The CardBoard
You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... (/thread-2720.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - berto41 - 01-05-2012

@Farm93: in saying that "banking on ~35 FGs is pretty standard in coaching", you fail to take into account several salient facts:

1. Jordan Williamson (JW) was a redshirt freshman not a junior, senior or pro kicker;
2. he had had a terrible evening to that point; pulling kicks left and pushing a KO to the right out of bounds;
3. he was clearly nervous as hell on the sideline;
4. we had the best college QB in a long time -- who was unstoppable since the second qtr -- ready to lead us further downfield and 3 TOs available for use; Luck was clearly pissed at what happened. It's only his manners that kept him from unloading on Shaw and scaring his reputation; Luck knows how to throw a ball away when needed;

In short, Shaw's decision was poor, showed no confidence in AL, and relied on a nervous freshman who had been having a very bad night to that point. Outrageous. And Shaw stubbornly refuses to even acknowledge that he might have made the wrong decision, and blames the loss on "not finishing." Rubbish. I bet he lost a lot of team support in the locker room. This was the worst Stanford loss since The Play.

P.S. The decision by the dback coach to play Blackmon 1-on-1 throughout the evening, and especially on that critical 4th and 4 with 4 minutes to go -- he easily picked up 21 yards, almost without being touched -- is equally PATHETIC. 




(01-03-2012, 05:48 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=5306.msg38466#msg38466 date=1325634482]
"With 3 minutes to go, I would have been thrilled with the idea of the opportunity that was available with 3 seconds left.
With 2:35 left to go, I also would have been thrilled to know that Williamson only needed to punch a short FG from an indoor venue with 3 seconds."

Those are red herrings, and you surely must know that.

The question is this:  with 45 seconds left and Stanford with the ball at OSU's 17 yard line and 3 TOs, would you be "thrilled" with the opportunity that was available with 3 seconds left?  (i.e., Stanford no closer to the end zone or a GW FG try)?  That is the question.  And what is inexcusable, imo, is the complete forfeiture of even trying to improve the situation.

I happen to think play action would have worked.  But forget that.  Why not run the ball again?  Get a first down, use a TO, and run it again.  Don't get a first down, then maybe you let the clock run down and take your shot.  But to not even try?  That is just flat idiotic.  And it really put a damper on what otherwise was a terrific game by Stanford and an admirable job by the coaching staff preparing the team for the game.

I mean sure, I wanted them to push it a little more.  With 3 timeouts a TD was definitely a possibility with 2 or 3 run plays.  And run plays were an option.  But a few things to remember.  The RBs were already getting tugged and pulled with every drive.  IF, and I realize it is an IF, but if Taylor or Stewart was stripped everyone on this board would be screaming that Shaw should have kicked a FG.  And if Luck passed, incompletions could have stopped the clock and there is always a chance for a sack-fumble or an INT.

If in 2012, Stanford has a chance to win every game in regulation with a ~35 FG or go to OT with a miss, I think I would take that season.  I am not sure I would survive, but I suspect that Stanford wins 10 of the 12 in regulation (at least) and then should split the OT contests.  Of course, that situation will not arise, but just to say that banking on ~35 FGs is pretty standard in coaching.

Just look at NFL OTs.  Many coaches elect to kick that 35 FG on first or second down rather than run more plays.  Holding, false starts, sacks, fumbles and INTs all can happen too.
[/quote]

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - berto41 - 01-05-2012

@Farm93: in saying that "banking on ~35 FGs is pretty standard in coaching", you fail to take into account several salient facts:

1. Jordan Williamson (JW) was a redshirt freshman not a junior, senior or pro kicker;
2. he had had a terrible evening to that point; pulling kicks left and pushing a KO to the right out of bounds;
3. he was clearly nervous as hell on the sideline;
4. we had the best college QB in a long time -- who was unstoppable since the second qtr -- ready to lead us further downfield and 3 TOs available for use; Luck was clearly pissed at what happened. It's only his manners that kept him from unloading on Shaw and scaring his reputation; Luck knows how to throw a ball away when needed;

In short, Shaw's decision was poor, showed no confidence in AL, and relied on a nervous freshman who had been having a very bad night to that point. Outrageous. And Shaw stubbornly refuses to even acknowledge that he might have made the wrong decision, and blames the loss on "not finishing." Rubbish. I bet he lost a lot of team support in the locker room. This was the worst Stanford loss since The Play.

