What did we learn?....Northwestern

Hayseed said:
How did Iowa score 55 points on the team that beat us by about 100? Did everyone at Ohio State get injured?
Click to expand...
Ohio State is not some immovable object just because they boatraced us. We are just a very bad football team at the moment.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Our defense is slow. I assume it's been that way all season. But this was one of those games where I noticed the running play developing, saw the Husker defense responding, and realized they simply couldn't catch up  in time. Even when they had the angle. Because of this we have no edge defense, and it kills us in both the running and passing game. 

 
KazLong said:
I learned I just won some money. (4th time this year 4 for 4 yeah!)

I learned that the team that scores the most points wins.

Over the last few years I learned this is just  a game and its no longer my life. 

I did find it funny / interesting when the opposing coach on field interview is basically dont fire Mike Riley that had my sides splitting. 
Click to expand...
I was laughing at that, as well. Fitz basically took it upon himself to lobby on Riley's behalf.

Every B1G coach is gonna be sad to see Riley go. Publicly, it's because "He's a great coach (yeah, right), and an even better guy (that's WAY more believable)", realistically, it's because... well, he's 'not' a good coach.

 
teachercd said:
  I mean...I would think the chances of getting that foot are greater than making the chip-shot FG.
Click to expand...


No way. That FG is in the 99% bracket. It's closer than a PAT, which their kicker is 30 of 30. It would take a bad snap or something to miss that FG from there. 

 
ColoradoHusk said:
Yes, there was a risk by going for it, but understand the risk and reward of a situation is part of coaching. 
Click to expand...


Exactly. I gave you two scenarios above, one in which NW made the decision and one in which Nebraska had the same decision, but obviously as the second team. In the first I say it's a bad decision, but in the second I say there's a solid argument that it's a good decision. The reward in the second example is simply much greater than the first. In the second example Nebraska can win the game right there, but in the first example NW can't.

The risks are also not equal, even if in both cases failure means a sizable chance at losing the game. In the first example, if NW kicked a FG and then Nebraska responded with a FG then it goes to another OT where NW is the favorite because of second team advantage. In the second example, though, obviously Nebraska is tying to go into another OT where they are now the underdog due to first team disadvantage.

ColoradoHusk said:
By going for the TD, Fitz is forcing NU's offense to score a TD.
Click to expand...


But here's the thing...if NW kicks a FG, Nebraska is already trying for a TD to win it. They are not kicking an early down FG to tie it because there is no advantage. The only condition that's changed, and hence the only reward, is Nebraska is forced to go for it if and only if they have a 4th down on that drive. 

That is the difference in these two cases, where we presume the odds of making that 1/2 yard vs a chip shot FG are roughly the same for both teams. In the first case your reward is forcing a 4th down that may never even occur and in the second case you simply win the game. Big difference, IMO.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top