Let Us Pray

[RedDenver]

44 minutes ago, Nebraska55fan said:

 

 

But when we got to overtime- wouldn't we also lose if our offense got the ball and MSU got a scoop and score?

 

How does that work- are we allowed to be on defense for both sides of the overtime possessions? 

True, but I think the risk vs reward is higher when you're needing to drive 70 yards in 30 seconds vs on the opponent 25 in OT without a clock.

[Redux]

4 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Because of the scoop and score by Illinois? MSU had just ran free through the OL for a sack.

 

The team that lost to Illinois doesn't even resemble the one that should've bested MSU.  Opting for Overtime is weak, and proven by the result was the wrong choice.

[Redux]

48 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

True, but I think the risk vs reward is higher when you're needing to drive 70 yards in 30 seconds vs on the opponent 25 in OT without a clock.

 

Trying to win the game with time left and time outs is too risky?  Why not try to get into FG range and attempt a long kick while time expires?  You wanna make Culp get over his woes, have him go out and win a game.

[Nebraska55fan]

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

True, but I think the risk vs reward is higher when you're needing to drive 70 yards in 30 seconds vs on the opponent 25 in OT without a clock.

 We had 2 timeouts left. NU hasnt scored a TD in overtime for some ridiculous amount of time- 7 games- 12 years??  

 

Maybe we try to take advantage of our 2 time outs and mobile QB and try to gain 40 yards to give our kicker a chance to win it. 

 

At the end of the day- we all kinda know HCSF doesn't think AM can go out and win a game ffor this team when it really counts. Unlike a QB from say Iowa who sucks most of the game but wins the game for his team in the last minute of play type thing. I love the player- for his own sake would like him to pull one out for this team. 

[RedDenver]

4 hours ago, Redux said:

 

The team that lost to Illinois doesn't even resemble the one that should've bested MSU.  Opting for Overtime is weak, and proven by the result was the wrong choice.

It's not at all proven as we might have lost either way. We only know the outcome that happened, not all possible outcomes.

 

4 hours ago, Redux said:

 

Trying to win the game with time left and time outs is too risky?  Why not try to get into FG range and attempt a long kick while time expires?  You wanna make Culp get over his woes, have him go out and win a game.

 

2 hours ago, Nebraska55fan said:

 We had 2 timeouts left. NU hasnt scored a TD in overtime for some ridiculous amount of time- 7 games- 12 years??  

 

Maybe we try to take advantage of our 2 time outs and mobile QB and try to gain 40 yards to give our kicker a chance to win it. 

 

At the end of the day- we all kinda know HCSF doesn't think AM can go out and win a game ffor this team when it really counts. Unlike a QB from say Iowa who sucks most of the game but wins the game for his team in the last minute of play type thing. I love the player- for his own sake would like him to pull one out for this team. 

We had 2 TO's but only about 30 seconds left and had just gotten sacked inside our own 25. There's a chance we could have gotten in FG range but it's very unlikely. For all we know, AM throws that pick in regulation and MSU kicks a FG without going to OT. There's simply no way to know what would happen among a bunch of unlikely events. The strength of the team is our defense, so maybe the coaches were playing to that.

 

But I think you guys are just complaining to complain. The last possession of regulation wasn't what cost us the game.

[PaulCrewe]

5 hours ago, Redux said:

 

Trying to win the game with time left and time outs is too risky?  Why not try to get into FG range and attempt a long kick while time expires?  You wanna make Culp get over his woes, have him go out and win a game.

Fear of failure brotha, fear of failure

[Redux]

19 hours ago, RedDenver said:

It's not at all proven as we might have lost either way. We only know the outcome that happened, not all possible outcomes.

 

.....and in the outcome we opted for we lost.  The options were try to win in regulation while we had the ball and momentum or opt for the tie and try to beat #20 on road in overtime when momentum returns to equal.  The option we chose was weak.

 

19 hours ago, RedDenver said:

We had 2 TO's but only about 30 seconds left and had just gotten sacked inside our own 25. There's a chance we could have gotten in FG range but it's very unlikely. For all we know, AM throws that pick in regulation and MSU kicks a FG without going to OT. There's simply no way to know what would happen among a bunch of unlikely events. The strength of the team is our defense, so maybe the coaches were playing to that.