P.S. The decision by the dback coach to play Blackmon 1-on-1 throughout the evening, and especially on that critical 4th and 4 with 4 minutes to go -- he easily picked up 21 yards, almost without being touched -- is equally PATHETIC. 




(01-03-2012, 05:48 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=5306.msg38466#msg38466 date=1325634482]
"With 3 minutes to go, I would have been thrilled with the idea of the opportunity that was available with 3 seconds left.
With 2:35 left to go, I also would have been thrilled to know that Williamson only needed to punch a short FG from an indoor venue with 3 seconds."

Those are red herrings, and you surely must know that.

The question is this:  with 45 seconds left and Stanford with the ball at OSU's 17 yard line and 3 TOs, would you be "thrilled" with the opportunity that was available with 3 seconds left?  (i.e., Stanford no closer to the end zone or a GW FG try)?  That is the question.  And what is inexcusable, imo, is the complete forfeiture of even trying to improve the situation.

I happen to think play action would have worked.  But forget that.  Why not run the ball again?  Get a first down, use a TO, and run it again.  Don't get a first down, then maybe you let the clock run down and take your shot.  But to not even try?  That is just flat idiotic.  And it really put a damper on what otherwise was a terrific game by Stanford and an admirable job by the coaching staff preparing the team for the game.

I mean sure, I wanted them to push it a little more.  With 3 timeouts a TD was definitely a possibility with 2 or 3 run plays.  And run plays were an option.  But a few things to remember.  The RBs were already getting tugged and pulled with every drive.  IF, and I realize it is an IF, but if Taylor or Stewart was stripped everyone on this board would be screaming that Shaw should have kicked a FG.  And if Luck passed, incompletions could have stopped the clock and there is always a chance for a sack-fumble or an INT.

If in 2012, Stanford has a chance to win every game in regulation with a ~35 FG or go to OT with a miss, I think I would take that season.  I am not sure I would survive, but I suspect that Stanford wins 10 of the 12 in regulation (at least) and then should split the OT contests.  Of course, that situation will not arise, but just to say that banking on ~35 FGs is pretty standard in coaching.

Just look at NFL OTs.  Many coaches elect to kick that 35 FG on first or second down rather than run more plays.  Holding, false starts, sacks, fumbles and INTs all can happen too.
[/quote]

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - berto41 - 01-05-2012

@Farm93: in saying that "banking on ~35 FGs is pretty standard in coaching", you fail to take into account several salient facts:

1. Jordan Williamson (JW) was a redshirt freshman not a junior, senior or pro kicker;
2. he had had a terrible evening to that point; pulling kicks left and pushing a KO to the right out of bounds;
3. he was clearly nervous as hell on the sideline;
4. we had the best college QB in a long time -- who was unstoppable since the second qtr -- ready to lead us further downfield and 3 TOs available for use; Luck was clearly pissed at what happened. It's only his manners that kept him from unloading on Shaw and scaring his reputation; Luck knows how to throw a ball away when needed;

In short, Shaw's decision was poor, showed no confidence in AL, and relied on a nervous freshman who had been having a very bad night to that point. Outrageous. And Shaw stubbornly refuses to even acknowledge that he might have made the wrong decision, and blames the loss on "not finishing." Rubbish. I bet he lost a lot of team support in the locker room. This was the worst Stanford loss since The Play.

P.S. The decision by the dback coach to play Blackmon 1-on-1 throughout the evening, and especially on that critical 4th and 4 with 4 minutes to go -- he easily picked up 21 yards, almost without being touched -- is equally PATHETIC. 




(01-03-2012, 05:48 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=5306.msg38466#msg38466 date=1325634482]
"With 3 minutes to go, I would have been thrilled with the idea of the opportunity that was available with 3 seconds left.
With 2:35 left to go, I also would have been thrilled to know that Williamson only needed to punch a short FG from an indoor venue with 3 seconds."

Those are red herrings, and you surely must know that.

The question is this:  with 45 seconds left and Stanford with the ball at OSU's 17 yard line and 3 TOs, would you be "thrilled" with the opportunity that was available with 3 seconds left?  (i.e., Stanford no closer to the end zone or a GW FG try)?  That is the question.  And what is inexcusable, imo, is the complete forfeiture of even trying to improve the situation.

