Going for 2

[BigRedBuster]

Sooooo.....we out coached them.

[topekahusker]

Kinda looked like the last 2 point conversion try was good for Oregon, the QB raced to the pylon and ended up hitting it, I guess they said he was already down, if he had just reached the ball out they would have had it, not like they would have won anyway, since it would've brought them to 34 points instead of 32.

 

I still think he got jipped a bit but I'll take it

 

I agree. I was thinking that play should have been reviewed.

 

EDIT: I saw the still frame posted after I added my comment. This explains why he didn't make a more animated argument to the ref after the whistle.

[mwj98]

At the half, Helfrich said he did the first one because "some guy" wasn't paying attention. Almost condescending IMO. Glad it bit him in the a$$.

I heard that and it pissed me off. Incredible arrogance

[In the Deed the Glory]

Sooooo.....we out coached them.

I think so.

[Enhance]

 

Helfrich defended every 2-pt attempt saying it looked advantageous based on the situation he saw on the field.

I saw that, but in the above situation there is a ton of risk and literally no reward for going for 2 over 1 point. You want the 5 point lead for the follow up FG to take the win in the event we scored a TD. A 6 point lead makes no difference compared to a 5 point lead in that situation. He lacks understanding of the mechanics of football scoring.

 

And that is only on that specific one. Why he kept going with it after the successful conversion on the first one is mind boggling. You have the advantage, why not make us chase that extra 1 point? Instead, they gave it right back to us.

 

I'm glad he was on their sideline.

 

I think Oregon misses them some Chip Kelly.

[Enhance]

 

At the half, Helfrich said he did the first one because "some guy" wasn't paying attention. Almost condescending IMO. Glad it bit him in the a$$.

I heard that and it pissed me off. Incredible arrogance

Like, one of Nebraska's players wasn't paying attention so they took advantage? How is that arrogant, or am I misunderstanding the situation?

[Hayseed]

If you can do it, you're brilliant; if you can't, you're a stupid idiot.

[huKSer]

In one article from Lincoln's or Omaha's paper he said that Oregon had a numbers advantage in the formation to go for two. It might be that MR baited them to do this.

[dvdcrr]

Helfrich defended every 2-pt attempt saying it looked advantageous based on the situation he saw on the field.

This poses a very interesting dilemma. It has Chip Kelly overtones.

On one hand you have the philosophy that you should always line up to be ready to go for maximum possible points (two) if the defense gives you the right opportunity. On the other hand is the philosophy that based on what the score situation is with the other team, and game you go for one.

On the one hand the main objective is to always score the maximum number of points. (Chip Kelly) On the other hand the objective is to merely outscore the opponent. (Conventional)

[In the Deed the Glory]

In one article from Lincoln's or Omaha's paper he said that Oregon had a numbers advantage in the formation to go for two. It might be that MR baited them to do this.

I wondered the same thing.

[MichiganDad3]

 

It was refreshing to see a different team kill themselves with bad decisions, sloppy play and penalties for once. I can't remember the last time during a game that when I saw a flag I was confident it was on the opposing team.

 

^ QFT. Somewhere around switching from beer to bourbon, I commented to my wife "It's like the 2016 Huskers are playing 2015 Huskers and the Ducks are us last year"...

 

I said the same thing to my wife

[Mavric]

Today was abnormal even for Oregon. Coming into the game they had been successfull on 3 of 6 2 point conversion attempts after 13 TDs scored.

2015 they were 0 for 4 after 70 TDs scored

2014 they were 4 for 7 after 88 TDs scored

2013 they were 2 for 6 after 80 TDs scored

2012 they were 4 for 6 after 89 TDs scored

2011 they were 5 for 7 after 88 TDs scored

2010 they were 7 for 8 after 80 TDs scored

 

I'm not sure where either of you got your numbers but someone is way off.

 

I tend to believe Sam's numbers because I think they go for two more often than your numbers show.

 

Which means they are really bad at math.

 

[Mavric]

Here's Sam's citation:

 

[In the Deed the Glory]

Here's Sam's citation:

 

huKSer, this goes along with what we said earlier.

[Kernal]

Oregon approaches these like a gambler: you don't leave after winning one hand- you play another. If you fail, you play another to get back ahead. If you fail again, you play another to get out of the hole. The more you fail, the more you need to go for two to get back to even.

 

I don't have any criticism for these calls, and I don't believe there's a shred of arrogance to it. They study it and have algorithms for when to go for two and when to kick. It's that simple. Kudos to Riley and the coaches for baiting them into the attempts and the team for executing the defense.