Some of last nights coaching decisions were baffling

[TonyStalloni]

Did anyone hear Damon Benning's analysis yesterday? He mentioned several things that make sense.

 

1. MSU had all Tommy's audibles down. As soon as Tommy walked back to the center to audible the MSU D started waving and adjusting their people to stop what was called and they were almost always right. We are/were too predictable.

 

2. Going light sets....3 wide, empty or one back sets essentially puts our O at a disadvantage. MSU has an 11 to 10 advantage because Tommy is not a factor. He said we needed to go with Imani or a fullback plus Ameer in the backfield and run option with a TE and pull a guard to put us at an advantage.

 

3. The defense did their job and Trevor Roach was a beast.

[Mavric]

 

Let's break this down, then. We got three more chances to score because:

 

- DPE punt return TD taking almost no time off the clock

- Langdom runs out of bounds, spotting us an extra 40 seconds

- missed FG spots us great field position.

 

It was pretty lucky that we had an opportunity to get that last drive in. You're right that any comeback would have been a miracle, so let's look at the possible outcomes.

 

Going for 2 and making it:

2 score game. Michigan State would've had more pressure to score again rather than clock it out, another factor not being considered.

 

Going for 2 and missing it:

You can still make it a FG-to-tie game if you get another 2-point conversion. We had this chance when that's how the game happened to shake out.

 

Having two opportunities to go for 2 to achieve the same result you desperately wished we had punted to from the outset, makes it acceptable risk, in my opinion.

 

By the way, had we punted on the chance to close the margin to 2 scores, and Michigan State managed a FG in the ensuing 12 minutes, it'd have been a 3-touchdown game anyway, and so much for the "TD, TD, FG to tie" master plan.

There are a lot of "ifs" in there but the fact is, the scenario of cutting it to a two score game only works if you make the tremendous leap-of-faith that NU would have been able to successfully convert THREE CONSECUTIVE two-point conversions. That just wasn't going to happen. When they scored the TD they had nearly a quarter of football left. A couple of three-and-outs and use of the time-outs and it was just a lot more likely to get the ball back, score two TDs and be set up for a field goal to tie the game.

 

Just to prove my point...let's look at what we are arguing here....

 

You say going for two to ATTEMPT to cut it to a two score game was the right choice because any other outcome would be a "miracle". Successfully scoring three consecutive two-point conversions in your mind seems more feasable. However, they were 100% unsuccessful in their two-point conversion attempts, but in actuality they scored two TDs and had the ball in field goal range with some time left on the clock (which did them no good because they threw away two near automatic points they would have gotten by kicking extra point, on missed two-point conversion attempts).

 

So you can list your little fantasy argument about how it COULD have worked out, but I'm dealing in reality and the reality is, they got what would have been a shot at victory had they not squandered it away going for two. And I don't know if it's you or someone else that keeps saying my opinion is hindsight, but my opinion has never changed...it is almost never the right choice to go for a two-point conversion...I was screaming it at the TV as they lined up for the first failed attempt (I don't think Bo heard me).

 

 

To that point, there had been 47 minutes played in the game and that was only our second score and the first time we'd gotten into the end zone. Since we'd scored twice in 47 minutes the odds were not good that we'd be able to score three times in the last 13 minutes. In fact, our offense only got inside their 36 yard line one more time for the rest of the game.

 

Every other coach who had not given up would have gone for two in that situation.

[Mavric]

Did anyone hear Damon Benning's analysis yesterday? He mentioned several things that make sense.

 

1. MSU had all Tommy's audibles down. As soon as Tommy walked back to the center to audible the MSU D started waving and adjusting their people to stop what was called and they were almost always right. We are/were too predictable.

 

2. Going light sets....3 wide, empty or one back sets essentially puts our O at a disadvantage. MSU has an 11 to 10 advantage because Tommy is not a factor. He said we needed to go with Imani or a fullback plus Ameer in the backfield and run option with a TE and pull a guard to put us at an advantage.

 

3. The defense did their job and Trevor Roach was a beast.

 

1 - This is very common across football. If the defense shows one look and the offense audibles, the defense will often make their own audible. The Huskers do this all the time. I don't think we had any more or less success when they made their own check as when the didn't. They are just a good defense.

 

2 - This is just totally inconsistent with what plays were called. If Benning actually said this, I don't trust his analysis as much as I used to.

[Danny Bateman]

 

2. Going light sets....3 wide, empty or one back sets essentially puts our O at a disadvantage. MSU has an 11 to 10 advantage because Tommy is not a factor. He said we needed to go with Imani or a fullback plus Ameer in the backfield and run option with a TE and pull a guard to put us at an advantage.

2 - This is just totally inconsistent with what plays were called. If Benning actually said this, I don't trust his analysis as much as I used to.

 

DB was just trying to find a way that we could've possibly run the ball, IMO. They had more men in the box than we did all night. To have a prayer to get the rush game going, we'd need an extra man or two (TE/FB) and I guess he thought using option would've tested if they were assignment-sound and disciplined.

 

I have my own doubts how well it would've worked the way they were knifing through the line Saturday night. Plus we were down to Cotton and god knows who else (Sutton?) at TE.

[Mavric]

 

 

2. Going light sets....3 wide, empty or one back sets essentially puts our O at a disadvantage. MSU has an 11 to 10 advantage because Tommy is not a factor. He said we needed to go with Imani or a fullback plus Ameer in the backfield and run option with a TE and pull a guard to put us at an advantage.

2 - This is just totally inconsistent with what plays were called. If Benning actually said this, I don't trust his analysis as much as I used to.

 

DB was just trying to find a way that we could've possibly run the ball, IMO. They had more men in the box than we did all night. To have a prayer to get the rush game going, we'd need an extra man or two (TE/FB) and I guess he thought using option would've tested if they were assignment-sound and disciplined.