I happen to think play action would have worked.  But forget that.  Why not run the ball again?  Get a first down, use a TO, and run it again.  Don't get a first down, then maybe you let the clock run down and take your shot.  But to not even try?  That is just flat idiotic.  And it really put a damper on what otherwise was a terrific game by Stanford and an admirable job by the coaching staff preparing the team for the game.

I mean sure, I wanted them to push it a little more.  With 3 timeouts a TD was definitely a possibility with 2 or 3 run plays.  And run plays were an option.  But a few things to remember.  The RBs were already getting tugged and pulled with every drive.  IF, and I realize it is an IF, but if Taylor or Stewart was stripped everyone on this board would be screaming that Shaw should have kicked a FG.  And if Luck passed, incompletions could have stopped the clock and there is always a chance for a sack-fumble or an INT.

If in 2012, Stanford has a chance to win every game in regulation with a ~35 FG or go to OT with a miss, I think I would take that season.  I am not sure I would survive, but I suspect that Stanford wins 10 of the 12 in regulation (at least) and then should split the OT contests.  Of course, that situation will not arise, but just to say that banking on ~35 FGs is pretty standard in coaching.

Just look at NFL OTs.  Many coaches elect to kick that 35 FG on first or second down rather than run more plays.  Holding, false starts, sacks, fumbles and INTs all can happen too.
[/quote]

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - berto41 - 01-05-2012

@Farm93: in saying that "banking on ~35 FGs is pretty standard in coaching", you fail to take into account several salient facts:

1. Jordan Williamson (JW) was a redshirt freshman not a junior, senior or pro kicker;
2. he had had a terrible evening to that point; pulling kicks left and pushing a KO to the right out of bounds;
3. he was clearly nervous as hell on the sideline;
4. we had the best college QB in a long time -- who was unstoppable since the second qtr -- ready to lead us further downfield and 3 TOs available for use; Luck was clearly pissed at what happened. It's only his manners that kept him from unloading on Shaw and scaring his reputation; Luck knows how to throw a ball away when needed;

In short, Shaw's decision was poor, showed no confidence in AL, and relied on a nervous freshman who had been having a very bad night to that point. Outrageous. And Shaw stubbornly refuses to even acknowledge that he might have made the wrong decision, and blames the loss on "not finishing." Rubbish. I bet he lost a lot of team support in the locker room. This was the worst Stanford loss since The Play.

P.S. The decision by the dback coach to play Blackmon 1-on-1 throughout the evening, and especially on that critical 4th and 4 with 4 minutes to go -- he easily picked up 21 yards, almost without being touched -- is equally PATHETIC. 




(01-03-2012, 05:48 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=5306.msg38466#msg38466 date=1325634482]
"With 3 minutes to go, I would have been thrilled with the idea of the opportunity that was available with 3 seconds left.
With 2:35 left to go, I also would have been thrilled to know that Williamson only needed to punch a short FG from an indoor venue with 3 seconds."

Those are red herrings, and you surely must know that.

The question is this:  with 45 seconds left and Stanford with the ball at OSU's 17 yard line and 3 TOs, would you be "thrilled" with the opportunity that was available with 3 seconds left?  (i.e., Stanford no closer to the end zone or a GW FG try)?  That is the question.  And what is inexcusable, imo, is the complete forfeiture of even trying to improve the situation.

I happen to think play action would have worked.  But forget that.  Why not run the ball again?  Get a first down, use a TO, and run it again.  Don't get a first down, then maybe you let the clock run down and take your shot.  But to not even try?  That is just flat idiotic.  And it really put a damper on what otherwise was a terrific game by Stanford and an admirable job by the coaching staff preparing the team for the game.

I mean sure, I wanted them to push it a little more.  With 3 timeouts a TD was definitely a possibility with 2 or 3 run plays.  And run plays were an option.  But a few things to remember.  The RBs were already getting tugged and pulled with every drive.  IF, and I realize it is an IF, but if Taylor or Stewart was stripped everyone on this board would be screaming that Shaw should have kicked a FG.  And if Luck passed, incompletions could have stopped the clock and there is always a chance for a sack-fumble or an INT.

