Temp check: 7-5

[cm husker]

No single play is the "exact and direct" reason for an outcome.

Have you heard of a Hail Mary

Yeah, when it occurs, it's one of about 70 to 90 plays that an offense runs on a Saturday.

Let's make this easy

If BYU didn't catch the Hail Mary pass, who wins the game?

When BYU caught the Hail Mary pass, who won the game?

This is such a silly argument. And it's only foisted up to try to justify a talented group of Huskers being wasted in losses to the likes of Illinois and Purdue.

Was the MSU game this year a play away from a loss? How about Southern Miss and UCLA, which were both one score games?

Should we argue that NU was a few plays away from 10 losses too? Well, 9, because UCLA game wouldn't have been played.

The "few plays away" argument is a silly claim and desperate hope to cling to.

But hey, if you'll agree that NU under Pelini was only a few plays a season away from being .850 under him, then at least you'd be consistent.

 

[Husker Psycho]

That's rationalization.

and it ignores that NU shouldn't have been in a position to lose those games in the first place.

That's the problem with pretending about 10 regular season wins (which was the original claim).

It causes people to ignore the underlying issues that had NU in dog fights with the likes of so many mediocre to bad teams.

Exactly

In fact the sole purpose of all of this make believe - fairy tale stuff and word game playing ("rebuilding") and non stop excuse making... is about "ignoring the underlying issues".

Nebraska needs to perform this year. The make believe stuff and the never ending excuses needs to stop.

 

[Husker Psycho]

You said "Anyone who thinks there's only a few plays separating 10 wins from 5 wins is smoking some amazingly good stuff."

It's not crazy for 5 plays to be the exact and direct reason for losing in 5 games. 5 plays qualifies as a few by most people's definitions of the word. I'm not making a bigger point or rationalizing anything. Just letting you know that your statement, as quoted, isn't true.

It was absolutely true.

No single play is the "exact and direct" reason for an outcome.

There's a world of difference between a 5 win season and a 10 win season. And to claim that it's only a matter of "a few plays" is completely misguided.

100% correct... again.

 

[Husker Psycho]

No single play is the "exact and direct" reason for an outcome.

Have you heard of a Hail Mary

Yeah, it's typically the LAST play of a game.

A game in which dozens of other plays occurred previously, where if any one of them was either more or less successful, the Hail Mary play would have been irrelevant.

Using your logic, in the last inning of a baseball game, if 3 batters strike out, it's only the 3rd batter that lost the game for the team.

Exactly

We're finally getting some informed and knowledgeable comments from members who understand football.

 

[Landlord]

This is such a silly argument. And it's only foisted up to try to justify a talented group of Huskers being wasted in losses to the likes of Illinois and Purdue.

Was the MSU game this year a play away from a loss? How about Southern Miss and UCLA, which were both one score games?

Should we argue that NU was a few plays away from 10 losses too? Well, 9, because UCLA game wouldn't have been played.

The "few plays away" argument is a silly claim and desperate hope to cling to.

But hey, if you'll agree that NU under Pelini was only a few plays a season away from being .850 under him, then at least you'd be consistent.

The reason I said direct reason is because two things could happen on the final play, with one of them resulting in a win, and one of them resulting in a loss. I'm not excusing or rationalizing anything. We lost those games. We won other games. It's just hysterical how much time you spend harping on semantics when you make statements that are empirically dismissed, and then you change the focus to ignore that what you said was factually incorrect.

Should we argue that NU was a few plays away from 10 losses? Yes. We should.

The MSU game wasn't one play away, but it was close.

The Southern Miss game was the same deal I think, without going back to look at the play by play. They had the chance to score and win on the last play of the game.

UCLA wasn't one play away, but it was close to going differently.

Pelini won most of the close "one play decides it" or last second games he coached, but yes, he was a few near direct plays away from having a guaranteed better W-L record. Two of them, '09 Texas and take your pick of '10 Oklahoma or '14 Michigan State, probably would have kept him his job if the plays would have gone differently.

 

[commando]

all i know is that it would be nice to get out from under at least 1 buyout before we fire another coach..

 

[teachercd]

It appears we are getting back to the argument that Nebraska almost won the game versus Purdue… And that if you really think about it Nebraska was basically undefeated last year.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

It appears we are getting back to the argument that Nebraska almost won the game versus Purdue… And that if you really think about it Nebraska was basically undefeated last year.

Riley went undefeated in post-game press conferences last year.

