Coaching to Win Against KU

[deedsker15]

The opposite of losing is winning so in order to win you have to not lose and in order to lose you have to not win so playing to not lose is playing to win and playing to win is playing to not lose, so every team every week plays to not lose or also to win.

is this guy kidding?

[Pedro Guerrero]

is this guy kidding?

 

My statement might be preposterous and retarded but is it more ridiculous then saying “coaching not to lose” or “coaching to win”?

 

Name a coach that has actually coached “to lose”. You probably can’t because they all want to win thus “coaching not to lose” or in other words “coaching to win.” Why is “coaching not to lose” a bad thing but “coaching to win” isn’t? They are the same thing, aren’t they? The object of the game is to win or not to lose, yet “coaching to win” appears to be better then “coaching not to lose”.

 

[ADS]

I thought you always coached to win?

[ESPY]

I thought you always coached to win?

[knapplc]

The opposite of losing is winning so in order to win you have to not lose and in order to lose you have to not win so playing to not lose is playing to win and playing to win is playing to not lose, so every team every week plays to not lose or also to win.

is this guy kidding?

He's lampooning the absurdity of the phrase "Coaching to Win." I thought it was a good post.

[ESPY]

I would like to see the defense play better in this one. Some thing doesn't seem right. Are we that banged up, that some of the starters are out there because we are thin at some positions, and can't get them a breather when needed? Ever since Okl St game, doesn't seem like the team is as confident. We seem to give up big plays when we need a big stop. Not all the time, but just at a crucial spot in the game. This defense seems weak against the run, much more than one would expect from the comments Bo made before the season started. The wind and a lob pass, is the reason for last weeks win. Should not have come down to that. JMO

 

 

GBR!!!

Did you forget about our win over Mizzou?

[Glendower]

"Not to lose" has a connotation of getting ahead and sitting on it or being content with a small lead and then changing the strategy to just hope that the other team doesn't score. Coaching to win is to just push and push and not being particularly content with a lead of any amount.

 

That's how I interpret it, anyway.

[suh_fan93]

I don't know. IMO I wouldn't play Taylor. If things started turning into Iowa St. against KU and he was a week healthier than last Saturday then I might bring him in. There is nothing wrong with resting your starter. It happens in baseball, the NFL, the NBA. Also I don't think anyone on this board knows how truly hurt Martinez is or just how healthy he is right now either.

 

It's just my opinion but if I were the coach I wouldn't put Taylor on the field. Let's face it, he's the one that makes this offense go. You don't play him against Kansas when you don't have to with Texas A & M coming up the following week and a possible Big 12 Championship game coming up also. Just my .02.

[holvy83]

i think a better statement would have been " Do you think the coaches will be conservative in their game plan?" Whether than coach to win or not win or lose or tie...

[Jason Sitoke]

If he's healthy enough to play, he should. If not, he shouldn't even be in pads. The kid is also a freshman who is still, by all accounts, learning the position. He NEEDS to play if he is able to. After 3 weeks off, how much confidence do any of you have that he hits the ground running against a ranked team, in prime time, in a tough road environment?

 

On a similar note, one thing that has to change is this quarterback shuffle tendency that Pelini seems to have. This is what perplexed me about last week's game. Why is a hobbled Martinez warming up on the exercise bike and looking like he's about to go in if the offense stalls? It seems extremely reactionary. As a D coordinator, I'm sure that substituting a player after a couple poor plays is the norm, but the QB is not like every other position.

[HANC]

This post sounds like it is for fans "wanting to watch" Taylor play, rather than having the best interest of the program at hand. Unless he is absolutely 100%, you only play him if we are struggling going into the second half. Regardless of the coach-speak "emergency" lable he got last week, he was too injured to enter the game, or he would have.

 

If Taylor re-injures his high ankle sprain running the offense during the first or second qtr., while we have a 14 or 17 pt lead, then the people who agree with this post would crap their pants when he CANT go against aTm and/or Colorado ( a team, although bad, may be playing for bowl eligibility).

 

The coaches know exactly what they are doing. Cody wasn't the problem last week. No, he is NOT Taylor, but he didn't play poorly. One of his fumbles was on the "Read", which very well have been Burkhead's mistake as well as Cody's.

 

We ALL want to see Taylor on the field and the excitement he brings, but common sense should tell you that you don't risk the rest of the season for a poor KU team, unless you enter the 2nd half and you need a spark.

 

I know that everyone has an opinion and opinions are "Right", but I just can't find how this is even debatable.

 

This time of year....he doesn't need "game reps" to pick up anything (especially against KU).... This time of year, the only thing that really matters to most teams is HEALTH.

[Ziebol]

This post sounds like it is for fans "wanting to watch" Taylor play, rather than having the best interest of the program at hand. Unless he is absolutely 100%, you only play him if we are struggling going into the second half. Regardless of the coach-speak "emergency" lable he got last week, he was too injured to enter the game, or he would have.

 

If Taylor re-injures his high ankle sprain running the offense during the first or second qtr., while we have a 14 or 17 pt lead, then the people who agree with this post would crap their pants when he CANT go against aTm and/or Colorado ( a team, although bad, may be playing for bowl eligibility).

 

The coaches know exactly what they are doing. Cody wasn't the problem last week. No, he is NOT Taylor, but he didn't play poorly. One of his fumbles was on the "Read", which very well have been Burkhead's mistake as well as Cody's.

 

We ALL want to see Taylor on the field and the excitement he brings, but common sense should tell you that you don't risk the rest of the season for a poor KU team, unless you enter the 2nd half and you need a spark.