If in 2012, Stanford has a chance to win every game in regulation with a ~35 FG or go to OT with a miss, I think I would take that season.  I am not sure I would survive, but I suspect that Stanford wins 10 of the 12 in regulation (at least) and then should split the OT contests.  Of course, that situation will not arise, but just to say that banking on ~35 FGs is pretty standard in coaching.

Just look at NFL OTs.  Many coaches elect to kick that 35 FG on first or second down rather than run more plays.  Holding, false starts, sacks, fumbles and INTs all can happen too.
[/quote]

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - yvonne - 01-05-2012

Yeah, it was a kick in the gut, but your crapping on a coach who took us 11-2 is also "pathetic." If we had gone for a TD and they had intercepted (they are No. 1 in the nation in turnover ratio), you would be asking why he didn't go for the "easy" field goal.

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - yvonne - 01-05-2012

Yeah, it was a kick in the gut, but your crapping on a coach who took us 11-2 is also "pathetic." If we had gone for a TD and they had intercepted (they are No. 1 in the nation in turnover ratio), you would be asking why he didn't go for the "easy" field goal.

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - yvonne - 01-05-2012

Yeah, it was a kick in the gut, but your crapping on a coach who took us 11-2 is also "pathetic." If we had gone for a TD and they had intercepted (they are No. 1 in the nation in turnover ratio), you would be asking why he didn't go for the "easy" field goal.

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - yvonne - 01-05-2012

Yeah, it was a kick in the gut, but your crapping on a coach who took us 11-2 is also "pathetic." If we had gone for a TD and they had intercepted (they are No. 1 in the nation in turnover ratio), you would be asking why he didn't go for the "easy" field goal.

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - washingtonismoney - 01-05-2012

(01-05-2012, 09:52 AM)berto41 link Wrote:P.S. The decision by the dback coach to play Blackmon 1-on-1 throughout the evening, and especially on that critical 4th and 4 with 4 minutes to go -- he easily picked up 21 yards, almost without being touched -- is equally PATHETIC.

I agree that would have been PATHETIC. Fortunately, that wasn't the coverage throughout on Blackmon. Blackmon just happens to be an amazing player, and he was playing guys deemed second-string defensive backs at the beginning of the year.



Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - washingtonismoney - 01-05-2012

(01-05-2012, 09:52 AM)berto41 link Wrote:P.S. The decision by the dback coach to play Blackmon 1-on-1 throughout the evening, and especially on that critical 4th and 4 with 4 minutes to go -- he easily picked up 21 yards, almost without being touched -- is equally PATHETIC.

I agree that would have been PATHETIC. Fortunately, that wasn't the coverage throughout on Blackmon. Blackmon just happens to be an amazing player, and he was playing guys deemed second-string defensive backs at the beginning of the year.



Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - washingtonismoney - 01-05-2012

(01-05-2012, 09:52 AM)berto41 link Wrote:P.S. The decision by the dback coach to play Blackmon 1-on-1 throughout the evening, and especially on that critical 4th and 4 with 4 minutes to go -- he easily picked up 21 yards, almost without being touched -- is equally PATHETIC.

I agree that would have been PATHETIC. Fortunately, that wasn't the coverage throughout on Blackmon. Blackmon just happens to be an amazing player, and he was playing guys deemed second-string defensive backs at the beginning of the year.



Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - washingtonismoney - 01-05-2012

(01-05-2012, 09:52 AM)berto41 link Wrote:P.S. The decision by the dback coach to play Blackmon 1-on-1 throughout the evening, and especially on that critical 4th and 4 with 4 minutes to go -- he easily picked up 21 yards, almost without being touched -- is equally PATHETIC.

I agree that would have been PATHETIC. Fortunately, that wasn't the coverage throughout on Blackmon. Blackmon just happens to be an amazing player, and he was playing guys deemed second-string defensive backs at the beginning of the year.



Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Griffins78 - 01-05-2012

(01-05-2012, 10:16 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=berto41 link=topic=5306.msg38566#msg38566 date=1325782351]
P.S. The decision by the dback coach to play Blackmon 1-on-1 throughout the evening, and especially on that critical 4th and 4 with 4 minutes to go -- he easily picked up 21 yards, almost without being touched -- is equally PATHETIC.

