What Did We Learn?.....Purdue
- Thread starter The Duke
- Start date
That's not how probabilities work.
The fact is Nebraska had shown the ability to drive into FG range all night, but not score TDs. So smart money is to get within 2 on a 4th and 6 since we had timeouts and 3 min on the clock.
It puts more stress on the other team, which has historically not performed well. Not kicking the FG, instead put more pressure on our offense which has struggled all year to score TDs in the red zone.
Both announcers said we should take the points before they lined up for the 4th down play.
Less time on the clock, fewer timeouts, and going for it would be the right call. It just happened to work out.
The fact is Nebraska had shown the ability to drive into FG range all night, but not score TDs. So smart money is to get within 2 on a 4th and 6 since we had timeouts and 3 min on the clock.
It puts more stress on the other team, which has historically not performed well. Not kicking the FG, instead put more pressure on our offense which has struggled all year to score TDs in the red zone.
Both announcers said we should take the points before they lined up for the 4th down play.
Less time on the clock, fewer timeouts, and going for it would be the right call. It just happened to work out.
Last edited by a moderator:
RedDenver
New member
I'm talking about chances to win since football is an alternate possession game.
If you're going to talk probabilities, then you need to give the intersection of the probabilities for the FG followed by another score scenario vs the union of the probabilities for two chances to win. In other words, show your math if you're going to claim knowledge of how probabilities work.
And what the announcers think we should have done is about as accurate as anyone posting on this board.
MichiganDad3
New member
4 FG in the game versus 1 TD to that point is all one needs to know. That not hard to see. The chances were better that would continue. 4th and 6 on the short field didn't work. Just another red zone stop like the other 4 times. Our chances of getting to field goal range before the end of the game were greater then our chances of scoring a touchdown. I'm glad we could score from the 12 as time ran down. But had we been down by 2 they were easily within FG range and could have kicked with no time, taking several plays away frim Purdue's chances of winning.
The team moved into scoring position multiples times during the night and scored FGs. Take the points and play for a stop, get back in FG range.
A fade to a short receiver was no different then running a route short of the chains or missing the FG.
They gambled multiple times in the game on 4th down and converted 1.
The team moved into scoring position multiples times during the night and scored FGs. Take the points and play for a stop, get back in FG range.
A fade to a short receiver was no different then running a route short of the chains or missing the FG.
They gambled multiple times in the game on 4th down and converted 1.
Branno
Donor
A FG was the best option. It allows us to only have to kick another FG to win, while preserving the clock. It’s a high percentage play with few bad outcomes. Our defense, which did give up 21 points, was starting to look stout. If we miss the field goal it’s roughly the same as what ended up happening where Purdue gets the ball back.
Going for for it is a low percentage play with multiple bad outcomes. We could have turned the ball over and allowed a defensive score, we could convert and then waste more clock and end up kicking anyway, we could waste clock and come away with 0 points, we could turn it over on one of the plays after conversion. We could score a TD to take the lead, giving Purdue a spark to score again (something we’ve allowed teams to do multiple times in the Riley era). We could score a TD and then stop their offense for a win. We could not convert, need a hold, then with a short clock get a TD to win.
Sure it ended up working out, Purdue is Purdue after all. But it was absolutely the wrong call.
RedDenver
New member
I've explained why going for it gives the Huskers two chances to win vs only one with the FG. There's really no arguing against that as it's how the rules of football are written.
I think having two chances gives better odds of winning than only one chance, but that's just my opinion/intuition since I don't want to do the math for the probabilities of all possible outcomes. Feel free to think the other way gave better odds if you'd like, but unless somebody wants to take the time to working out the probabilities then I'm not going to argue any further.
I think having two chances gives better odds of winning than only one chance, but that's just my opinion/intuition since I don't want to do the math for the probabilities of all possible outcomes. Feel free to think the other way gave better odds if you'd like, but unless somebody wants to take the time to working out the probabilities then I'm not going to argue any further.
It didn't bother me that Riley went for it considering that up to the 4th quarter we really couldn't stop them at all once they started passing down the field.
Win is a win. We as a program needed this win more than that coaching staff did. It at least put some faith in the fact the we do have some players with heart and desire for the program no matter how its coached. Tanner Lee, Spielman, Stanley Morgan, Bradley, and maybe a couple more stepped up and led this team to a win.
Does this win change anything (NO). We have now played the bottom of the B1G conference and won against them. Road win. Thats about the only positives we can take from it. We can take care of the bottom feeders still, even though, I will say that Purdue was playing not to lose in the 4th instead of playing for a win.
