Langsdorf and Cav to be in booth

[Hoosker Du]

The New York Times article linked above is a great read. I think there will come a time in the not so distant future when coaches start employing actual data in their decisions rather than their "gut instinct". It's similar to the trend we're seeing in professional baseball with sabermetrics. I don't know if anyone has seen the mini-documentary on HBO about the high school coach that almost always goes for it on 4th down and onside kicks nearly every time, but that's another interesting point of view that has been backed by sports science. I sorta cringe at football becoming this type of game, but eventually a coach at a major university with nothing to lose is going to put this gameplan into action and it's going to become mainstream.

View embedded media

So I think the coaches made the right call in the Iowa game and hope they make the same decision next time (with maybe a different play call and better execution).

The above article may be a good read, but from what I read, there were a lot of ridiculous comments in it, like going for it on 4th and 1 anywhere outside of your 9-yard line, (because the difference in punt yardage wouldn't make much difference? Huh??). It also didn't take into account the amount of time left in the game, other than mentioning less than 10 minutes. BTW, I'll trust NFL coaches more than "The NYT Bot," whatever that is.

If it were earlier in the game, sure, going for it would be more likely, but when you only have maybe 1 or 2 series left in the game, you need to get the 'sure' points to put yourself within 1 score of them. And from that distance, a made FG was probably a 90% certainty.

 

[dockentwo]

Love how you state your opinion as a fact. Well he said period so he must be right. Iowa had just run a run blitz off the edge and Langsdorf was confident they were going to do it again. He had the prefect call to expose them for it.

An easy pitch for a TD when you need two scores -and should have a 95%+ completion average based on the set up and wide open as suspected. In a game where scores are hard to come by; and momentum swings were huge. Once again the coaches took the heat quietly; and suffer in the public opinion. Then astute posters break down in semantic squabbles, about choices and having to factor in his qb randomness; despite their wisdom. ...... Its the heat of battle; Ta and L were in heated arguments reportedly. You don't get too run the play as a coach, and they can also audiblle.

 

[Hoosker Du]

An easy pitch for a TD when you need two scores -and should have a 95%+ completion average based on the set up and wide open as suspected. In a game where scores are hard to come by; and momentum swings were huge. Once again the coaches took the heat quietly; and suffer in the public opinion. Then astute posters break down in semantic squabbles, about choices and having to factor in his qb randomness; despite their wisdom. ...... Its the heat of battle; Ta and L were in heated arguments reportedly. You don't get too run the play as a coach, and they can also audiblle.

People saying the call was a good call must not have paid attention to the outcome. What did the play call get us again? Yup, that's right...another tick mark in the loss column. It was a stupid play call from the moment Tommy took the field on 4th down.

 

[Pennsyhusker]

One thing people often overlook in these kinds of debates is that a 35 yard field goal on a blustery and very cold day is no gimme. I would wager that making a 4th and 1 was just as likely, if not more, than hitting that field goal. I support the call to go for it. But I would have run the football.

 

[GBRhuskers]

People saying the call was a good call must not have paid attention to the outcome. What did the play call get us again? Yup, that's right...another tick mark in the loss column. It was a stupid play call from the moment Tommy took the field on 4th down.

It's hilarious reading your lack of football knowledge.

 

[Hoosker Du]

One thing people often overlook in these kinds of debates is that a 35 yard field goal on a blustery and very cold day is no gimme. I would wager that making a 4th and 1 was just as likely, if not more, than hitting that field goal. I support the call to go for it. But I would have run the football.

Weren't we on the 14 yard line? That would make it a 31-yarder. He had already made a 44 yarder earlier, and had hit 9 straight from 40+.

 

[Pennsyhusker]

Weren't we on the 14 yard line? That would make it a 31-yarder. He had already made a 44 yarder earlier, and had hit 9 straight from 40+.

No. We were slightly inside the 19 yard line.

Not saying we did not have a good chance at the FG. Just saying it was no gimme. People on here were talking as if kicking the field goal was a no brainer since it was a sure 3 points. Really? I think not

 

[chicolby]

If he sticks to the play called, completes the pass and scores a TD, every one of you are pumping your fists and talking about what a great call it was. If TO made the call, you're certainly praising him.

Instead, the QB decides to throw the low percentage pass and now we all get to question the call.

