Playing not to lose

3rd and long said:
zoogs said:
If you take a TO on 2nd & long, with one TO left at around midfield, which down do you run the ball on and give up your final TO?I think they went for the win. They just didn't get there.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying they should have run, just that it might have caught them off guard. Whatever you choose, you can still control the clock. But at least if you use the TO and get everyone knowing what's going on for the next two plays, I think you have a better chance of at least giving yourself that FG opportunity. I would rather do it that way as opposed to basically wasting 20-25 seconds and then throwing a Hail Mary.

High pressure situations like that, I would rather slow things down so everyone is together.

If your defense is going to give up 50-60 yards in 30 seconds then there's a good chance they'll give up a score it OT too.
Click to expand...
If your defense is going to give up 50+ yards in under 40 seconds, you don't deserve to win the game in the first place. Go for the kill, don't play for what could happen later.

 
huskerdude171 said:
The mistake was calling a deep pass on 3rd and 10 with a chance to get into FG range and win the game, instead of run routes towards the line to gain and hope to get a first down and set up a game winning FG.
Click to expand...

Nobody can say that we 'called' a deep pass on 3rd and 10. Crazy concept, sometimes route packages are designed to draw defenders away from other receivers, so occasionally, you'll have receivers running deep on plays where you aren't really planning on throwing it deep.

We don't know what the actual playcall was - we only know that Tommy threw that deep ball.

 
huskerdude171 said:
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
I for one am certainly glad that Riley opts for strategic decision-making instead of the draw of macho-man tough guy fulfillment.
Click to expand...
Which is why Nebraska lost tonight, the bold are those who are rewarded
Click to expand...
We still had to punt, regardless on if there was 16 or 30 seconds left. We didn't score because we didn't execute enough to score. Playing to win or not to lose had nothing to with it.

 
huskerdude171 said:
Click to expand...
I agree. OTOH, didn't the Jets fire Herm Edwards?
default_laugh.png


 
I don't mind how it was managed but also would have loved to get the FG attempt in regulation. but there was an opportunity to get points with a short field a few minutes earlier and couldn't capitalize so I'm putting it more on the offense not executing than game management in that situation because realistically it was the safest option after a certain point and after what happened last year maybe Riley decided to extend the game this time

 
I agree with the OP, they played not to lose. That's Rileys mantra though, always has been. I'm a Charger fan, so I have seen this before, many, many times before from him.

 
huskerfan92 said:
MacNCheeze said:
On that note, if im nebraska i take the ball first in OT. Its harder playing comeback.
Click to expand...
Literally no one would do that...
Click to expand...
Uh, I would. I have always strongly disagreed with this 'logic' of deferring the choice in OT to have the ball last. The ONLY time I see it works to your advantage is IF the oppoent fails to score (which is not very often actually). Then it becomes easy to simply try to lay up for a good FG kick to win by 3. I think it depends on the game and how both teams match up. In last night's game, I would take the ball first if I am NU and we won the toss and could go on offense first. Why? because I would compare kickers. Obviously advantage Huskers last night as Badgers kicker missed both the game winning FG and his OT extra point kick.

Assuming Huskers take the ball first and don't get a first down on our opening OT offensive series, just kick the almost autormatice 3 with Drew Brown. That 3 point lead becomes a serious concern to Wisconsin who then needs to be ultra careful not to blow their field goal option on their opening series. They become cautious playing again not to lose by laying up to get their best shot to match the field goal. Certainly they would like to make a TD but will call plays with the worry that if they do nothing else, they need to get a good FG shot for sure.

I always prefer to play with the lead vs the deficit on the score. To me, the mental edge favors the team that is ahead. Any lead feels better than a deficit IMO.

I think whoever takes the ball first in OT has the advantage because they are not playing from behind and any score puts pressure on the opponent as opposed to simply giving them some kind of heads up as to what they 'need' to do. Every team 'needs' to score a TD if they can or a FG if not because most teams with a good kicker will get 3. But not Wisconsin presumably.

 
84HuskerLaw said:
huskerfan92 said:
MacNCheeze said:
On that note, if im nebraska i take the ball first in OT. Its harder playing comeback.
Click to expand...
Literally no one would do that...
Click to expand...
Uh, I would. I have always strongly disagreed with this 'logic' of deferring the choice in OT to have the ball last. The ONLY time I see it works to your advantage is IF the oppoent fails to score (which is not very often actually). Then it becomes easy to simply try to lay up for a good FG kick to win by 3. I think it depends on the game and how both teams match up. In last night's game, I would take the ball first if I am NU and we won the toss and could go on offense first. Why? because I would compare kickers. Obviously advantage Huskers last night as Badgers kicker missed both the game winning FG and his OT extra point kick. Assuming Huskers take the ball first and don't get a first down on our opening OT offensive series, just kick the almost autormatice 3 with Drew Brown. That 3 point lead becomes a serious concern to Wisconsin who then needs to be ultra careful not to blow their field goal option on their opening series. They become cautious playing again not to lose by laying up to get their best shot to match the field goal. Certainly they would like to make a TD but will call plays with the worry that if they do nothing else, they need to get a good FG shot for sure.

I always prefer to play with the lead vs the deficit on the score. To me, the mental edge favors the team that is ahead. Any lead feels better than a deficit IMO.

I think whoever takes the ball first in OT has the advantage because they are not playing from behind and any score puts pressure on the opponent as opposed to simply giving them some kind of heads up as to what they 'need' to do. Every team 'needs' to score a TD if they can or a FG if not because most teams with a good kicker will get 3. But not Wisconsin presumably.
Click to expand...
it would be good to see a statistic of which team typically wins in OT
 
I can't imagine a situation where you would be better off not knowing exactly what you need to do. Since they implemented OT I wonder if any college team has chosen to go first.

 
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
huskerdude171 said:
The mistake was calling a deep pass on 3rd and 10 with a chance to get into FG range and win the game, instead of run routes towards the line to gain and hope to get a first down and set up a game winning FG.
Click to expand...

Nobody can say that we 'called' a deep pass on 3rd and 10. Crazy concept, sometimes route packages are designed to draw defenders away from other receivers, so occasionally, you'll have receivers running deep on plays where you aren't really planning on throwing it deep.

We don't know what the actual playcall was - we only know that Tommy threw that deep ball.
Click to expand...
You are correct, it is what TA does and people blame the OC for TA's decision making. And when TA takes that chance and connects it's a great play in spite of Lang's play calling, I think I see a trend here.

 
Back
Top