 

I have my own doubts how well it would've worked the way they were knifing through the line Saturday night. Plus we were down to Cotton and god knows who else (Sutton?) at TE.

 

 

We often did have two TEs in the game but it didn't help. And bringing more offensive players in tight only brings more defensive players in as well.

[xlbder]

 

 

2. Going light sets....3 wide, empty or one back sets essentially puts our O at a disadvantage. MSU has an 11 to 10 advantage because Tommy is not a factor. He said we needed to go with Imani or a fullback plus Ameer in the backfield and run option with a TE and pull a guard to put us at an advantage.

2 - This is just totally inconsistent with what plays were called. If Benning actually said this, I don't trust his analysis as much as I used to.

 

DB was just trying to find a way that we could've possibly run the ball, IMO. They had more men in the box than we did all night. To have a prayer to get the rush game going, we'd need an extra man or two (TE/FB) and I guess he thought using option would've tested if they were assignment-sound and disciplined.

 

I have my own doubts how well it would've worked the way they were knifing through the line Saturday night. Plus we were down to Cotton and god knows who else (Sutton?) at TE.

 

Seems to me, with Ameer alone in the backfield, it was relatively easy for Michigan State to key on him and shut him down. Tommy doesn't throw well enough to pose a viable passing threat, so MS game plan was to shut down the run. I think Cross in the backfield might make a difference. If they ignore the quick handoff to Cross, he is likely to bust one for 50 yards like last year. Also provides an additional blocker for Ameer. Some might be right, we might not have been able to run on them either way, but we will never know because this was never tried. That is what is frustrating to me, always doing the same thing even when it is not working. Nebraska, still undefeated when Imani has four or more carries.

[California Husker]

 

 

Let's break this down, then. We got three more chances to score because:

 

- DPE punt return TD taking almost no time off the clock

- Langdom runs out of bounds, spotting us an extra 40 seconds

- missed FG spots us great field position.

 

It was pretty lucky that we had an opportunity to get that last drive in. You're right that any comeback would have been a miracle, so let's look at the possible outcomes.

 

Going for 2 and making it:

2 score game. Michigan State would've had more pressure to score again rather than clock it out, another factor not being considered.

 

Going for 2 and missing it:

You can still make it a FG-to-tie game if you get another 2-point conversion. We had this chance when that's how the game happened to shake out.

 

Having two opportunities to go for 2 to achieve the same result you desperately wished we had punted to from the outset, makes it acceptable risk, in my opinion.

 

By the way, had we punted on the chance to close the margin to 2 scores, and Michigan State managed a FG in the ensuing 12 minutes, it'd have been a 3-touchdown game anyway, and so much for the "TD, TD, FG to tie" master plan.

There are a lot of "ifs" in there but the fact is, the scenario of cutting it to a two score game only works if you make the tremendous leap-of-faith that NU would have been able to successfully convert THREE CONSECUTIVE two-point conversions. That just wasn't going to happen. When they scored the TD they had nearly a quarter of football left. A couple of three-and-outs and use of the time-outs and it was just a lot more likely to get the ball back, score two TDs and be set up for a field goal to tie the game.

 

Just to prove my point...let's look at what we are arguing here....

 

You say going for two to ATTEMPT to cut it to a two score game was the right choice because any other outcome would be a "miracle". Successfully scoring three consecutive two-point conversions in your mind seems more feasable. However, they were 100% unsuccessful in their two-point conversion attempts, but in actuality they scored two TDs and had the ball in field goal range with some time left on the clock (which did them no good because they threw away two near automatic points they would have gotten by kicking extra point, on missed two-point conversion attempts).

 

So you can list your little fantasy argument about how it COULD have worked out, but I'm dealing in reality and the reality is, they got what would have been a shot at victory had they not squandered it away going for two. And I don't know if it's you or someone else that keeps saying my opinion is hindsight, but my opinion has never changed...it is almost never the right choice to go for a two-point conversion...I was screaming it at the TV as they lined up for the first failed attempt (I don't think Bo heard me).

 

 

To that point, there had been 47 minutes played in the game and that was only our second score and the first time we'd gotten into the end zone. Since we'd scored twice in 47 minutes the odds were not good that we'd be able to score three times in the last 13 minutes. In fact, our offense only got inside their 36 yard line one more time for the rest of the game.

 

Every other coach who had not given up would have gone for two in that situation.

 

I love how you huskerboard people know things such as what "every other coach who had not given up...." would have done. Wow, that some serious insight

 

You guys can do your collective reach arounds all you want, the fact is you are arguing that doing what was the wrong thing, was somehow the right thing. No matter how you try to spin it, it was wrong. The Huskers were not going to convert three consecutive two-point conversions. And if you want to know the likelihood we have the results...the likelihood was ZERO....we saw it.

 

Back to my point...going for two is ALMOST NEVER the right choice. I say it every time a team lines up for two, and once again...I was right. And all of you who want to rationalize the decision....just like Bo....you are wrong.

[Danimal]

Punting at the 30 was moronic. Didn't come remotely close to pinning them deep. Should've ran a draw on 3rd and saw where you stood. Either you get the 1st down, kick the fg, or go for it on 4th down. If you're going ultra conservative then at least take a delay of game to give Foltz a better shot of keeping the ball out of the endzone.

 

 

Onside-kick call was bad. It's a low percentage play you should only use when absolutely necessary when teams are expecting it. If our D was getting whipped I could see it but they were bowing-up pretty well. Need to kick that deep.

 

 

I wouldn't have went for 2 but I can understand it.

 

Beck didn't call a great game but you can only do so much when your line is getting beat, qb isn't accurate, and receiving corps is depleted.