I'd make the same call 10 out of 10 times. With 7 minutes to play, it was the right time to score a TD.

 

[Pennsyhusker]

If he sticks to the play called, completes the pass and scores a TD, every one of you are pumping your fists and talking about what a great call it was. If TO made the call, you're certainly praising him.

Instead, the QB decides to throw the low percentage pass and now we all get to question the call.

I'd make the same call 10 out of 10 times. With 7 minutes to play, it was the right time to score a TD.

Exactly. And scoring a TD would have been far more of a momentum booster than kicking a FG. Especially if we then missed the FG.

 

[Hoosker Du]

It's hilarious reading your lack of football knowledge.

It's

It's hilarious reading your lack of football knowledge.

Almost as funny as watching people cling to the losing side of an argument. But hey, you guys keep on thinking that we were going to score 2 TDs in 6 minutes, despite the fact we had scored just 17 in over 3 1/2 quarters.

 

[Hoosker Du]

If he sticks to the play called, completes the pass and scores a TD, every one of you are pumping your fists and talking about what a great call it was. If TO made the call, you're certainly praising him.

Instead, the QB decides to throw the low percentage pass and now we all get to question the call.

I'd make the same call 10 out of 10 times. With 7 minutes to play, it was the right time to score a TD.

Nope. It was a stupid call regardless of the outcome. I said exactly that after the play. I've got an appt., but will explain why when I get done.

 

[Pennsyhusker]

It's


Almost as funny as watching people cling to the losing side of an argument. But hey, you guys keep on thinking that we were going to score 2 TDs in 6 minutes, despite the fact we had scored just 17 in over 3 1/2 quarters.

We did not have to score two TD's. Just one with a 2 point conversion, and then a field goal. And that is another reason to have gone for the TD first. If the 2 pointer fails you then know you need another TD. Kick the field goal first and then score a TD with mere seconds left, you are then screwed if you miss the 2 pointer

 

[GBRhuskers]

Almost as funny as watching people cling to the losing side of an argument. But hey, you guys keep on thinking that we were going to score 2 TDs in 6 minutes, despite the fact we had scored just 17 in over 3 1/2 quarters.

There is no losing side of the argument. You have an opinion, one that isn't backed up by any data that I'm aware of. On the flip side; a NYT article has been shared which shows NFL coaches go for it most of the time on 4th and 1 from inside their opponents 45.

At the time of the game, 2 TD's wasn't needed in 6 minutes, just one was. Wide open receiver, elementary level, for a 1st down. Instead, you're complaining over a perfectly called play, executed poorly.

 

[GBRhuskers]

Usually when there's mutual agreement between many people, including a former player and many NFL coaches, the lone person on the other side is wrong. But for some reason, we're to believe opposite in this case.

Good luck guys with his next response, I'll watch from the sideline with laughter.

 

[headcard]

One thing people often overlook in these kinds of debates is that a 35 yard field goal on a blustery and very cold day is no gimme. I would wager that making a 4th and 1 was just as likely, if not more, than hitting that field goal. I support the call to go for it. But I would have run the football.

It's


Almost as funny as watching people cling to the losing side of an argument. But hey, you guys keep on thinking that we were going to score 2 TDs in 6 minutes, despite the fact we had scored just 17 in over 3 1/2 quarters.

The irony. You're right, everyone else is crazy.

You: Throwing a fade on 4th and 1 was stupid.
Me: The play call wasn't a fade, that was just TA being TA
You: No that's not right, your are stupid
Me: Here is a screenshot showing it
You: I don't care, still should have kicked the FG, period.

You: Every coach in America would have kicked the FG
GBRHuskers: Here is an article showing that NFL coaches go for it more often than not from that spot and that statistically they should go for it even more.
You: That article is stupid. period.

You: A FG there was a 100% proposition
Tuco Salamanca: Brown was actually 66% from that range
You: That's a stretch, I know he would have made the FG. I'm right, period.

Talk about clinging to a losing argument.

