Sam's bad attitude strikes again.

I wasn't bummed about the decision to go for it on 4th down. The FG would have been long, and against the wind. Yes, Foltz could have punted and pinned them inside the 10, but that's not guaranteed.

The play call was another dumb play call though. Another bootleg pass to Jano, where he would have had to go at least 5 yards on his own? Jano is good, but that's a lot to ask for from a fullback.

If he's gonna go for it, might as well tried a normal pass play, even though TA was struggling making throws.

 
I don't know how anyone puts a positive spin on the happenings of today, except to hope it will be a major learning experience for someone who has been in the business for 40 years...

...and even that doesn't sound very positive, does it?

 
On 4th and 7, I think they decided the wind was to strong to kick a field goal, so they opted not to kick a field goal, that said... they also opted not to punt. we had been sticking punts all day inside the 2. its wouldn't have been a long punt, but at least you pin em back a bit more....

So they go for it on 4th and 7, TA gets sacked. Illinois takes over, Illinois then goes down the field and scored in about a minute.

it was awesome...

 
Hayseed said:
Read this carefully....after the infamous 3rd and 7, we failed to convert on 4th and 7? What happened on that 4th down play that gave the ball back to Illinois with 55 seconds left?

We didn't punt?

Can someone explain this?

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/blogs/examining-what-the-heck-happened-the-rd-and--that/article_3b7728dc-6a2e-11e5-9a74-03605936afa2.html
Click to expand...
There is no explaining it. It's easy to second guess a couple plays like that. The real issue is the other 59 minutes of the game where we couldn't amass more than 300 yards of offense. I'm more interested in that explanation.

People wanted to do the same thing with BYU: analyzing the Hail Mary. But the real problem was the rest of the game. Same thing with Miami.

It's sorta like all the people that bitched about the :01 against Texas in the Big 12 CCG. If we had any f'ing offense at all that year, the :01 doesn't matter.

Anyway... That's my 2 cents.

 
ColoradoHusk said:
I wasn't bummed about the decision to go for it on 4th down. The FG would have been long, and against the wind. Yes, Foltz could have punted and pinned them inside the 10, but that's not guaranteed.

The play call was another dumb play call though. Another bootleg pass to Jano, where he would have had to go at least 5 yards on his own? Jano is good, but that's a lot to ask for from a fullback.

If he's gonna go for it, might as well tried a normal pass play, even though TA was struggling making throws.
Click to expand...
I would've punted just to run clock;....the same thing they claimed to want to do on 3rd down. Pinning them on the 10 would've been a bonus. I just couldn't understand why any coach in his right mind would pass on 4th and 7?

I bet it was an exciting finish in China.

 
At this point, there's not much to be gained from punting. If you punt you get maybe about 4 seconds to run off and you gain ... well, maybe 25 yards, or if it goes into the endzone, maybe 8 yards of field position. With 7 yards to go, you kind of have to pass now. A run that fails versus a pass that fails take about the same time. You need to convert.

The one thing they could've tried was a field goal, but that was pretty risky and I guess they weren't feeling it. The Illinois kicker missed two from similar range and it's not like he was terrible; passes were sailing and we were against the wind.

The sheer magnitude of the disaster brought about by 4th and 7 probably tells us the coaches did not expect there'd be an incompletion - or a pass - on the previous down. In more than one way we paid Illinois back for the officials' gaffe, and thoroughly deserved that loss.

There is no rational, reasonable way the coaches called a pass play on 3rd & 7 only to put themselves in as bad of a 4th & must situation as occurred. None.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yup, going for it was the right call, but it should have been something to milk clock. And punting wouldn't have milked enough clock to make it worthwhile.

Of course, the kids shouldn't have been in this position to begin with...but that's being covered in the Fire Riley thread.

 
Hayseed said:
ColoradoHusk said:
I wasn't bummed about the decision to go for it on 4th down. The FG would have been long, and against the wind. Yes, Foltz could have punted and pinned them inside the 10, but that's not guaranteed.

The play call was another dumb play call though. Another bootleg pass to Jano, where he would have had to go at least 5 yards on his own? Jano is good, but that's a lot to ask for from a fullback.

If he's gonna go for it, might as well tried a normal pass play, even though TA was struggling making throws.
Click to expand...
I would've punted just to run clock;....the same thing they claimed to want to do on 3rd down. Pinning them on the 10 would've been a bonus. I just couldn't understand why any coach in his right mind would pass on 4th and 7?

I bet it was an exciting finish in China.
Click to expand...
Doesn't the clock stop on a change of posession even if it would have been a run?

 
Nebraska has the ball, 3rd and 7, with 55 seconds left to play and with Illinois having zero timeouts; no way to stop the clock. We run the ball which takes 43 seconds off the clock and we call timeout. 12 seconds left. Ask Sam to kick one as high as possible and hopefully it stays in play.

Worst case scenario: Illinois houses and wins with :00 left.

Most likely scenario: Illinois gets the ball at the 20 with :06 left.

What actually happened: Nebraska throws the ball on 3rd and 7 (yes, Tommy did decide to throw the ball instead of taking the sack, but why call a pass play to start?). Nebraska passes again on 4th down and gives the ball back to Illinois on their 28 with :55 seconds left.

That's the frustrating thing. Yeah, the offense didn't look good (thought the defense did). But despite their struggle, we could've easily walked away with a win if we would've just simply managed the clock. It's survive and advance.

 
Kernal said:
Hayseed said:
ColoradoHusk said:
I wasn't bummed about the decision to go for it on 4th down. The FG would have been long, and against the wind. Yes, Foltz could have punted and pinned them inside the 10, but that's not guaranteed.

The play call was another dumb play call though. Another bootleg pass to Jano, where he would have had to go at least 5 yards on his own? Jano is good, but that's a lot to ask for from a fullback.

If he's gonna go for it, might as well tried a normal pass play, even though TA was struggling making throws.
Click to expand...
I would've punted just to run clock;....the same thing they claimed to want to do on 3rd down. Pinning them on the 10 would've been a bonus. I just couldn't understand why any coach in his right mind would pass on 4th and 7?

I bet it was an exciting finish in China.
Click to expand...
Doesn't the clock stop on a change of posession even if it would have been a run?
Click to expand...
Yeah, but you still would've ran off a few seconds.

 
It'sNotAFakeID said:
Yeah, but you still would've ran off a few seconds.
Click to expand...
A pass runs off a few seconds. Same as a run. A pass probably runs off more time, especially if they move the pocket as they tried to do.

At issue here is whether or not it was actually a pass play, or a bootleg run. Either way, a hand off would have been better, but I understand they were trying to go for a play to spring a conversion on 3rd & 7. Regardless they could have done better at making sure Tommy knew not to do something like that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top