What did we learn? Wiscy Edition

[runningblind]

17 minutes ago, MyBloodIsRed16 said:

I kinda feel like it's happened over the years but does anyone else feel (this year) any time a RB starts to get in a rhythm he gets pulled for the other guy?

Yes. I don't quite understand the RB rotation.  Maybe extra concerned about injuries with no depth?

[Mavric]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Really? Seems like standard operating procedure for a lot of teams in that situation.

 

I invite you to point out such a scenario in another game.  They do that if the game is tied and the FG will win the game.  Not if they are behind and just trying to play for overtime.

 

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

As mentioned, the Huskers needed to bank a few more seconds to get a third shot at the end zone, otherwise you want to time your two or three plays and possible field goal to leave as little time as possible on the clock, a luxury you have if you think you're already in field goal range. The game announcers were even speculating whether Fickell should take a second time out to give his offense a shot.   

 

We didn't take two shots to the end zone.  We took one.  Because we ran ourselves out of time.

 

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

The end zone fade isn't the only play we can run, but it is the one the defenders are less likely to intercept.

 

And yet they have.  Twice.  That cost us the game.  Thus, not exactly what should be considered safe.  Let alone almost costing us the FG at the end of the first half.

 

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

The play I would have called? A fullback counter, and he woulda just gone whoopin' and hollerin' straight to the end zone.

 

Exactly.  If you managed the clock better and had over two minutes to play from the 20 yard line and all three time outs, you could have still run the ball and had a decent chance to score.  Or at least run the last couple of plays from the 5-ish yard line.  But we botched the clock management so all we got was one throw to the end zone.

[Archy1221]

12 hours ago, admo said:

16 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

 

I know, but I thought if you are advocating to go for the win with nothing to lose in regulation, then don't take a different approach about it in overtime.  Or else, that would be contradictory to everything being said.  You see my point?  

No because there is a huge difference between going for it on fourth and 10 from the 25 yrd line in OT when the other team hasn’t even had the ball yet and and that field goal actually could be the game winner if the defense stops them vs playing hurry up in regulation when you are behind and have plenty of time to try and end the game with a TD while settling with a FG if things didn’t work out.   2 VASTLY different scenarios that aren’t comparable.  

[Undone]

11 hours ago, Mavric said:

We didn't take two shots to the end zone.  We took one.  Because we ran ourselves out of time.

 

Yep.

 

We were running the ball fairly well at that point. We're on their 26 with 1st & 10 with 1:35 to go and we run for 8 yards. 2nd down play they did stuff it, but then the third down run is a zone read keeper by Purdy for 6. So then we're on their 12 yard line.

 

All other things being equal the play calling and execution in the back half of that drive was awesome. What wasn't as awesome was intentionally running the play clock down on the 2nd down play.

 

And we didn't have to go super fast - just go right to the line calmly, get set, and snap it. But Rhule just didn't want to. There's no way he did it because he's an idiot and wasn't thinking, so I think "bad clock management" is actually probably an incorrect diagnosis. He just didn't want them to get the ball back at all costs.

 

It was "bad strategy" more than "bad clock management," IMO.

[Guy Chamberlin]

40 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Yep.

 

We were running the ball fairly well at that point. We're on their 26 with 1st & 10 with 1:35 to go and we run for 8 yards. 2nd down play they did stuff it, but then the third down run is a zone read keeper by Purdy for 6. So then we're on their 12 yard line.

 

All other things being equal the play calling and execution in the back half of that drive was awesome. What wasn't as awesome was intentionally running the play clock down on the 2nd down play.

 

And we didn't have to go super fast - just go right to the line calmly, get set, and snap it. But Rhule just didn't want to. There's no way he did it because he's an idiot and wasn't thinking, so I think "bad clock management" is actually probably an incorrect diagnosis. He just didn't want them to get the ball back at all costs.

 

It was "bad strategy" more than "bad clock management," IMO.

 

I can go with that. It was also a safe strategy by a coaching staff that got burned the week before. 