 

[nebcountry]

The New York Times article linked above is a great read. I think there will come a time in the not so distant future when coaches start employing actual data in their decisions rather than their "gut instinct". It's similar to the trend we're seeing in professional baseball with sabermetrics. I don't know if anyone has seen the mini-documentary on HBO about the high school coach that almost always goes for it on 4th down and onside kicks nearly every time, but that's another interesting point of view that has been backed by sports science. I sorta cringe at football becoming this type of game, but eventually a coach at a major university with nothing to lose is going to put this gameplan into action and it's going to become mainstream.

View embedded media

So I think the coaches made the right call in the Iowa game and hope they make the same decision next time (with maybe a different play call and better execution).

I saw that show, it was interesting to me. But I think teams should go for it more often on 4th down. One of the articles I ran across back then, and seems kinda appropriate now, is this article examining 4th down conversions. Of course it's talking about the NFL, but seems to me, one could draw somewhat similar comparisons to CFB. Crazy to think that even with pick-of-the-litter pro QB's, success throwing on 4th still lags running on 4th by over 10%.

 

[tone1017]

It's


Almost as funny as watching people cling to the losing side of an argument. But hey, you guys keep on thinking that we were going to score 2 TDs in 6 minutes, despite the fact we had scored just 17 in over 3 1/2 quarters.

We needed a td to tie the game. Your argument is how hard it was for us to score a td the entire game how would we do it with 6 minutes left? So why sacrifice the likely best chance we'll get to score a td (a 4th and 1 on their 20) to kick a fg? It's completely illogical, you're basically saying how hard it is to score so take the easy points but you're ignoring the fact you're sacrificing your likely best chance to score a td for a likely but not certain fg. Just because coaches are inherently conservative does not mean they're generally right. If you see people make the same mistake 100s of times that doesn't mean it's no longer a mistake.

 

[Hoosker Du]

The irony. You're right, everyone else is crazy.

You: Throwing a fade on 4th and 1 was stupid.
Me: The play call wasn't a fade, that was just TA being TA
You: No that's not right, your are stupid
Me: Here is a screenshot showing it
You: I don't care, still should have kicked the FG, period.

You: Every coach in America would have kicked the FG
GBRHuskers: Here is an article showing that NFL coaches go for it more often than not from that spot and that statistically they should go for it even more.
You: That article is stupid. period.

You: A FG there was a 100% proposition
Tuco Salamanca: Brown was actually 66% from that range
You: That's a stretch, I know he would have made the FG. I'm right, period.

Talk about clinging to a losing argument.

First of all, the article says that what, 30-40 % of coaches go for it on 4th and 1. But it doesn't mention anything about with 6 minutes left and being down by 11. Perhaps reading isn't your strong suit.

The NYT Bot (whatever that is) is recommending to go for it on 4th and 1 anytime you are outside your own 9-yard line....because "the opposing team will already have good field position if you punt. Why not go for it on your 9-yard line." Yeah, that makes sense. What's 40 Yards difference in field position? NO, and I repeat NO NFL or college coach would agree with that BS.

Not only that, but the article doesn't take into account the time these choices are made, which has a drastic effect on a coach's decision making process. Oh, but the article mentions that things change when under 10 minutes. Thanks for throwing out an arbitrary amount of time, Bot, but I'm thinking coaches are more specific than "under 10 minutes."

Frankly, how anyone read that article and thought it was useful makes me concerned for their well-being. Something tells me that you 'might' need to read the article again.

OK, try to follow along. I know that you put a lot of stock into that article, which means I am dealing with a 'challenged' audience. I'll go slow.

When a team has scored 17 points in 3 1/2 quarters, It is going to be difficult for them to score 2 TDs in 6 minutes. Yes, I said 2 TDs, and the reason is because if we were to score a TD during the drive in question, we would still have to be successful on the 2-point conversation. If we aren't successful, it means that we would have had to score 2 TDs in 6 minutes. Got it?

If we don't get the 1st down, the game is essentially already lost at that point, because we will have 1 possession left (maybe 2 if we are fortunate, which is what ultimately happened) to score 11 points.

The point is...If you come up empty by going for it on 4th down, you've virtually ended the game with 6 minutes left. But, if you kick a much higher percentage FG on that 4th down, you're still alive, and you only have to score 1 TD in the next series (or two). Having to score 2 TDs is completely removed from the equation. And you can try to convince me all day long that scoring a TD, followed by a 2-point conversion is even remotely as easy as kicking a FG from 35 yards, and I would call you a complete loon.

