I have less confidence that TA can execute some sort of short one-route pass play than in our defense to hold an opponent to less than 50 yards with one minute left and no timeouts.
"Never thought about throwing it the last series,.....
- Thread starter MemorialRedWarrior
- Start date
Genius, what would you be saying now if Tommy through another horrible pass, thus preserving a timeout for Wisconsin?
Heh, no option please, Tommy would screw up a pitch or something dumb like that. But a QB bootleg would be fine, Wisky would be pursuing hard to the ball.
I am guessing if you ask any Wisky fan what they wanted Neb to do in that final series, attempting a pass would be pretty high on the list, given how poorly TA was throwing the ball.
The one thing Tommy does well is run, why didn't we even try to run a QB sweep and have Jano and Newby block ahead of him? The three runs we called were so disappointing, we couldn't wait to give the ball back to UW. A called pass would not have been executed correctly, as long as we are counting hindsight.
Oh so if they throw the pass they are playing not to lose.
Genius! Why didn't I put that together?
You need to be clearer. If we run we lose. If we throw the pass we lose. Maybe we should have punted on third down and caught them by surprise?
I wish we would have attempted a pass, when the inevitable incompletion occurred and Wisky has 1:03 at their own 32 PLUS a timeout....and then the rest of the game plays out exactly as it did, holy moley, the bowels of hell would have opened up, as the narrative would be that we mismanaged the clock at the end of a game....IN ESSENTIALLY THE SAME WAY AS WE DID LAST WEEK. Sigh, no arguing, I don't want to call names or anything, we are all on the same team...we are all just frustrated I guess and want better.
How many times does the defense have to crumble before you reconsider? I know Tommy's completion percentage isn't great but I know it's better than 0 for 3 (.000).
Because you're not so smart. Listen up, there's new a Sheriff in town and I'm calling it like it is. You can either get on the bandwagon or go be a Creighton fan.
I'm right, and you know it.
Have you not realized that there is a meltdown already going on? You do realize that not attempting to go for the first down was a dumb move right?
Comparing defensive letdowns vs. Tommy's poor decision making and execution seems like a stalemate, honestly.
No one is contending that going for a first down was the wrong move, my contention is that if we are going to run 3 plays, which it was obvious we are going to do, why couldn't we at least put our team in the best position to execute? We know TA wouldn't be able to execute a 7 yard out, hasn't done it in two games. Then it's 2nd and 10 and we run up the gut, just like we did with the same results.
My contention is we could have been a bit more creative with our running calls. I will say this, if I knew ahead of time we were going to plow our RBs into the middle of the line 3x, I would be in a favor of a pass, as a run 3x into the box stacked with all 11 defenders is not going to produce 10 yards, that is a fact. But I also don't think a pass on 1st down would have been executed in any way shape or form so it appears to be a push.
Ok sheriff roscoe, I'm all ears.
Let's start over... I know we needed a first down. I knew it even before our drive stalled. I didn't understand why we didn't roll Tommy out and give him the option to throw if it was there.
All I'm saying (and others as well) is that if he throws the pass and it falls incomplete, would you be praising the play call? I really am looking for honesty here.
i don't believe that to be true, but if it is, those people are idiots. Either way, the plays we did run were awful and had around a 5% chance of generating a first down against Wisc in that situation. We would have been much better off spreading the field and then running the first play or two. Not throwing on 3rd and 7 was a terrible decision.
No, why would I praise it? It would be less of a head scratcher if that is what you mean.
You have to get a 1st down. Whether it is 1 pass or 2. The 3 timeouts limits the time off the clock. 3 stupid runs gives the ball back with just a FG needed to win. I knew the game was lost once they did that and gave the ball back with over a minute to go and only needing a FG. I accepted it and moved on to the rest of my weekend. Going to be great watching football and baseball tomorrow.
It is sad to me that we have had to live wth TMART for 3 plus years and now 2 plus years to T Army.....fying stupid NU can't get a QB on campus that can play QB. I mean there are 100 schools that have had better QB s than NU over the last 6 years. #sad
Three runs was the right call. TA is an awful qb and showed it again yesterday. Had TA thrown an incomplete, people would have melted down. We did what we needed to do. The defense failed.