 

But I think you guys are just complaining to complain. The last possession of regulation wasn't what cost us the game.

 

As opposed to what?  Him throwing a pick in OT and them kicking a FG to win?  Which is what happened.  So your logic doesn't really hold any water.  You're trying to say OT was the safer choice.  It was.  And it was the wrong choice, and we all knew it when we let regulation expire.

 

And you're disagreeing to disagree.  The likelihood of them taking the ball away and scoring was far outweighed by us just NOT scoring or getting into FG range.  The risk and reward need to be weighed and he didn't.

[RedDenver]

53 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

.....and in the outcome we opted for we lost.  The options were try to win in regulation while we had the ball and momentum or opt for the tie and try to beat #20 on road in overtime when momentum returns to equal.  The option we chose was weak.

This is laughably wrong. We had the momentum after being sacked? Really?

 

53 minutes ago, Redux said:

As opposed to what?  Him throwing a pick in OT and them kicking a FG to win?  Which is what happened.  So your logic doesn't really hold any water.  You're trying to say OT was the safer choice.  It was.  And it was the wrong choice, and we all knew it when we let regulation expire.

No, you think it was the wrong choice. Calling it "safer" or "weak" doesn't actually make it true. It's an evaluation of risk vs reward. Since we can't see the future or know alternative outcomes, we can only make educated guesses as to which approach gave the best chance to win.

 

53 minutes ago, Redux said:

The likelihood of them taking the ball away and scoring was far outweighed by us just NOT scoring or getting into FG range.

Sure, but that's not the debate. Neither team scoring is by far the most likely outcome - and that's actually what happened. Going for it and not scoring doesn't change anything about the outcome of the game. The question is about the unlikely outcomes: if there was a score in regulation, was it more likely to be them or us? Neither of us knows, which is exactly my point.

 

I don't think Frost was wrong trying to score or going into OT as both gave roughly the same chance of winning IMO. As I said before, that wasn't what cost us the game.

 

53 minutes ago, Redux said:

  The risk and reward need to be weighed and he didn't.

This is wild speculation an obvious overreaction. Sure, Frost just didn't weigh the risk and reward. Come on.

[Redux]

51 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

This is laughably wrong. We had the momentum after being sacked? 

 

What's laughable is you having the defeatist mentality that opting for OT was a good idea, though I'm not shocked.

 

51 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

No, you think it was the wrong choice. Calling it "safer" or "weak" doesn't actually make it true. It's an evaluation of risk vs reward. Since we can't see the future or know alternative outcomes, we can only make educated guesses as to which approach gave the best chance to win.

 

And I'm proven right that it was the wrong choice by the outcome.  Thanks for playing.  The best chance to win is always going to be try to win before regulation ends, especially on the road.  Remember BYU?  BYU remembers.

 

51 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Sure, but that's not the debate. Neither team scoring is by far the most likely outcome - and that's actually what happened. Going for it and not scoring doesn't change anything about the outcome of the game. The question is about the unlikely outcomes: if there was a score in regulation, was it more likely to be them or us? Neither of us knows, which is exactly my point.

 

I feel like you didn't even watch the game, good lord.  Neither team scored because they let time expire!  Going for it and not scoring gets you right back to OT, meaning you have two chances to win the game instead of just one.  Your point is weak just like opting for OT.

 

51 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I don't think Frost was wrong trying to score or going into OT as both gave roughly the same chance of winning IMO. As I said before, that wasn't what cost us the game.

 

This is wild speculation an obvious overreaction. Sure, Frost just didn't weigh the risk and reward. Come on.

 

Color me shocked you think that.....

 

Lol it's not speculation or overreacting.  I knew as soon as the sack hit we were tucking tail and heading to overtime.  The risk of losing is outweighed by the chance at a victory this would've been in spectacular fashion.  30 seconds left, 2 timeouts, on the road at #20, a kicker that's been dreadful, an O line that plays blindfolded etc.  You wanna boost morale?  You wanna silence detractors?  You wanna boost the kicker and O lines confidence?  Go out and friggin win. Or at least try dammit.  I will never condone opting for OT.  Not for Frost, not for anyone.  It's weak.  It sent the message to the team that he clearly doesn't trust them to dig down and find that surge.  But that's my opinion and you're welcome to yours.  We know how it ended, so don't try to lecture me it wasn't worth trying.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

Made no sense not to take a couple shots downfield with Toure or Allen, who's a mismatch for pretty much anyone.

