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... - jayasena - 01-03-2012

Yes, I felt the offense performed as expected (perhaps a tad under par but within reasonable expectations after a long break), the defense outperformed my expectations, and the special teams were a letdown. But I guess that's not a new theme...

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - jayasena - 01-03-2012

Yes, I felt the offense performed as expected (perhaps a tad under par but within reasonable expectations after a long break), the defense outperformed my expectations, and the special teams were a letdown. But I guess that's not a new theme...

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - jayasena - 01-03-2012

Yes, I felt the offense performed as expected (perhaps a tad under par but within reasonable expectations after a long break), the defense outperformed my expectations, and the special teams were a letdown. But I guess that's not a new theme...

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - jayasena - 01-03-2012

Yes, I felt the offense performed as expected (perhaps a tad under par but within reasonable expectations after a long break), the defense outperformed my expectations, and the special teams were a letdown. But I guess that's not a new theme...

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - washingtonismoney - 01-03-2012

Farm93 makes me remember in another thread that harbaugh played USC 2010 the same way--and Whitaker had missed an XP earlier in the game. Something to remember, I suppose. They're both wrong, of course. There's little sense in foreclosing on options for victory.

Still would like to fire Brian Polian. Any chance DJ Durkin is missing the Bay Area?

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - washingtonismoney - 01-03-2012

Farm93 makes me remember in another thread that harbaugh played USC 2010 the same way--and Whitaker had missed an XP earlier in the game. Something to remember, I suppose. They're both wrong, of course. There's little sense in foreclosing on options for victory.

Still would like to fire Brian Polian. Any chance DJ Durkin is missing the Bay Area?

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - washingtonismoney - 01-03-2012

Farm93 makes me remember in another thread that harbaugh played USC 2010 the same way--and Whitaker had missed an XP earlier in the game. Something to remember, I suppose. They're both wrong, of course. There's little sense in foreclosing on options for victory.

Still would like to fire Brian Polian. Any chance DJ Durkin is missing the Bay Area?

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - washingtonismoney - 01-03-2012

Farm93 makes me remember in another thread that harbaugh played USC 2010 the same way--and Whitaker had missed an XP earlier in the game. Something to remember, I suppose. They're both wrong, of course. There's little sense in foreclosing on options for victory.

Still would like to fire Brian Polian. Any chance DJ Durkin is missing the Bay Area?

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Farm93 - 01-03-2012

With 3+ minutes left, I was screaming just let them score already.  Give Luck the ball, let's score a TD or a FG with .03 left and be done with it.

With 2:35 on the clock and the ball at the 20, Stanford had a dream scenario.  They had a chance to be the last to score in a game that looked like the team that scored last would win.  I would have hoped for a more aggressive punching of power in the last ~50 seconds, but hard to argue with the choices.

Everybody on the team needs to step up and do their job.  And on a team everyone needs to believe the others on the team will do their job.  It is how teams should function.  So with 30 seconds left, it was not a bad decision to run one play to center the ball, gain yards, and then kick a short FG.

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.

It was conservative play calling, but it did put Stanford in a position to win.  And more important, left no time for OSU to respond.  In the stands, it felt like it was all there.  It just didn't happen.

In the OT, power, power, power was clearly the way to go because the OSU D was done.  Sadly, classic Big Ten Power football is vulnerable to stalling after offensive penalties.  And that is what really hurt in the OT.

Plenty of "blame" to go around, but Stanford played a very good opponent right to end up.  Coaches often say that one play or one penalty did not decide the game, and amazingly that is how I felt after the game.  Williamson missed the chance to win.  There was a costly fumble when Stanford could have really crushed OSU's spirit.  Toilolo's false start penalty in OT killed the drive.  And the OT FG clearly had a bad snap.  And then there is the chance to "blame" Shaw for an 11-2 season.  ::) 

But in the end, tt was all good and all fun.  A win would have been better, but as Bowl game losses go this one was a lot of fun.

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Farm93 - 01-03-2012

With 3+ minutes left, I was screaming just let them score already.  Give Luck the ball, let's score a TD or a FG with .03 left and be done with it.

With 2:35 on the clock and the ball at the 20, Stanford had a dream scenario.  They had a chance to be the last to score in a game that looked like the team that scored last would win.  I would have hoped for a more aggressive punching of power in the last ~50 seconds, but hard to argue with the choices.

Everybody on the team needs to step up and do their job.  And on a team everyone needs to believe the others on the team will do their job.  It is how teams should function.  So with 30 seconds left, it was not a bad decision to run one play to center the ball, gain yards, and then kick a short FG.

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.

It was conservative play calling, but it did put Stanford in a position to win.  And more important, left no time for OSU to respond.  In the stands, it felt like it was all there.  It just didn't happen.

In the OT, power, power, power was clearly the way to go because the OSU D was done.  Sadly, classic Big Ten Power football is vulnerable to stalling after offensive penalties.  And that is what really hurt in the OT.

Plenty of "blame" to go around, but Stanford played a very good opponent right to end up.  Coaches often say that one play or one penalty did not decide the game, and amazingly that is how I felt after the game.  Williamson missed the chance to win.  There was a costly fumble when Stanford could have really crushed OSU's spirit.  Toilolo's false start penalty in OT killed the drive.  And the OT FG clearly had a bad snap.  And then there is the chance to "blame" Shaw for an 11-2 season.  ::) 

But in the end, tt was all good and all fun.  A win would have been better, but as Bowl game losses go this one was a lot of fun.