The right move was to try to get a 1st down. The whole 3 timeouts was and is totally different from last week with no timeouts.
They had to get a 1st down. That is the only way to win this game. This team had no defense. This team can rely on the D. Not this year.
No we didn't. As others have stated earlier we could have called some other more creative run plays in an attempt to get the first down instead of just running straight into the line and 10 men in the box.
Or we could have thrown less than 25+ times with an increasingly inaccurate QB into a strong wind and taken more time off the clock earlier in the quarter. We could have also taken the wind in the 4th, instead of the 3rd for the second week in a row, but no.
Wrong. You make them use all of their timeouts...period!
Not saying we should have called three up the middle, but I would have called three run plays that were guaranteed to make Wisky use all three timeouts. If I had more confidence in the ability of our qb to complete even a simple pass, I might feel differently.
You play to get the first down in that situation. It's obvious. They have 3 timeouts. And no, I wouldn't blame Mike Riley passing on any one of those downs. Yeah, there's plenty of stupid fans who would blame him for that. So what? We also would have put the game away with a first down, and we wouldn't be 2-4.
Nope. NFL and college coaches will run the ball all 3 downs almost every time. Sure, you try to get the first down....while running the ball and making them use their timeouts. Even when I don't have that much confidence in our OLine, I still believe you run the ball all 3 downs to make them use up all their TOs.
This response is why we are on a message board and not coaching. I say you get the first down and win the game. You say....use all their timeouts and give the ball back and lose. I want to win not lose. Who is right?
This board is divided. I knew the moment they didn't get the first down, NU was going to lose. "YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME"
Not play to use the 3 timeouts and lose.
This is a totally different situation then the Illinois debacle.
Both games resulted in losses.
#inexcusable
Sorry, but the vast majority of coaches would disagree with you. They say you run the ball and try to get the first down, and force the other team to use their TOs.
I disagree with you. Coaches are paid to win.
Punting the ball back with this D, over a minute and just needing a FG is not smart.
Just because you say that the majority of coaches would do it, doesn't prove chit...
It was the wrong decision to not go for a 1st down there. Running 3 times into a stacked box is not the right decision. You need to get a 1st down.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you are wrong. This scenario plays itself out multiple times every weekend, and it's been a long time since I've seen someone pass the ball when trying to get the first down in that instance. Even in college, where the clock is stopped on a first down. The textbook call is making them use their TOs, because you can both get the first down, and make them burn their TOs.
You act as if getting a first down was only possible by throwing the ball. By running the ball, you 100% guarantee that they will have to burn their TOs. And you still have the opportunity to get the first down. By throwing the ball in that instance, there are no guarantees of forcing them to burn a TO, because an incomplete pass occurs roughly 40% of the time you pass.
I will say that we needed to be more creative than what we saw on those 3 run plays on Saturday. If you are an OC worth your salt, you have someone charting the plays, and you go to your chart for guidance.
Last edited:
That is a lot of the problem. Tommie has made Jammal Lord look like Joe Montana passing the ball. I thought a few years ago, I would never see a worse passer at NU than Lord. I was wrong. Tommie continually misses easy passes. That doesn't excuse Reilly at receiver. He looked pretty good a few weeks ago, and was supposedly our hidden secret deep threat. All I have seen from him lately is dropped contested passes, and him with his hands raised at the officials after the play. That is the sign of a guy looking for excuses for his own dropped passes in my book. Thats just me though.
I don't care what the vast majority of coaches say. You get the first down however you need to.
I would have thrown the ball on 3rd down but I understand why they didn't with Armstrong's crooked arm.
Did you watch when Taylor Martinez played at NU? He would've been a complete 4 year starter, if it wasn't for injury as a senior. That is 6 years worth of shit at QB.
This is college...the clock stops after every first down.....those timeouts mean nothing when you have 1:20 left on the clock and only need a field goal.
They only used 3 plays to get into field goal position. They didn't need the timeouts.
They only used 3 plays to get into field goal position. They didn't need the timeouts.
Similar threads