Aw shucks, gosh golly.

Want some ice cream?

 

[wanderful]

I'm not sure why you (CM/RedDead/Husker Psycho) seem to have such a hard time admitting that several games last year came down to the outcome of a single play.

You'd be perfectly in the right arguing that we never should have been in those situations in the first place, but denying that the games actually came down to one play makes you come across like you have an agenda and will continue to argue in favor of that agenda regardless of facts.

 

[Husker Psycho]

I'm not sure why you (CM/RedDead/Husker Psycho) seem to have such a hard time admitting that several games last year came down to the outcome of a single play.

You'd be perfectly in the right arguing that we never should have been in those situations in the first place, but denying that the games actually came down to one play makes you come across like you have an agenda and will continue to argue in favor of that agenda regardless of facts.

No game came down to one play last year... or any other year... for any football team... ever.

Every play of a football game is as important as every other play.

That's why as players we were "coached" by every coach we ever had to give 100% effort on every play. Because every play is as important as every other play.

It's one of the most basic things players learn... in "football 101"... usually in grade school.

A touchdown and extra point on the first play of the game... or any play of the game... counts for 7 points... exactly the same as a touchdown on the last play. And the same goes for the other team. This is basic football knowledge for those who played.

 

[TheSker]

The Illinois Fighting Illini are a barometer of how close we are.

Great.

 

[wanderful]

I'm not sure why you (CM/RedDead/Husker Psycho) seem to have such a hard time admitting that several games last year came down to the outcome of a single play.

You'd be perfectly in the right arguing that we never should have been in those situations in the first place, but denying that the games actually came down to one play makes you come across like you have an agenda and will continue to argue in favor of that agenda regardless of facts.

No game came down to one play last year... or any other year... for any football team... ever.

Every play of a football game is as important as every other play.

That's why as players we were "coached" by every coach we ever had to give 100% effort on every play. Because every play is as important as every other play.

It's one of the most basic things players learn... in "football 101"... usually in grade school.

Okay, let's take your argument and apply it to two different scenarios:

Play 1) An end of game Hail Mary

Play 2) Earlier the same game: 1:14 left in the first quarter, 2nd and 2 on your own 32 yard line.

If you "lose" play 2, do you lose the game? Not necessarily.

If you "win" play 2, do you win the game? Not necessarily.

This play has the potential to cause many different outcomes in the game, thus does not necessarily have a direct impact on the outcome of the game (thought still MIGHT, thus the "give 100% effort every play" rule).

If you lose play 1, do you lose the game? Yes.

If you win play 1, do you win the game? Yes.

This play has ONLY TWO possible outcomes, each of which affect the outcome of the game in diametrically opposed ways. Thus this play is necessarily more important in determining the outcome of the game than is play 2.

Could you have avoided that play in the first place if you played better: yes.

But that doesn't change the fact that the game still comes down to that one play. If you win that play, you win that game. If you lose that play, you lose that game.

 

[Husker Psycho]

I'm not sure why you (CM/RedDead/Husker Psycho) seem to have such a hard time admitting that several games last year came down to the outcome of a single play.

You'd be perfectly in the right arguing that we never should have been in those situations in the first place, but denying that the games actually came down to one play makes you come across like you have an agenda and will continue to argue in favor of that agenda regardless of facts.

No game came down to one play last year... or any other year... for any football team... ever.

Every play of a football game is as important as every other play.

That's why as players we were "coached" by every coach we ever had to give 100% effort on every play. Because every play is as important as every other play.

It's one of the most basic things players learn... in "football 101"... usually in grade school.

Okay, let's take your argument and apply it to two different scenarios:

Play 1) An end of game Hail Mary

Play 2) Earlier the same game: 1:14 left in the first quarter, 2nd and 2 on your own 32 yard line.

If you "lose" play 2, do you lose the game? Not necessarily.

If you "win" play 2, do you win the game? Not necessarily.

This play has the potential to cause many different outcomes in the game, thus does not necessarily have a direct impact on the outcome of the game (thought still MIGHT, thus the "give 100% effort every play" rule).

If you lose play 1, do you lose the game? Yes.

If you win play 1, do you win the game? Yes.

This play has ONLY TWO possible outcomes, each of which affect the outcome of the game in diametrically opposed ways. Thus this play is necessarily more important in determining the outcome of the game than is play 2.

Could you have avoided that play in the first place if you played better: yes.

