Final series - offense

[admo]

 

Again, second guessing when it fails. Running the ball to force the TO's is protocol. Play it safe and don't turn it over is part of that. Punt and defend.

 

I'm starting to think that if Cross broke one for a first down there would have been a thread "See! Power Football! Why didn't we run up the middle more?!"

 

I also tried to consider if we ran a bootleg run, that they probably had someone on the outside ready for that. Same if we ran outside or off tackle. Hindsight can tell you something else might have equaled a similar result as much as it does for a better result.

There are plenty of non-passing plays they could've run besides three in a row up the gut. They needed a 1st down to ice the game and they didn't even try to get it.

 

I know that they needed that and I think they tried. It's frustrating because how does anyone know what would have worked better for sure? It's all a guess is my point.

[Redux]

However, the creativity on the runs was just awful honestly they may have been better off just kneeling with the plays we called. Read Option? nah Outside runs? nah. Imani Cross who has no speed to get outside running up the gut two straight plays?

Soooooooo much this.

 

Yeah after the Illinois debacle, they made the right choice in calling runs to kill Wisconsins timeouts.

 

Bit thats all they were. None of those plays were going to get us a first to win the game. Very uninspired plays. The goal was take their timeouts and hold on for dear life. Ugh...

[HuskerMav11]

I think we should have gave Tommy the ball. The announcers made the comment, and I agree with them, on a play where we called a QB keeper/sweep and Tommy had room to run off tackle. Our guys did a great job sealing the D off. The play got called back, but it didn't seem like we ever went back to that.

[84HuskerLaw]

 

Again, second guessing when it fails. Running the ball to force the TO's is protocol. Play it safe and don't turn it over is part of that. Punt and defend.

 

I'm starting to think that if Cross broke one for a first down there would have been a thread "See! Power Football! Why didn't we run up the middle more?!"

 

I also tried to consider if we ran a bootleg run, that they probably had someone on the outside ready for that. Same if we ran outside or off tackle. Hindsight can tell you something else might have equaled a similar result as much as it does for a better result.

There are plenty of non-passing plays they could've run besides three in a row up the gut. They needed a 1st down to ice the game and they didn't even try to get it.

 

This is right in my view. We needed to play to win the game. This playing not to lose is dangerous and ultimately bites you. You try to lay on it and stall the game out is very likely to fail especially when you are the weaker team and the other team has all the momentum. No question Wisconsin dominated us the bulk of the game and nearly all of the second half. We couldn't stop them on a bunch of drives (wind or not). Everyone has acknowledged the 'feeling' that they would win the game if we gave them back the ball. Therefore, in those circumstances (totally different than the week before because of the timeouts available to stop the clock from running), you have to try something a little more creative and risky to get a first down (whether a pass or unusual or unorthodox run or something). I personally would have used my best available, least risk, playmaker (Tommy A in some kind of QB draw, roll out or other scramble or run situation. Him keeping the ball is better than risking a fumbled pitch or hand off or even a throw. Sadly, we needed to throw, as much as that hurts. Wisconsin had to strongly believe we were not going to throw even once. We should have thrown on 2nd down. A sideline play would have been low risk for interception and high percentage for completion. A first down and couple kneel downs seal it.