave out all context when doing so.
Your posts (like mine I'm sure) are exhausting. Too much to breakdown via message board.
Could the plan have been, once we got into FG range, to play for a tie, but to also take one shot into the endzone?
The answer is yes, so the whole, "their plan changed", falls on its face.
If you were cool with Nebraska throwing the ball in trying to win AND wouldn't have called Rhule/Satt idiots had there been an INT, then my very original post wasn't directed towards you and we're really arguing for no reason.
I understand where you're coming from. You're playing the percentages. You're also suggesting what would be more acceptable to the fans. It's a legit disagreement. For me personally, I felt the team had found a rhythm in those closing minutes and needed to ride that wave to victory. Could a screen play have failed? Sure. Anything can fail. But the percentages are pretty high when you're behind the line of scrimmage. Hopefully what you suggest about the future is correct and we will never again see him be so timid once he has "his guys" on the roster.
One last thing. Many people have mentioned injuries and such (not saying you have, just a generalization). This time of year EVERY team is dealing with depletion issues. Heck, the Hackeyes have Bacon Hill with a QBR of 96.3 ... Purdy has a QBR of 108.7.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
OT: Anyone catch the reveal today for EA Sports College Football Game?- Latest: TarheelHuskerFan