You take the easy points so you not only save time on the clock (if we don't immediately score the TD), but you extend the game, instead of taking your chances that you are not only going to score a TD, but also convert the 2-point conversation.

As it turned out, we didn't get the first down, and the game was essentially over. You have to get the points from the field goal first, extend the game, and eliminate the possibility of having to score 2 TDs in 6 minutes.

Does that not make sense?

 

[headcard]

This is like watching a guy beat his head against a wall. It is your opinion that we should have kicked a FG, many of us disagree and told you why. Specifically we were down the field with a good chance to get the TD we needed, had a good call on and the FG was not a given.

You also sated more of your opinions as facts, which were proven wrong in this thread. Like it was 100% he makes the FG (when he was 67% from that range) and that every other coach kicks the FG there (which obviously isn't true).

This thread obviously isn't going anywhere, so I am just going to move on and take my opinions to another thread.

 

[Hoosker Du]

P

We needed a td to tie the game. Your argument is how hard it was for us to score a td the entire game how would we do it with 6 minutes left? So why sacrifice the likely best chance we'll get to score a td (a 4th and 1 on their 20) to kick a fg? It's completely illogical, you're basically saying how hard it is to score so take the easy posts but you're ignoring the fact you're sacrificing your likely best chance to score a td for a likely but not certain fg. Just because coaches are inherently conservative does not mean they're generally right. If you see people make the same mistake 100s of times that doesn't mean it's no longer a mistake.

Since you were mostly respectful, I'm not going to let you have it on saying that we needed a TD to tie. We were behind 11 points with 6:45 or so left on the clock before our 4th down where TA threw the ball in the end zone. Sure, if we can score the TD right then, and not burn any more clock, (6:37 after 4th down) then we still have to be successful on the 2-point conversation. But, if we don't get the 1st down, we still have to score twice, when we aren't guaranteed of having any time left after Iowa has the ball. If we score the TD (which may take more time off the clock to move it 19 yards to score), we still have to get the 2-point conversion, or we will have to score 2 TDs in the same time period as we had to kick an almost certain FG with a very good kicker, then only score one more TD and 2-point conversion.

I'm saying that we had to complete 2 very difficult talks (TD plus 2 point conversion), and if we don't get both, we would have to try to score another TD. Instead, we kick the FG on that 4th down, which is already almost automatic with our kicker, save time on the clock, extend the game, and only have to score a TD and 2-point conversion to send it to OT.

 

[Hoosker Du]

This is like watching a guy beat his head against a wall. It is your opinion that we should have kicked a FG, many of us disagree and told you why. Specifically we were down the field with a good chance to get the TD we needed, had a good call on and the FG was not a given.

You also sated more of your opinions as facts, which were proven wrong in this thread. Like it was 100% he makes the FG (when he was 67% from that range) and that every other coach kicks the FG there (which obviously isn't true).

This thread obviously isn't going anywhere, so I am just going to move on and take my opinions to another thread.

Wow, you still don't get it. I have to say it doesn't surprise me much. Your posts have lacked logic throughout this entire exchange.

Let me explain something to you. You eliminate the possibility of having to score more than one TD by our kicker making a short FG. You're using the moronic stat of him being 2 of 3 from short distance, when he hadn't missed a FG in what, 10+ attempts. He wasn't the same kicker that he was at the start of the season, and had gotten into a groove. He had also hit an earlier FG from 44 yards that was right down the middle.

Sure, there's a chance that he doesn't hit it. But there is a much much greater chance that we don't score the TD and the 2-point conversion. And to keep us from having to score 2 TDs in 6 and a half minutes, we HAVE to score the TD and the 2-point conversion. And if we don't get the TD, as we saw, we had no margin of error, and ran out of time.

Making the FG completely eliminates the scenario of having to score 2 TDs in 6 and a half minutes, and it also has the potential to leaves us with more clock.

With a team that struggled putting points on the board the entire day, you don't put them in the position to have to score 2 TDs in 6 and a half minutes.

 

[arf_man]

We did not have to score two TD's. Just one with a 2 point conversion, and then a field goal. And that is another reason to have gone for the TD first. If the 2 pointer fails you then know you need another TD. Kick the field goal first and then score a TD with mere seconds left, you are then screwed if you miss the 2 pointer

ding ding ding, we have a winner. It was the right call for this reason executed poorly.