I agree that would have been PATHETIC. Fortunately, that wasn't the coverage throughout on Blackmon. Blackmon just happens to be an amazing player, and he was playing guys deemed second-string defensive backs at the beginning of the year.
[/quote]Exactly. We shut Blackmon down for much of the game. Our DC came up with lots of creative schemes and movement which led to a subpar performance by their QB, Brandon Weeden. His completion percentage is much higher than Luck or any other QB in the country, yet we confounded him most of the game. Blackmon is a TWO-time Biletnikoff award winner and only a JUNIOR. That's truly incredible. When we were on him 1 on 1 - we hit him but he shrugged off two tacklers like nothing. When he was untouched we were in zone.

Our DEFENSE played really well. They held the number 1 offense far below their averages and kept them from controlling the game. They kept the ball in Andrew Luck and our offenses hands most of the game.

Some are complaining about being too conservative on play calling. On defense, we took risks. We threw more schemes and defenses and plays on defense at them than I saw all year. And sometimes we got burned. We blitzed our safeties - sometimes both at the same time - and thought we could get pressure on their QB. I think their OL play was a major factor in the game. They handled everything we threw at them and we tried a lot.

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Griffins78 - 01-05-2012

(01-05-2012, 10:16 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=berto41 link=topic=5306.msg38566#msg38566 date=1325782351]
P.S. The decision by the dback coach to play Blackmon 1-on-1 throughout the evening, and especially on that critical 4th and 4 with 4 minutes to go -- he easily picked up 21 yards, almost without being touched -- is equally PATHETIC.

I agree that would have been PATHETIC. Fortunately, that wasn't the coverage throughout on Blackmon. Blackmon just happens to be an amazing player, and he was playing guys deemed second-string defensive backs at the beginning of the year.
[/quote]Exactly. We shut Blackmon down for much of the game. Our DC came up with lots of creative schemes and movement which led to a subpar performance by their QB, Brandon Weeden. His completion percentage is much higher than Luck or any other QB in the country, yet we confounded him most of the game. Blackmon is a TWO-time Biletnikoff award winner and only a JUNIOR. That's truly incredible. When we were on him 1 on 1 - we hit him but he shrugged off two tacklers like nothing. When he was untouched we were in zone.

Our DEFENSE played really well. They held the number 1 offense far below their averages and kept them from controlling the game. They kept the ball in Andrew Luck and our offenses hands most of the game.

Some are complaining about being too conservative on play calling. On defense, we took risks. We threw more schemes and defenses and plays on defense at them than I saw all year. And sometimes we got burned. We blitzed our safeties - sometimes both at the same time - and thought we could get pressure on their QB. I think their OL play was a major factor in the game. They handled everything we threw at them and we tried a lot.

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Griffins78 - 01-05-2012

(01-05-2012, 10:16 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=berto41 link=topic=5306.msg38566#msg38566 date=1325782351]
P.S. The decision by the dback coach to play Blackmon 1-on-1 throughout the evening, and especially on that critical 4th and 4 with 4 minutes to go -- he easily picked up 21 yards, almost without being touched -- is equally PATHETIC.

I agree that would have been PATHETIC. Fortunately, that wasn't the coverage throughout on Blackmon. Blackmon just happens to be an amazing player, and he was playing guys deemed second-string defensive backs at the beginning of the year.
[/quote]Exactly. We shut Blackmon down for much of the game. Our DC came up with lots of creative schemes and movement which led to a subpar performance by their QB, Brandon Weeden. His completion percentage is much higher than Luck or any other QB in the country, yet we confounded him most of the game. Blackmon is a TWO-time Biletnikoff award winner and only a JUNIOR. That's truly incredible. When we were on him 1 on 1 - we hit him but he shrugged off two tacklers like nothing. When he was untouched we were in zone.

Our DEFENSE played really well. They held the number 1 offense far below their averages and kept them from controlling the game. They kept the ball in Andrew Luck and our offenses hands most of the game.

Some are complaining about being too conservative on play calling. On defense, we took risks. We threw more schemes and defenses and plays on defense at them than I saw all year. And sometimes we got burned. We blitzed our safeties - sometimes both at the same time - and thought we could get pressure on their QB. I think their OL play was a major factor in the game. They handled everything we threw at them and we tried a lot.

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Griffins78 - 01-05-2012

(01-05-2012, 10:16 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=berto41 link=topic=5306.msg38566#msg38566 date=1325782351]
P.S. The decision by the dback coach to play Blackmon 1-on-1 throughout the evening, and especially on that critical 4th and 4 with 4 minutes to go -- he easily picked up 21 yards, almost without being touched -- is equally PATHETIC.