Negatives are still there. Even more glaring now than before. WE couldn't cover there receivers. Thanks to Brohm not playing the other QB who throws a better ball(more catchable). They quit running the ball to the outside with Knox who was gaining first down yardage on nearly every run. ETC. Our faults are more glaring now than ever. That won't change going forward.
Win is a win. We as a program needed this win more than that coaching staff did. It at least put some faith in the fact the we do have some players with heart and desire for the program no matter how its coached. Tanner Lee, Spielman, Stanley Morgan, Bradley, and maybe a couple more stepped up and led this team to a win.
Does this win change anything (NO). We have now played the bottom of the B1G conference and won against them. Road win. Thats about the only positives we can take from it. We can take care of the bottom feeders still, even though, I will say that Purdue was playing not to lose in the 4th instead of playing for a win.
Negatives are still there. Even more glaring now than before. WE couldn't cover there receivers. Thanks to Brohm not playing the other QB who throws a better ball(more catchable). They quit running the ball to the outside with Knox who was gaining first down yardage on nearly every run. ETC. Our faults are more glaring now than ever. That won't change going forward.
Branno
Donor
Enhance
Administrator
Well, similarly to Josh's tweet, you can cheer for the players and team to do well while believing things need to go in a different direction. They aren't mutually exclusive things.
I would agree if I hadn't watched the game or the season. It's about following what the team has actually been able to do during the game being played. They had not shown an ability to score TDs but had shown the ability to get to FG range.
I feel Riley and coaches did what they did because they had little confidence they would get the ball back or be able to punch it in from the 15.
They didn't try to pick up a first down with a higher percentage pass. They basically tossed a hail Mary in a longer cross field lower percentage pass hoping to get ahead in one play.
I don't think they had confidence they could pick up a first down, score in the red zone with a drive, or that they would see the ball again. So they took a shot.
You keep saying they had 2 shots at winning. I don't think they saw it that way. They saw it as 1 long shot. So both the go for it and FG groups in this thread probably had more confidence in the team to score by either method at the end then the staff did.
Most coaches would have called a play to pick up the first down with a roll out RPO so if the prevent D picked up the recievers the QB has an outside shot of running for it. And if a player made a play and scored, bonus. They probably don't call that fade pass unless they had a 6'3" or taller stud receiver on a short defender. Even then they'd probably roll right and toss that fade for an easier throw on a RPO. A play that looked more like the failed 2 point conversion play.
I feel Riley and coaches did what they did because they had little confidence they would get the ball back or be able to punch it in from the 15.
They didn't try to pick up a first down with a higher percentage pass. They basically tossed a hail Mary in a longer cross field lower percentage pass hoping to get ahead in one play.
I don't think they had confidence they could pick up a first down, score in the red zone with a drive, or that they would see the ball again. So they took a shot.
You keep saying they had 2 shots at winning. I don't think they saw it that way. They saw it as 1 long shot. So both the go for it and FG groups in this thread probably had more confidence in the team to score by either method at the end then the staff did.
Most coaches would have called a play to pick up the first down with a roll out RPO so if the prevent D picked up the recievers the QB has an outside shot of running for it. And if a player made a play and scored, bonus. They probably don't call that fade pass unless they had a 6'3" or taller stud receiver on a short defender. Even then they'd probably roll right and toss that fade for an easier throw on a RPO. A play that looked more like the failed 2 point conversion play.
Last edited by a moderator:
Guy Chamberlin
Active member
Purdue ran into a buzzsaw yesterday! A buzzsaw named Tanner Lee!
Just kidding. It wasn't a very good game.
Still, it was the 893rd victory in the history of Nebraska football, and that's how I'm looking at these things.
Just kidding. It wasn't a very good game.
Still, it was the 893rd victory in the history of Nebraska football, and that's how I'm looking at these things.
Jeremy
New member
I remember Northwestern did this to us in the 2000 Alamo Bowl. We won that game 66-17.
Last edited by a moderator:
broganreynik
New member
I absolutely expect to get our doors blown off vs. Penn State. But, it would fit Riley’s M.O. to play spoiler in a big November match-up.
broganreynik
New member
I absolutely expect to get our doors blown off vs. Penn State. But, it would fit Riley’s M.O. to play spoiler in a big November match-up.
Assuming a touchback, that’d be the 25. Otherwise, I have no faith in our coverage team to stop them at the 20.
I “learned” Langsdoofus needs to have receivers run their routes at least two yards further, rather than posting up in front of the sticks.
I also learned this staff indeed does have more ways to mismanage the clock. Substituting with the clock running that late in the game?!? WTF?!?