 

[spinner4]

The New York Times article linked above is a great read. I think there will come a time in the not so distant future when coaches start employing actual data in their decisions rather than their "gut instinct". It's similar to the trend we're seeing in professional baseball with sabermetrics. I don't know if anyone has seen the mini-documentary on HBO about the high school coach that almost always goes for it on 4th down and onside kicks nearly every time, but that's another interesting point of view that has been backed by sports science. I sorta cringe at football becoming this type of game, but eventually a coach at a major university with nothing to lose is going to put this gameplan into action and it's going to become mainstream.

View embedded media

So I think the coaches made the right call in the Iowa game and hope they make the same decision next time (with maybe a different play call and better execution).

Haha Coach Kelly's Offensive Coordinator's wife is my wife's assistant. It drives him crazy that they never punt. Coach Kelly has been offered by many colleges. rumor is that he knows he cant do what he does in college football. Gotta understand the division he plays in and the level of talent he has vs the level of talent he plays against.

It's sort of like playing a video game on easy, you never punt.

 

[NorthWillRiseAgain]

It's


Almost as funny as watching people cling to the losing side of an argument. But hey, you guys keep on thinking that we were going to score 2 TDs in 6 minutes, despite the fact we had scored just 17 in over 3 1/2 quarters.

I'm a bit confused by this, because the Cethan Carter pass most likely would have been a TD. In either case though they still needed another TD, so saying it makes it any easier seems counterproductive. Also a 2 point conversion is even less of a gimmie than a 35ish yard field goal, so there's 3 big things that need to happen anyway.

Really either decision would have been decent, and both could be criticized.

 

[Hoosker Du]

ding ding ding, we have a winner. It was the right call for this reason executed poorly.

The point wasn't that we had to score 2 TDs, but if we did indeed score the first TD, and missed the 2 point conversion, we would have to score another TD. Not an easy task in 6 1/2 minutes. Especially since we had scored 2 TDs in 3 1/2 quarters.

You kick the FG and take the sure points, and cut it to a one possession game. I know it's not a sure thing, but it's much more sure than scoring a TD AND a 2-point conversion. I'm sure the odds of scoring a TD and 2-point conversion when you have a 4th down and one at the 19 aren't even remotely close to the odds of kicking a 35 yard FG.

I'm pretty surprised that people aren't getting this. I guess they wanted to find out if the game was over with 6 minutes left, so they could beat traffic.

 

[TheBeav815]

Here's your philosophical question to ponder: If it was a good call "on paper" but one or more players screw it up on the field, was it truly a good call?

If I have a QB who throws well but is slow and can't make anyone miss, but the defense is just BEGGING me to run a QB keeper on them on 4th and 5, and he gets run down from behind after 3 yards, was it a smart call or not?

 

[NorthWillRiseAgain]

and if anyone wants to criticize a game, Purdue & Illinois say hi. That said, no one calls perfect at all times, and it was their 1st season with this personnel, playing against unknown personnel to them.

 

[Hoosker Du]

I'm a bit confused by this, because the Cethan Carter pass most likely would have been a TD. In either case though they still needed another TD, so saying it makes it any easier seems counterproductive. Also a 2 point conversion is even less of a gimmie than a 35ish yard field goal, so there's 3 big things that need to happen anyway.

Really either decision would have been decent, and both could be criticized.

I'm reading a lot of "ifs" and "could haves" in this thread. Unfortunately those don't win games.

You are correct. The odds of a successful 2-point conversion are apparently 44%, as referenced above. Throw in scoring a TD prior to it, and 4th and 1, and the odds drop fairly dramatically. Especially when kicking the FG is a pretty sure bet, and completely eliminates a scenario of having to score 2 TDs in 6 and a half minutes. Assuming, of course, that Iowa doesn't score again, which they didn't.