[Archy1221]

21 hours ago, RedDenver said:

It's not at all proven as we might have lost either way. We only know the outcome that happened, not all possible outcomes.

 

 

We had 2 TO's but only about 30 seconds left and had just gotten sacked inside our own 25. There's a chance we could have gotten in FG range but it's very unlikely. For all we know, AM throws that pick in regulation and MSU kicks a FG without going to OT. There's simply no way to know what would happen among a bunch of unlikely events. The strength of the team is our defense, so maybe the coaches were playing to that.

 

But I think you guys are just complaining to complain. The last possession of regulation wasn't what cost us the game.

Agree with you here

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Redux said:

 

.....and in the outcome we opted for we lost.  The options were try to win in regulation while we had the ball and momentum or opt for the tie and try to beat #20 on road in overtime when momentum returns to equal.  The option we chose was weak.

 

 

As opposed to what?  Him throwing a pick in OT and them kicking a FG to win?  Which is what happened.  So your logic doesn't really hold any water.  You're trying to say OT was the safer choice.  It was.  And it was the wrong choice, and we all knew it when we let regulation expire.

 

And you're disagreeing to disagree.  The likelihood of them taking the ball away and scoring was far outweighed by us just NOT scoring or getting into FG range.  The risk and reward need to be weighed and he didn't.

The likelihood of us scoring on the last possession in a less than 1 minute offense was zero, as in we haven’t ever done it before in the AM/Frost era that I am aware of.  Once the sack took place it didn’t make much sense 

[Redux]

7 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

The likelihood of us scoring on the last possession in a less than 1 minute offense was zero, as in we haven’t ever done it before in the AM/Frost era that I am aware of.  Once the sack took place it didn’t make much sense 

 

It's not zero.  It's never zero.  Watch College Football Final any week, it literally happens every week every season.  Just because we're Nebraska doesn't mean we couldn't do it.  Watch this game again, we moved the ball against them, we scored against them.  Take a timeout, give a passionate sideline speech and go out and get some yards back.

 

If you fight and lose it's always going to look better than admitting you don't have what it takes to overcome the odds which is what that looks like.

[RedDenver]

24 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

What's laughable is you having the defeatist mentality that opting for OT was a good idea, though I'm not shocked.

Wrong again. Like I already said, the chances were about equally likely of either side scoring, so I thought either choice was about the same chance of winning. What I'm arguing against is your repeated claims it was a clear choice to do one or the other. It wasn't.

24 minutes ago, Redux said:

And I'm proven right that it was the wrong choice by the outcome.  Thanks for playing.  The best chance to win is always going to be try to win before regulation ends, especially on the road.  Remember BYU?  BYU remembers.

20/20 hindsight does not make the choice the right one. BYU wasn't even remotely the same situation as BYU could not play for overtime, so they had no choice but to go for it.

 

24 minutes ago, Redux said:

I feel like you didn't even watch the game, good lord.  Neither team scored because the let time expire!  Going for it and not scoring gets you right back to OT, meaning you have two chances to win the game instead of juat one.  Your point is weak just like opting for OT.

This is gibberish. You can keep repeating "weak" but it doesn't make your argument any better.

 

24 minutes ago, Redux said:

Color me shocked you think that.....

 

Lol it's not speculation or overreacting.

 

Nevermind, you're beyond reason.

[Redux]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Wrong again. Like I already said, the chances were about equally likely of either side scoring, so I thought either choice was about the same chance of winning. What I'm arguing against is your repeated claims it was a clear choice to do one or the other. It wasn't.

20/20 hindsight does not make the choice the right one. BYU wasn't even remotely the same situation as BYU could not play for overtime, so they had no choice but to go for it.

 

This is gibberish. You can keep repeating "weak" but it doesn't make your argument any better.

 

 

Nevermind, you're beyond reason.

 

You literally said Martinez is playing so good he could be in Heisman discussion if we win games in another thread, but in this thread condone not sending out "Heisman Candidate QB" out to try and get us into FG range.

 

Nothing you say is believable and you're only disagreeing out of bias towards me.  Keep stirring the pot, you negated any opinions you've shared in here now.