I agree that would have been PATHETIC. Fortunately, that wasn't the coverage throughout on Blackmon. Blackmon just happens to be an amazing player, and he was playing guys deemed second-string defensive backs at the beginning of the year.
[/quote]Exactly. We shut Blackmon down for much of the game. Our DC came up with lots of creative schemes and movement which led to a subpar performance by their QB, Brandon Weeden. His completion percentage is much higher than Luck or any other QB in the country, yet we confounded him most of the game. Blackmon is a TWO-time Biletnikoff award winner and only a JUNIOR. That's truly incredible. When we were on him 1 on 1 - we hit him but he shrugged off two tacklers like nothing. When he was untouched we were in zone.

Our DEFENSE played really well. They held the number 1 offense far below their averages and kept them from controlling the game. They kept the ball in Andrew Luck and our offenses hands most of the game.

Some are complaining about being too conservative on play calling. On defense, we took risks. We threw more schemes and defenses and plays on defense at them than I saw all year. And sometimes we got burned. We blitzed our safeties - sometimes both at the same time - and thought we could get pressure on their QB. I think their OL play was a major factor in the game. They handled everything we threw at them and we tried a lot.

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Griffins78 - 01-05-2012

(01-05-2012, 10:11 AM)Yvonne link Wrote:Yeah, it was a kick in the gut, but your crapping on a coach who took us 11-2 is also "pathetic." If we had gone for a TD and they had intercepted (they are No. 1 in the nation in turnover ratio), you would be asking why he didn't go for the "easy" field goal.
Well said!

OUR red zone performance this season is NOT just because of Andrew Luck. The PLAY CALLING of our COACHES had a lot to do with it too. The same play calling that some are criticizing. And in this game, as Yvonne points out, we were up against the team that was best at taking the ball away, especially in the red zone. Sure we had gained lots of yardage all game - but so had all of OSU's opponents, only to be turned away in the red zone, often times with turnovers.

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Griffins78 - 01-05-2012

(01-05-2012, 10:11 AM)Yvonne link Wrote:Yeah, it was a kick in the gut, but your crapping on a coach who took us 11-2 is also "pathetic." If we had gone for a TD and they had intercepted (they are No. 1 in the nation in turnover ratio), you would be asking why he didn't go for the "easy" field goal.
Well said!

OUR red zone performance this season is NOT just because of Andrew Luck. The PLAY CALLING of our COACHES had a lot to do with it too. The same play calling that some are criticizing. And in this game, as Yvonne points out, we were up against the team that was best at taking the ball away, especially in the red zone. Sure we had gained lots of yardage all game - but so had all of OSU's opponents, only to be turned away in the red zone, often times with turnovers.

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Griffins78 - 01-05-2012

(01-05-2012, 10:11 AM)Yvonne link Wrote:Yeah, it was a kick in the gut, but your crapping on a coach who took us 11-2 is also "pathetic." If we had gone for a TD and they had intercepted (they are No. 1 in the nation in turnover ratio), you would be asking why he didn't go for the "easy" field goal.
Well said!

OUR red zone performance this season is NOT just because of Andrew Luck. The PLAY CALLING of our COACHES had a lot to do with it too. The same play calling that some are criticizing. And in this game, as Yvonne points out, we were up against the team that was best at taking the ball away, especially in the red zone. Sure we had gained lots of yardage all game - but so had all of OSU's opponents, only to be turned away in the red zone, often times with turnovers.

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Griffins78 - 01-05-2012

(01-05-2012, 10:11 AM)Yvonne link Wrote:Yeah, it was a kick in the gut, but your crapping on a coach who took us 11-2 is also "pathetic." If we had gone for a TD and they had intercepted (they are No. 1 in the nation in turnover ratio), you would be asking why he didn't go for the "easy" field goal.
Well said!

OUR red zone performance this season is NOT just because of Andrew Luck. The PLAY CALLING of our COACHES had a lot to do with it too. The same play calling that some are criticizing. And in this game, as Yvonne points out, we were up against the team that was best at taking the ball away, especially in the red zone. Sure we had gained lots of yardage all game - but so had all of OSU's opponents, only to be turned away in the red zone, often times with turnovers.