 

[tone1017]

P


Since you were mostly respectful, I'm not going to let you have it on saying that we needed a TD to tie. We were behind 11 points with 6:45 or so left on the clock before our 4th down where TA threw the ball in the end zone. Sure, if we can score the TD right then, and not burn any more clock, (6:37 after 4th down) then we still have to be successful on the 2-point conversation. But, if we don't get the 1st down, we still have to score twice, when we aren't guaranteed of having any time left after Iowa has the ball. If we score the TD (which may take more time off the clock to move it 19 yards to score), we still have to get the 2-point conversion, or we will have to score 2 TDs in the same time period as we had to kick an almost certain FG with a very good kicker, then only score one more TD and 2-point conversion.

I'm saying that we had to complete 2 very difficult talks (TD plus 2 point conversion), and if we don't get both, we would have to try to score another TD. Instead, we kick the FG on that 4th down, which is already almost automatic with our kicker, save time on the clock, extend the game, and only have to score a TD and 2-point conversion to send it to OT.

I didn't mean only a td. I meant at some point we'd need a td in the last 7 minutes to tie, unless you think we could kick 4 field goals. At some point we'd need a td and a 2 point conversion, it didn't matter when but we had to have it. This was likely our best shot at that and we needed one yard to extend the drive and give us a shot. I don't get what you don't get. Not to mention the fact that if we get a td and 2 point conversion (or even don't get the conversion) at that point it allows a possibility to win even if Iowa had managed a field goal on the next drive. The process and decision were smart, the execution was poor. A poor outcome doesn't make a decision a bad one. The optics of "extending a game" does not matter. In fact pushing off a 2 point conversion until later is counter intuitive because then there's less time to recover if its unsuccessful.

 

[Hoosker Du]

and if anyone wants to criticize a game, Purdue & Illinois say hi. That said, no one calls perfect at all times, and it was their 1st season with this personnel, playing against unknown personnel to them.

I don't think I need to remind anyone that I want all of these guys to succeed. Riley is such a likeable guy, as are many of the other coaches. I am proud to have them as our coaching staff.

I just saw some calls that make me nervous that the Oregon State fans might be right on Riley not making some of the best game management decisions. I hope you are right that as they become more comfortable with the personnel those things will be cleaned up.

 

[NorthWillRiseAgain]

I don't think I need to remind anyone that I want all of these guys to succeed. Riley is such a likeable guy, as are many of the other coaches. I am proud to have them as our coaching staff.

I just saw some calls that make me nervous that the Oregon State fans might be right on Riley not making some of the best game management decisions. I hope you are right that as they become more comfortable with the personnel those things will be cleaned up.

I will say we had these same criticisms after every year with Bo's staff, so if they cut down and improve by playing into the players strong hands this season, we'll see improvement. I really think Langs is smart, and now may be more comfortable with using all of his cards. I've seen far worse first years when there is a total philosophy change.

 

[Hoosker Du]

I didn't mean only a td. I meant at some point we'd need a td in the last 7 minutes to tie, unless you think we could kick 4 field goals. At some point we'd need a td and a 2 point conversion, it didn't matter when but we had to have it. This was likely our best shot at that and we needed one yard to extend the drive and give us a shot. I don't get what you don't get. Not to mention the fact that if we get a td and 2 point conversion (or even don't get the conversion) at that point it allows a possibility to win even if Iowa had managed a field goal on the next drive. The process and decision were smart, the execution was poor. A poor outcome doesn't make a decision a bad one. The optics of "extending a game" does not matter. In fact pushing off a 2 point conversion until later is counter intuitive because then there's less time to recover if its unsuccessful.

But it's not counter intuitive. By taking easy points, you stay alive for another series. And in another series, you may get more fortunate than to be faced with a 4th and 1. It also gives the coaches more time to possibly determine some other plays to try. Or even getting lucky with a tipped ball. The point is...that our chances almost certainly went down the tubes when that ball hit the turf in the end zone. Why eliminate yourself from the game with 6 1/2 minutes left on the clock. Extend the game and live to play another series. And don't put yourself in the position to have to score 2 TDs in 6 1/2 minutes.

 

[Hoosker Du]

I will say we had these same criticisms after every year with Bo's staff, so if they cut down and improve by playing into the players strong hands this season, we'll see improvement. I really think Langs is smart, and now may be more comfortable with using all of his cards. I've seen far worse first years when there is a total philosophy change.

I think Langs is smart too. I do think he gets a little too cute sometimes with his play calling.

 

[chicolby]

I think Langs is smart too. I do think he gets a little too cute sometimes with his play calling.