But that doesn't change the fact that the game still comes down to that one play. If you win that play, you win that game. If you lose that play, you lose that game.

Your uninformed and ridiculous game of "what if" can be played with every play of every game ever played... by both teams.

The only thing that matters is what actually happened (reality)... not some concocted fairy tale.

Football is a performance sport, judged harshly by wins and losses.

Get used to it and learn to deal with reality.

 

[wanderful]

I'm not sure why you (CM/RedDead/Husker Psycho) seem to have such a hard time admitting that several games last year came down to the outcome of a single play.

You'd be perfectly in the right arguing that we never should have been in those situations in the first place, but denying that the games actually came down to one play makes you come across like you have an agenda and will continue to argue in favor of that agenda regardless of facts.

No game came down to one play last year... or any other year... for any football team... ever.

Every play of a football game is as important as every other play.

That's why as players we were "coached" by every coach we ever had to give 100% effort on every play. Because every play is as important as every other play.

It's one of the most basic things players learn... in "football 101"... usually in grade school.

Okay, let's take your argument and apply it to two different scenarios:

Play 1) An end of game Hail Mary

Play 2) Earlier the same game: 1:14 left in the first quarter, 2nd and 2 on your own 32 yard line.

If you "lose" play 2, do you lose the game? Not necessarily.

If you "win" play 2, do you win the game? Not necessarily.

This play has the potential to cause many different outcomes in the game, thus does not necessarily have a direct impact on the outcome of the game (thought still MIGHT, thus the "give 100% effort every play" rule).

If you lose play 1, do you lose the game? Yes.

If you win play 1, do you win the game? Yes.

This play has ONLY TWO possible outcomes, each of which affect the outcome of the game in diametrically opposed ways. Thus this play is necessarily more important in determining the outcome of the game than is play 2.

Could you have avoided that play in the first place if you played better: yes.

But that doesn't change the fact that the game still comes down to that one play. If you win that play, you win that game. If you lose that play, you lose that game.

Your uninformed and ridiculous game of "what if" can be played with every play of every game ever played... by both teams.

The only thing that matters is what actually happened (reality)... not some concocted fairy tale.

Football is a performance sport, judged harshly by wins and losses.

Get used to it and learn to deal with reality.

Correct, and thank god we finally agree that the reality is that several games last year would have been wins if a single play in each of those games went differently!

Now that that's over, it's Miller Time!

 

[Husker Psycho]

I'm not sure why you (CM/RedDead/Husker Psycho) seem to have such a hard time admitting that several games last year came down to the outcome of a single play.

You'd be perfectly in the right arguing that we never should have been in those situations in the first place, but denying that the games actually came down to one play makes you come across like you have an agenda and will continue to argue in favor of that agenda regardless of facts.

No game came down to one play last year... or any other year... for any football team... ever.

Every play of a football game is as important as every other play.

That's why as players we were "coached" by every coach we ever had to give 100% effort on every play. Because every play is as important as every other play.

It's one of the most basic things players learn... in "football 101"... usually in grade school.

Okay, let's take your argument and apply it to two different scenarios:

Play 1) An end of game Hail Mary

Play 2) Earlier the same game: 1:14 left in the first quarter, 2nd and 2 on your own 32 yard line.

If you "lose" play 2, do you lose the game? Not necessarily.

If you "win" play 2, do you win the game? Not necessarily.

This play has the potential to cause many different outcomes in the game, thus does not necessarily have a direct impact on the outcome of the game (thought still MIGHT, thus the "give 100% effort every play" rule).

If you lose play 1, do you lose the game? Yes.

If you win play 1, do you win the game? Yes.

This play has ONLY TWO possible outcomes, each of which affect the outcome of the game in diametrically opposed ways. Thus this play is necessarily more important in determining the outcome of the game than is play 2.

Could you have avoided that play in the first place if you played better: yes.

But that doesn't change the fact that the game still comes down to that one play. If you win that play, you win that game. If you lose that play, you lose that game.

Your uninformed and ridiculous game of "what if" can be played with every play of every game ever played... by both teams.

The only thing that matters is what actually happened (reality)... not some concocted fairy tale.

Football is a performance sport, judged harshly by wins and losses.

Get used to it and learn to deal with reality.

Correct, and thank god we finally agree that the reality is that several games last year would have been wins if a single play in each of those games went differently!

Now that that's over, it's Miller Time!

The only thing we agree on is that you don't know even the most basic things about the sport of football.