Landlord
Banned
Nah I wasn't referencing you.
I was just making an abstract claim based on some supporting evidence.
This loss vs. Wisconsin is on Langsdorf...
- Thread starter VectorVictor
- Start date
Nah I wasn't referencing you.
I was just making an abstract claim based on some supporting evidence.
Count 'Bility
Banned
There is absolutely zero to evidence to suggest we surely woulda blown out Wisconsin.
L 17-48
W 30-27
L 31-70
L 24-59
These are the scores of the games Bo faced Wisconsin. And this years Wisconsin team is just as good as the rest if not better. And then factoring style of play conducive to what Bo couldnt stop and struggled with, this Wisconsin team still fits the bill
Talk about mental gymnastics.
You're really, really, stretching here. No one used failed pass plays to say the run game was working. Thats a strawman on your part.
48 pass attempts isn't why we lost the Purdue game. We lost the Purdue game because we turned the ball over 5 times, four of those were interceptions with one fumble. Fyfe's completion percentage in that game was just over 60%, so while he can certainly complete the 40% mark you set his ball security is what cost us that game. Well, that and our defense giving up 55 points. So unless Fyfe's ball security has improved by leaps and bounds there is no way he should be playing unless an injury keeps Tommy out.
Last edited by a moderator:
HuskermanMike
New member
Play calling was bad in OT. Thought we should have gotten the ball to Stanley around the first down marker, not the endzone. The loss is not entirely on Langs, but it is weird that when the defense has a good game the offense doesn't carry its weight. Wiscy's defense is better then OSU's but I expect the offense to improve this week because we need to be consistent on O.
Interesting question on the probability scenario. I suppose, like on any odds calculation, you have to calculate the probable outcomes - i.e., the value of taking the initial chance. If a 50/50 play has a negligible upside then you don't call it. If it has a high upside, then you do. Of course you have to include in that analysis the context of a series of plays over the course of a game.
My issue with the player blaming is that it's so often overstated. Every player leaves plays on the field. Lamar Jackson has 5 picks on the season, including some bad ones. D Watson, a heisman favorite coming into the season, has 10 picks this year.
I counted 20+ QBs that have the same number of or less passing yards per game as Armstrong and have at least as many picks through Saturday.
My issue with the player blaming is that it's so often overstated. Every player leaves plays on the field. Lamar Jackson has 5 picks on the season, including some bad ones. D Watson, a heisman favorite coming into the season, has 10 picks this year.
I counted 20+ QBs that have the same number of or less passing yards per game as Armstrong and have at least as many picks through Saturday.
Landlord
Banned
Count 'Bility
Banned
The Kansas St game has absolutely nothing to do with those other three
Count 'Bility
Banned
You do realize Langsdorf isnt calling the right plays for Armstrong right?
Landlord
Banned
You do realize Langsdorf isnt calling the right plays for Armstrong right?
Can you provide a link?
Lots of injuries along the offensive line isn't conducive to a consistent offense. And Tommy is injured as well, an ankle I believe?
If we can get some guys healthy, we just might do ok on offense.
With all these ankle/soft tissue injuries, is there a problem with S&C?
Personally, I don't think so - football is a game that causes injuries. It's weird how they seem to happen in batches, but rarely are directly attributable to any single cause.
Personally, I don't think so - football is a game that causes injuries. It's weird how they seem to happen in batches, but rarely are directly attributable to any single cause.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mavric
Yoda
Against my better judgement....
But people really have no idea about the mental toughness of a team. They look at the results and interpret it how they want. And thus arguing about it is pointless. You can make your own case for a different team. Or why you don't think this team is that mentally tough, if that's what you think.
But you're not making your own argument in a lot of cases. You're attacking someone else's and always demanding they provide some kind of proof. Some things can't be proved. Being unable to let things go has most of the board wanting you banned for trolling. I've been one to speak in your favor because I don't think you're trolling. You have good points to make. But the way you present yourself leaves you looking like a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless steaming pile of cow dung, figuratively speaking.
And that's not an abstract concept, now is it. So it has absolutely no bearing.
Such as our overwhelming scoring advantage in the fourth quarter this year.
But you don't have any defense either. Only your opinion. Which you're entitled to. But it is maddening to insist on arguing the smallest of points in an argument that will never be won by either side because there is no right or wrong answer on an abstract concept.
Then don't bother arguing about it.
Not really. I think you could make a pretty strong argument for the 2012 team that overcame bigger deficits to better teams. That team also had some bad losses but I would put coming out looking to be fairly unprepared against bad teams in a similar boat to playing poorly against good team with the results commensurate with the competition. Or the 2009 team that had to fight tooth and nail for 60 minutes in basically every game because we didn't have any offense.
But people really have no idea about the mental toughness of a team. They look at the results and interpret it how they want. And thus arguing about it is pointless. You can make your own case for a different team. Or why you don't think this team is that mentally tough, if that's what you think.
But you're not making your own argument in a lot of cases. You're attacking someone else's and always demanding they provide some kind of proof. Some things can't be proved. Being unable to let things go has most of the board wanting you banned for trolling. I've been one to speak in your favor because I don't think you're trolling. You have good points to make. But the way you present yourself leaves you looking like a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless steaming pile of cow dung, figuratively speaking.