When you look at some of his play designs and how they were set up from previous sets, it reminds one of someone who actually plays chess when calling plays vs. randomly calling plays that are "fun". Look at some of Cethan Carter's runs and yes... the overanalyzed 4th down call vs. Iowa. Those were a thing of beauty among others that I saw at times last year.

 

[Enrozes]

There's a strong stench of the very sophisticated "call plays that work" mindset in this thread. Rabble rabble.

I think it's very fair to debate going for it vs kicking the field goal. Criticizing a play call that obviously *should* have worked based on the fact that it *didn't* is just hindsight bias. Outcome independence, people.

 

[SnohomishRed]

When you look at some of his play designs and how they were set up from previous sets, it reminds one of someone who actually plays chess when calling plays vs. randomly calling plays that are "fun". Look at some of Cethan Carter's runs and yes... the overanalyzed 4th down call vs. Iowa. Those were a thing of beauty among others that I saw at times last year.

He and MR were noted by many that follow Oregon State to have some head scratching calls every year, Langsdorf especially. However yes every coach makes some mistakes and yes it was the first year so maybe that played into it. They deserve to show what they can do this year and we need to forget some of the decisions last year.

 

[dockentwo]

People saying the call was a good call must not have paid attention to the outcome. What did the play call get us again? Yup, that's right...another tick mark in the loss column. It was a stupid play call from the moment Tommy took the field on 4th down.

I believe even the poster said he felt forced to agree with you; I was just being speculative in what may have been thought . Looking at the pic above provided; it shows how open the guy was TA was supposed to throw too - not sure if you missed that; TA threw to the other side. Gas -lighting. At a college level, with whats seen in that Pic; you should complete that pass 95% of the time. If its just results; there are no good calls until the results are known - and even then, they must be voted on - on the internet. You had already made your valid point

 

[dockentwo]

He and MR were noted by many that follow Oregon State to hsve some head scratching calls every year, Langsdorf especially. However yes every coach makes some mistakes and yes it was the first year so maybe that played into it. They deserve to show what they can do this year and we need to forget some of the decisions last year.

I am glad you are around; I don't always know how it talk with all the NFL coaches and assistants.

 

[Hoosker Du]

There's a strong stench of the very sophisticated "call plays that work" mindset in this thread. Rabble rabble.

I think it's very fair to debate going for it vs kicking the field goal. Criticizing a play call that obviously *should* have worked based on the fact that it *didn't* is just hindsight bias. Outcome independence, people.

"Hindsight bias?" Now you're getting far too technical for the reader.

BTW, who said it should have worked? It didn't work, and essentially ended the game with 6 1/2 minutes left on the clock, when the game could have been extended and cut to one possession by simply kicking the FG.

People referring to that piss-poor article (headcard, have you read it again so you finally understand it, so you can stop misquoting it? ) need to deposit that in the circular file where it belongs. It provides no info that applies to being down by 11 with 6 1/2 minutes to go. Except some buffoon that suggests going for it on 4th and 1 at your own 9 yd. line. I'm still laughing that someone acctually thought the article was pertinent.

 

[Enrozes]

"Hindsight bias?" Now you're getting far too technical for the reader.

BTW, who said it should have worked? It didn't work, and essentially ended the game with 6 1/2 minutes left on the clock, when the game could have been extended and cut to one possession by simply kicking the FG.

People referring to that piss-poor article (headcard, have you read it again so you finally understand it, so you can stop misquoting it? ) need to deposit that in the circular file where it belongs. It provides no info that applies to being down by 11 with 6 1/2 minutes to go. Except some buffoon that suggests going for it on 4th and 1 at your own 9 yd. line. I'm still laughing that someone acctually thought the article was pertinent.

So successful plays are good calls, and failed plays are bad calls?

Extending the game isn't always the best percentage play. Even if you assume the field goal is good (and that's not for sure) I'm not convinced that being down 8 with 6:30 left and without the ball gives you a higher win probability than having the ball 4th and 1 at the 20, down 11. "Extend the game" -- to delay losing as long as possible, rather than taking the best shot at winning -- sounds a lot like the "prevent" defense everyone likes to hate on.

Now, I was mad as hell after that play. Certainly kicking the field goal is the better call compared to a low percentage heave to the end zone.