 

I know that everyone has an opinion and opinions are "Right", but I just can't find how this is even debatable.

 

This time of year....he doesn't need "game reps" to pick up anything (especially against KU).... This time of year, the only thing that really matters to most teams is HEALTH.

 

Actually the original post is talking about if Taylor is HEALTHY he should start and not sit out just cause people think KU is going to be a cakewalk.

[Husker Richard]

This post sounds like it is for fans "wanting to watch" Taylor play, rather than having the best interest of the program at hand. Unless he is absolutely 100%, you only play him if we are struggling going into the second half. Regardless of the coach-speak "emergency" lable he got last week, he was too injured to enter the game, or he would have.

 

If Taylor re-injures his high ankle sprain running the offense during the first or second qtr., while we have a 14 or 17 pt lead, then the people who agree with this post would crap their pants when he CANT go against aTm and/or Colorado ( a team, although bad, may be playing for bowl eligibility).

 

The coaches know exactly what they are doing. Cody wasn't the problem last week. No, he is NOT Taylor, but he didn't play poorly. One of his fumbles was on the "Read", which very well have been Burkhead's mistake as well as Cody's.

 

We ALL want to see Taylor on the field and the excitement he brings, but common sense should tell you that you don't risk the rest of the season for a poor KU team, unless you enter the 2nd half and you need a spark.

 

I know that everyone has an opinion and opinions are "Right", but I just can't find how this is even debatable.

 

This time of year....he doesn't need "game reps" to pick up anything (especially against KU).... This time of year, the only thing that really matters to most teams is HEALTH.

 

Taylor was not too injured to enter the game because he did enter the game. Recall the few plays after Cody took a pretty good lick. Taylor came in, and granted he handed off once and then moved to WR in the wildcat, he still saw the field that day.

 

 

Risking the rest of the season for a poor KU team? This is the attitude that resting Taylor propagates. You don't sit/rest players because you don't think you'll need them to win a game. This sends a terrible message to the team, and they'll end up with an attitude similar to the one prior to the SDSU game (we show up and we'll win because we are that much better). IDC how poor KU is, if we lose to them then the 'rest of our season' (aka Big 12 CCG) is at serious risk. We then have no choice but to beat Texas A&M (a tall order) and Colorado.

 

So which is the bigger risk? Risking a loss vs. KU by resting Taylor (ultimately setting up 2 must-win games, if we are to win the North), or the risk of further injury to Taylor by playing him vs. KU, but most likely getting the win (and also most likely winning the North)?

IMO, the bigger risk is risking a loss to KU.

 

This brings me back to the point of my original post, if Taylor was healthy enough to come in for emergency duty @ ISU, why wasn't he playing? What dictates emergency duty? Getting behind in Ames would've been an emergency (we had to win that game). Would we have seen Taylor then? I understand they are trying to play it safe with his injury, but at some point you've got to realize that we needed to win the game. IMO, Taylor at 75-80% would've performed better than Cody Green.

 

I'm trying to figure out where this staff draws the line between playing it safe/planning for a future game and winning the game at hand. IMO, it's more important to win the game at hand than it is to plan and prepare for a future game. I'm not so sure the staff agrees with me on this one.

[HANC]

I respect your opinion and if you have followed any of my post over the years, I am one who rarely, if ever, stirs the pot, and always respects everyone's "opinion"..... I just can't buy the idea of further injuring your number 1 playmaker, by playing him at the beginning of a game in which you are clearly the favorite.... IF he is 100%, then by all means, play Taylor. I disagree with the notion that Cody Green isn't good enough to win on Saturday. Cody DID nothing to hurt NU at ISU.... He managed a very conservative offense and actually made huge plays on our go ahead TD drive with 3 tremendous throws and reads, especially to Kinnie and Reed... Yes, on 3rd and 2 late in the game, he DID short hop a pass (that should have NEVER been called by Watson), but he was pressured and couldn't step into the throw.

 

I was at Ames, and kept a constant eye on Taylor....thinking that the close game constituted an "emergency", but it was obvious that he was limping on the sideline and when Bo said "emergency", he meant ONLY if Cody was injured. If he was ok to play, as you claimed, then NO WAY does he only see a snap at WR in the wildcat...

 

This team will not look past KU like SDSU....Becuase Cody went on the road and won, I don't believe that Bo would be sending the wrong message to the team...In fact, by starting a Taylor, who isn't 100%, could absolutely send a worse message... The team knows whether or not Taylor is 100%, and if not, and Bo starts him...He would basically be telling everyone that we aren't good enough to win without T-Mart. Consequently, if he remains injured, the team could lose ALL confidence heading into aTm and CU with a backup QB.

 

You have your opinion and bring up valid points...but as a coach myself, I would never risk further injury to my top player if he wasn't 100%. If Taylor would furhter hurt his ankle/knee and miss the remainder of the season because he played "early" in a game he may not have too, it would go down as one of the worst decisions ever.

 

Play him IF we need him to win.... and that won't be known until halftime.

[mnhusker]

OK 1st tayor went into the IOWA State and we took a time out then moved him to a decoy at WR and burkhead in the wildcat took a snap for 20+ yards. I was at the game and for a few moments when T-Mart was in the energy went sky high .... but to keep it real he did have a limp as he went to the WR position.

 

If he is healthy he should play ........ what a novel concept. To me he should play if he does not risk further injury and him playing is better than Lee and Green. If he is the best and not at risk of further injury we need him to play and then we need to destroy kansas becuase style points do matter and coach to win sounds good but coach to "destroy" is needed in a world when votes matter more than head to head play.