[Lorewarn]

15 hours ago, admo said:

I know, but I thought if you are advocating to go for the win with nothing to lose in regulation, then don't take a different approach about it in overtime.  Or else, that would be contradictory to everything being said.  You see my point?  

 

Because you are saying "do it this way in regulation - don't worry - nothing to lose - play to win - go for it".   

 

But in overtime, suddenly it's "woah, woah, WOAH!  Let's do it differently and be conservative now. Let them have ball first, and hopefully we can tie if need be"  

 

That thinking doesn't make sense.  I know we think different, but I stand by my thinking as much as you do yours. 

 

 

 

Going 2nd in overtime isn't conservative, it's strategy (although to be fair, the edge it gives statistically is very small). You're giving yourself knowledge of what you need but you're also giving yourself 4 plays instead of 3.

[Guy Chamberlin]

12 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

I invite you to point out such a scenario in another game.  They do that if the game is tied and the FG will win the game.  Not if they are behind and just trying to play for overtime.

 

Well that would take far too much time and effort. I will simply point you to every fansite in football, where coaching legends and novices alike have been roasted for poor late game clock management in any scenario where the team loses. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

5 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

 

Going 2nd in overtime isn't conservative, it's strategy (although to be fair, the edge it gives statistically is very small). You're giving yourself knowledge of what you need but you're also giving yourself 4 plays instead of 3.

 

I thought going 2nd is what every team does if it has the choice. 

 

Deion Sanders chose to go first in overtime against Colorado State IIRC, and the announcers considered it highly unorthodox.

[Undone]

14 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I can go with that. It was also a safe strategy by a coaching staff that got burned the week before. 

 

Totally agree with this. And I said this yesterday - can you imagine the way this board melts down had we been pretty aggressive and we throw a bunch on that drive and don't even get the field goal?

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Undone said:

 

Totally agree with this. And I said this yesterday - can you imagine the way this board melts down had we been pretty aggressive and we throw a bunch on that drive and don't even get the field goal?

Not sure who is complaining about the play calling.  It’s the lack of time awareness and maximizing that time to get as many plays on as possible to give your team the best chance to win the game that people are rightfully complaining about

[Scarlet]

The scenario that played out at the end of regulation, when we tried to eat clock, play for the tie, and take our chances in overtime would be akin to playing for the tie in an overtime where we had the ball second and the opponent scored a field goal....on third down.  The only reason to kick the field goal in an overtime situation like that is if it's fourth down.  We'd of all lost our s#!t if we played for a tie by attempting a field goal prior to fourth down in overtime. 

 

The clock was essentially a non-issue as we had plenty of time to run a few more plays at the end of regulation.  Wisconsin was gassed.  We could have taken it safe and ran it if we chose to.  We ran out of time only because the clock was mismanaged.   Sure there was a chance that if we score 7 and go up by 4 that Wisconsin still might go the length of the field and win on a TD in a minute or so.  Anyone with a right mind takes that situation every time.  

 

It truly was mesmerizing to see the strategy on the field play out the way it did especially being a road dog with nothing to lose.  

 

[Undone]

31 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Not sure who is complaining about the play calling.

 

I created a hypothetical situation. I said people would be complaining about the play calling if that last drive had been full of passes that went for incompletions and we don't even tie it up.

 

32 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

It’s the lack of time awareness and maximizing that time to get as many plays on as possible to give your team the best chance to win the game that people are rightfully complaining about

 

I talked about this a ton a few posts up.     

[chamrocck]

Yep I don’t like how we sat on the ball and didn’t play to win at the end. I mean, c’mon, we have the #1 rushing attack in the B1G right? 

[RedDenver]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Not sure who is complaining about the play calling.  It’s the lack of time awareness and maximizing that time to get as many plays on as possible to give your team the best chance to win the game that people are rightfully complaining about

Trying to maximize the number of plays is not the only variable in clock management and doing so does not necessarily give the best chance to win.

[ZRod]

On 11/20/2023 at 9:21 AM, BigRedBuster said:

I learned that, even though most Husker fans were expecting a 5-7 or 7-5 season, they still get really pissed off when that happens.