Running a trick play in the 4th instead of playing power ball

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Go back even more. The 2 point call was incorrect as if you kick it, you go up 20 and the only thing that beats you is 3 td's. Chico doesn't get in and SC in theory can tie it with 2 td's plus the 2 point conversions and a FG. Both highly unlikely but still.

Then go for the pooch kick right after (yes it almost worked) where if you don't, they get the ball on the 35. Hell if your afraid Horn can't kick it out of end zone, which he struggled with yesterday kick it out of bounds.

Both plays are fs as you give SC chance to break momentum we had going. Risk simply not worth the reward.

The play at the 50 with 10 minutes left up two scores is so incorrect based on the game situation it's comical except it's not. Simply Take three knees and punt, SC is going to have 8 minutes left to score 2 td's and have to go minimum 80 yards to do it. They way Whitford and Kyle Gordon were going it's probably 90.

If you somehow can get one first down, there's 6 minutes left. Two and it's over.

Sadly, between Pete's game clock issues and these bizzarro/cutesy play calls that started year 1 game 4 versus Stanford at home (anyone remember the 4th 19 fake punt to Shaq where Stanford is yelling fake fake fake) I am to the point of just building them into the outcome of close games and expect them from us.
We often bring up the fact that UW can alpha dog the shit out of WSU but shrivel up against equal or better teams. This is yet another example. In the 2018 AC, UW took possession with 8+ minutes in the game and ran out the clock. Very similar situation yesterday and Pete & Hamdan think they need to be cute with the play calling instead of just running out the clock. If you want to "be aggressive", go play action to Hunter or Otton and then run out the clock.

Exactly. to me trick plays are NOT "aggressive" plays, they are high-risk finesse plays with potentially high-reward on the back end and are best used to shock a team early, after sudden change, or for when you are overmatched. I don't think any of the above applied at all in the situation yesterday. It wasn't aggressive as much as it was risky, and why be risky in that situation? We had our chance to pound mighty SC and instead we puss out, run a ding-dong, tossing the ball around like a faggy pack of frat boys.

1to392831weretaken

I don't know, maybe you guys are right, but at the heart of it, I think Petersen is just trying to make things fun for the players. He's said as much a few years back. The players like the trick plays, so he obliges when he feels he has a safe lead. For all we know it was a reward play, worked on all week: "Get up by two touchdowns, and I'll let you run this."

It's all speculation, but football is supposed to be fun. When those plays work, the fans love it, the players love it, it saps the other team's will.

All that being said, it was fucking stupid and should never be done again.

dnc

More disturbing was Hamdumb’s response on the post game show. He acted like it was a fantastic call and the Huskies will always “remain aggressive”
This. It's one thing to call some dumbshit play in the heat of the moment. It's more concerning to still think said dumbshit play was good after you fumblefucked it away and an hour later when rational football thought should have had time to process how fucking stupid it was.

Hamdan is a dumbshit. Results are in.

I'm 90% with you on this.

The other possibility here is that this was Pete's idea/play/call and Bush isn't going to throw his boss under the boss, nor is he going to criticize his boss publicly.

I'm not sure which scenario is worse.

Either way it was a bad call made worse by the corner blitz SC brought. But even without that blitz I don't think Hunter B is the guy I want handling a pitch.

Was Fuller supposed to throw to Ahmed on the wheel had he actually received the pitch?