What did we learn?....Northwestern

[teachercd]

Did anyone think NW wasn't going to sneak it in?  I mean...they had about a foot to go.

[ColoradoHusk]

3 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Did anyone think NW wasn't going to sneak it in?  I mean...they had about a foot to go.

Exactly, and they got a half yard on the previous QB sneak.  They do it again and they have the TD.  What they did better the 2nd QB sneak was motion the TE to be behind Thorson to push from behind and get him into the end-zone (which is now legal).

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Understanding the current situation and knowing the rewards from the risk makes going for the TD the proper call.  It's a 1/2 yard run.  By succeeding in that 1/2 yard run, that forced NU to go 25 yards to tie it.  Achieving that 1/2 yard gave Northwestern the greatest opportunity to win the game right there.  The reward outweighs the risk.

 

1 minute ago, teachercd said:

Did anyone think NW wasn't going to sneak it in?  I mean...they had about a foot to go.

Based on them not getting 1/2 yard on the previous play, I thought there was a good chance they wouldn't get it. I don't think it's a terrible call to go for it there, but it's not the smart call. The Husker offense had managed 3 points in the last 2.5 quarters of play. NW should trust their defense.

[ColoradoHusk]

Just now, RedDenver said:

 

Based on them not getting 1/2 yard on the previous play, I thought there was a good chance they wouldn't get it. I don't think it's a terrible call to go for it there, but it's not the smart call. The Husker offense had managed 3 points in the last 2.5 quarters of play. NW should trust their defense.

Fitzgerald was trusting their defense at that time.  By putting 7 on the board, he's telling his D, "hey, I don't think Nebraska can go 25 yards on us, and tie the game, so if we get this TD, we most likely win the game."  But, if Northwestern kicks a FG, then that allows NW to still play good D the next series and NU can tie the game with a FG of their own.  Also, Northwestern probably didn't want to extend the game very long.  They were in their 3rd straight OT game, and they definitely wouldn't want to be in a battle of kickers.

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Fitzgerald was trusting their defense at that time.  By putting 7 on the board, he's telling his D, "hey, I don't think Nebraska can go 25 yards on us, and tie the game, so if we get this TD, we most likely win the game."  But, if Northwestern kicks a FG, then that allows NW to still play good D the next series and NU can tie the game with a FG of their own.  Also, Northwestern probably didn't want to extend the game very long.  They were in their 3rd straight OT game, and they definitely wouldn't want to be in a battle of kickers.

Fitz was definitely not trusting the defense by going for it. Brown could hit a FG from the 25 without the Huskers taking a snap. So if NW doesn't get that TD, they very likely lose the game - even if their D holds the Huskers to zero yards. NW should go for it if they don't trust that the defense can keep the Huskers out of the endzone.

[brophog]

13 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I agreed 100% with going for the TD.  They were at the 1/2 yard line, you go for the TD.  If they go for a FG, it allows NU to tie it with just a FG.

 

If you fail, and that's a good possibility there, you can lose the game without forcing your opponent to do much of anything but line up for a FG. Tying the game in OT means nothing as everything is reset for the next OT, where NW would have had the advantage by going second.

 

Let's say NW did kick the FG and now we are talking Nebraska here and the decision is from the same distance but now Nebraska has the choice of going for it from the 1/2 yard line and winning it there or kicking a FG to go into another overtime. In that situation you can argue it's worth the risk of winning right then because NW would have second turn advantage in the next overtime.

 

Going second is a fairly significant advantage because the chance of making at least a FG is quite high.

 

 

 

 

[ColoradoHusk]

1 minute ago, brophog said:

 

If you fail, and that's a good possibility there, you can lose the game without forcing your opponent to do much of anything but line up for a FG. Tying the game in OT means nothing as everything is reset for the next OT, where NW would have had the advantage by going second.

 

Let's say NW did kick the FG and now we are talking Nebraska here and the decision is from the same distance but now Nebraska has the choice of going for it from the 1/2 yard line and winning it there or kicking a FG to go into another overtime. In that situation you can argue it's worth the risk of winning right then because NW would have second turn advantage in the next overtime.

 

Going second is a fairly significant advantage because the chance of making at least a FG is quite high.