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Farm93 - 01-03-2012

With 3+ minutes left, I was screaming just let them score already.  Give Luck the ball, let's score a TD or a FG with .03 left and be done with it.

With 2:35 on the clock and the ball at the 20, Stanford had a dream scenario.  They had a chance to be the last to score in a game that looked like the team that scored last would win.  I would have hoped for a more aggressive punching of power in the last ~50 seconds, but hard to argue with the choices.

Everybody on the team needs to step up and do their job.  And on a team everyone needs to believe the others on the team will do their job.  It is how teams should function.  So with 30 seconds left, it was not a bad decision to run one play to center the ball, gain yards, and then kick a short FG.

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.

It was conservative play calling, but it did put Stanford in a position to win.  And more important, left no time for OSU to respond.  In the stands, it felt like it was all there.  It just didn't happen.

In the OT, power, power, power was clearly the way to go because the OSU D was done.  Sadly, classic Big Ten Power football is vulnerable to stalling after offensive penalties.  And that is what really hurt in the OT.

Plenty of "blame" to go around, but Stanford played a very good opponent right to end up.  Coaches often say that one play or one penalty did not decide the game, and amazingly that is how I felt after the game.  Williamson missed the chance to win.  There was a costly fumble when Stanford could have really crushed OSU's spirit.  Toilolo's false start penalty in OT killed the drive.  And the OT FG clearly had a bad snap.  And then there is the chance to "blame" Shaw for an 11-2 season.  ::) 

But in the end, tt was all good and all fun.  A win would have been better, but as Bowl game losses go this one was a lot of fun.

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Farm93 - 01-03-2012

With 3+ minutes left, I was screaming just let them score already.  Give Luck the ball, let's score a TD or a FG with .03 left and be done with it.

With 2:35 on the clock and the ball at the 20, Stanford had a dream scenario.  They had a chance to be the last to score in a game that looked like the team that scored last would win.  I would have hoped for a more aggressive punching of power in the last ~50 seconds, but hard to argue with the choices.

Everybody on the team needs to step up and do their job.  And on a team everyone needs to believe the others on the team will do their job.  It is how teams should function.  So with 30 seconds left, it was not a bad decision to run one play to center the ball, gain yards, and then kick a short FG.

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.

It was conservative play calling, but it did put Stanford in a position to win.  And more important, left no time for OSU to respond.  In the stands, it felt like it was all there.  It just didn't happen.

In the OT, power, power, power was clearly the way to go because the OSU D was done.  Sadly, classic Big Ten Power football is vulnerable to stalling after offensive penalties.  And that is what really hurt in the OT.

Plenty of "blame" to go around, but Stanford played a very good opponent right to end up.  Coaches often say that one play or one penalty did not decide the game, and amazingly that is how I felt after the game.  Williamson missed the chance to win.  There was a costly fumble when Stanford could have really crushed OSU's spirit.  Toilolo's false start penalty in OT killed the drive.  And the OT FG clearly had a bad snap.  And then there is the chance to "blame" Shaw for an 11-2 season.  ::) 

But in the end, tt was all good and all fun.  A win would have been better, but as Bowl game losses go this one was a lot of fun.

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Yellowlab - 01-03-2012

Agonizing ending, but a terrific game.  I was mystified by Shaw's endgame strategy.  I could understand it, if the QB was someone other than Luck, but why take the ball out of Luck's hands?  Let him try to engineer a score.  (I said this to wbbfan while it was happening.)  Settle for the field goal, if he doesn't get it done. I mean it's Andrew Luck!  The chances of a turnover were much less than the chances of a missed field goal.

Our first bowl game sure was one to remember! 

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Yellowlab - 01-03-2012

Agonizing ending, but a terrific game.  I was mystified by Shaw's endgame strategy.  I could understand it, if the QB was someone other than Luck, but why take the ball out of Luck's hands?  Let him try to engineer a score.  (I said this to wbbfan while it was happening.)  Settle for the field goal, if he doesn't get it done. I mean it's Andrew Luck!  The chances of a turnover were much less than the chances of a missed field goal.

Our first bowl game sure was one to remember! 

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Yellowlab - 01-03-2012

Agonizing ending, but a terrific game.  I was mystified by Shaw's endgame strategy.  I could understand it, if the QB was someone other than Luck, but why take the ball out of Luck's hands?  Let him try to engineer a score.  (I said this to wbbfan while it was happening.)  Settle for the field goal, if he doesn't get it done. I mean it's Andrew Luck!  The chances of a turnover were much less than the chances of a missed field goal.

Our first bowl game sure was one to remember! 

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Yellowlab - 01-03-2012

Agonizing ending, but a terrific game.  I was mystified by Shaw's endgame strategy.  I could understand it, if the QB was someone other than Luck, but why take the ball out of Luck's hands?  Let him try to engineer a score.  (I said this to wbbfan while it was happening.)  Settle for the field goal, if he doesn't get it done. I mean it's Andrew Luck!  The chances of a turnover were much less than the chances of a missed field goal.

Our first bowl game sure was one to remember! 

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - teejers1 - 01-03-2012

"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.

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - teejers1 - 01-03-2012

"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.

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - teejers1 - 01-03-2012

"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.

Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - teejers1 - 01-03-2012

"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.