 

 

 

 

Yes, the team going 2nd does have a big advantage, but Fitzgerald took away some of that advantage by going for the TD.  By succeeding, that forced Nebraska to play for the TD.  I'm sorry, but I would approach games on how the opposing team/fans would want me to do things, and mainly do the opposite.  For example, I am sure most NU fans were hoping Fitz would settle for the FG, because that would mean "all NU needs to do is get a TD and NU wins, and even if we get stopped we can kick the FG to tie".  By going for the TD, Fitz is forcing NU's offense to score a TD.  Yes, there was a risk by going for it, but understand the risk and reward of a situation is part of coaching.  NW got a HUGE reward by scoring that TD, and the probability of making that TD was probably 80% or so.

[teachercd]

I guess I don't see it as a big risk.  It wasn't even half a yard, it was less.  I mean...I would think the chances of getting that foot are greater than making the chip-shot FG.

[ColoradoHusk]

I know we each have our own opinions on things, but I prefer the aggressive play WHEN THE SITUATION AND THE REWARD FROM THE RISK IS WORTH IT.

 

For example, Langsdorf calling a pass play from NW's 19 yard line and NU is already up by 7 was not smart because the reward isn't worth the risk and the situation involved.  NU was already in FG range.  They could have called 2 run plays to drain more clock and a safer pass play on 3rd down.  Worst case scenario, Brown has a chip shot FG attempt to put NU up by 10.  That probably would have put the game away.

 

In Fitz's decision to go for the TD at the 1/2 yard line, I think mathematically that's the correct decision.  The probability of success is probably at least 80-90%, so I don't even think it's a risky play.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

1 minute ago, teachercd said:

I guess I don't see it as a big risk.  It wasn't even half a yard, it was less.  I mean...I would think the chances of getting that foot are greater than making the chip-shot FG.

That's what it is simply put.  Gaining a 1/2 yard isn't a huge risk.  People want to think about the potential loss of not getting it, but that play probably had a huge probability of making the 1/2 yard.

[Norhusker]

3 hours ago, Hayseed said:

How did Iowa score 55 points on the team that beat us by about 100? Did everyone at Ohio State get injured?

I didn't watch that game. Looks like they got 4 INT's off of JT. Played about as perfect a game as you can while Ohio State made several errors.  Always happy to see Ohio State lose. 

[lo country]

2 hours ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I agreed 100% with going for the TD.  They were at the 1/2 yard line, you go for the TD.  If they go for a FG, it allows NU to tie it with just a FG.

 

EDIT:  If NU were in that situation, I would have applauded Riley for having the guts and confidence in his o-line to win the battle at the LOS.  A TD in that situation is a much better result than a FG.  The probability of getting the 1/2 yard and the ensuing probability of getting a win from the TD is the reason to go for it.  Too many coaches go for the "safe" result when the reward is worth going for the risk.

I really think that Riley/Langs/Cav have no faith in our OL to do much of anything.  As a fan for a long, long time, the inability to have any running game hurts as bad as the losses....

 

Gutsy call IMHO.  Had they missed, we kick the FG and call it a day.  

[Danimal]

6 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Yes, the team going 2nd does have a big advantage, but Fitzgerald took away some of that advantage by going for the TD.  By succeeding, that forced Nebraska to play for the TD.  I'm sorry, but I would approach games on how the opposing team/fans would want me to do things, and mainly do the opposite.  For example, I am sure most NU fans were hoping Fitz would settle for the FG, because that would mean "all NU needs to do is get a TD and NU wins, and even if we get stopped we can kick the FG to tie".  By going for the TD, Fitz is forcing NU's offense to score a TD.  Yes, there was a risk by going for it, but understand the risk and reward of a situation is part of coaching.  NW got a HUGE reward by scoring that TD, and the probability of making that TD was probably 80% or so.

 

Not only forces us to get a td but with a redzone offense that has struggled considerably. From only 1/2 yard you have to go for it, Thorson is a good-sized qb. Only thing I didn't get is why not take advantage of the new rules and put some pile-pushing size behind Thorson?

[ColoradoHusk]

30 minutes ago, Danimal said:

 

Not only forces us to get a td but with a redzone offense that has struggled considerably. From only 1/2 yard you have to go for it, Thorson is a good-sized qb. Only thing I didn't get is why not take advantage of the new rules and put some pile-pushing size behind Thorson?

The TE did actually push from behind on 4th down.  Northwestern didn't do that on 3rd down, that's why the sneak on 3rd down failed.

[jsneb83]

I figured Northwestern would go for it because, well, it's Northwestern