Had to stay away from the boreds the last couple days
We had them beat and we blew it.
A few random thoughts that have probably already been covered but there's no way I'm reading through everything I missed the past 48 hours.
1. The loss is on Pete, Completely. It's one thing to do everything you can and have to settle for a field goal. It's another thing to play for a field goal. Pete played for a field goal and that shit almost never works. It's been my biggest frustration (among many) with Pete Carroll the past few years. Anytime your game management is being compared to Pete Carroll you've done something massively wrong. Playing for a FG, with a kicker whose done nothing to chinspire confidence, is just a complete and total fail. My only hope is that Pete learns from this. We know he hates losing. Hopefully we never see that shit again.
2. I've seen a few people on Twitter mention that running one or two more plays doesn't necessarily mean you make the kick. Of course it doesn't. Which is why you don't run one or two more plays, you play to score a TD. IIRC, we had 50 seconds and two time outs when we started sitting on it. The problem is not that we didn't run it into the middle of the line one or two more times to gain three more yards. The problem is we chose to try and win it with a FG. If you run your plays and you get down to fourth down or out of time to where you have to try the FG that's a different thing. You played to win. Chintentionally putting the ball in the hands of your shit kicker is just awful.
Yes, I realize playing to score the TD means you have to risk a sack or a turnover. It means you might not get a FG attempt or a longer FG attempt. There's some risk involved. But you have to accept the risk, dial up some play calls that get the ball out quickly and safely, and try and score. Sitting on the ball is for pussies.
3. I know everybody hates Bush but I think you guys are wrong. He called a terrible game at Auburn but he's gotten significantly better. There were two or three calls Saturday that pissed me off but the overall game plan was beautiful. We only threw the ball 25 times with maybe another 4 or 5 called passes that Browning was sacked or ran on. We called 40 runs. FORTY. That's over 60% run. And they were quality, effective runs for the most part. And he did all that with Gaskin banged up all game and Ahmed banged up for a lot of it. The last drive in regulation was brilliant until Pete put the brakes on. We got the ball at our own 8 yard line, then moved the ball 70 yards with both of our top 2 RB's on the bench. It was perfectly called, including the 4th down pickup.
It wasn't a perfect game obviously. The 3rd and 2 pass on the opening drive of the 3rd was annoying and the last two calls before the field goal in OT were bad. But I've seen a bunch of people say he's worse than Babushka and I think that's insane. He's a clear upgrade, and most importantly he's getting better. The chart just needs to have a talk with him about the damn goalline fade and we'll be good.
4. Did the rule change about a chinjury in the final minutes of the half costing you a timeout? On Oregon's TD drive in the first half Sewell went down on the fourth and one, but Oregon wasn't charged a timeout. They also didn't take advantage of the injury timeout to review the spot, which was highly questionable. Since Oregon doesn't burn a TO there they have a timeout left which they use at 3rd and 7 with 21 seconds and throw the TD on the next play.
Then on UW's end of regulation drive Jordon Scott goes down with 2:15 left. I think anything outside of 2 minutes never costed a timeout anyway but I can't remember what the exact cutoff was, but regardless Scott's chinjury didn't cost them a TO either. So of course Cristoball has the extra timeout to ice Henry, Henry makes the kick but it doesn't count, and the rest is history.
I don't think the second one should have cost a TO but Sewell's absolutely should have unless the rules have completely changed. Anyone have any explanation of this?
5. Scheduling isn't the reason we lost but it clearly was a factor in the loss and damn it's frustrating. The Pac needs to get it's shit together, but we know it won't.
6. Cristoball impressed me. He might not be Taggart 2.0. He was really patient, willing to stick with the run, but mostly didn't try to force Herbert for some bullshit Heisman or All America purposes. He wanted to win and realized Herbert wasn't his best shot in this specific game. Also his willingness to repeatedly go for it on fourth down was the difference in this game. He showed balls. I still don't think he's likely a great coach but he's probably a good one, and with the talent he's bringing in he'll be an issue. That said I imagine this was the best game he called and the best his team will play all year.
7. Targeting is such an awful rule. Both targeting calls were correct by the book but it's just not fair to kick a kid out of a game when the QB turns into him and he has basically no choice but to hit him that way. There has to be an in between level where it's still a flag but you're not removing someone from the game. Such a shit rule.
8. Win the North. Win the Pac. That's always the first goal. Assuming we don't have a letdown against @RuffaloSoldier we should be able to win out. But damn we should have won this game, and if we had we'd be in prime playoff position. This one's going to sting awhile. Maybe forever.
Comments
-
-
Nobody is blaming Pete if there was a turnover.
-
Disagree on that, there's definitely some here who would be screaming "how do you throw the ball in that situation". Passion would be unglued. But overall most of the blame would be on Browning.HHBruh said:Nobody is blaming Pete if there was a turnover.
But that's all inconsequential. You don't coach based on what people are going to say about it afterwards. You coach to win the damn game. Playing for a FG did not give us the best chance of that. -
#MeToo
-
*its
-
Fuck the playoffs. This team can't win a playoff game. Win a NY6.
-
missed you this weekend
Good write-up. We? were lucky to get the win. That being said, good teams make their own luck, and I think that Cristoballs is making some good luck happen.
Also, it has been alleged that Browning checked into the 3d and goal out. In case you didn't hate him enough. -
If that's true holy shit.AZDuck said:missed you this weekend
Good write-up. We? were lucky to get the win. That being said, good teams make their own luck, and I think that Cristoballs is making some good luck happen.
Also, it has been alleged that Browning checked into the 3d and goal out. In case you didn't hate him enough. -
Why is that a Browning fukup? That's what he is coached to do. If you don't want him doing it take it out of the playbook or install a better audible which is an in route. Much easier throw for a weak armed QB.AZDuck said:missed you this weekend
Good write-up. We? were lucky to get the win. That being said, good teams make their own luck, and I think that Cristoballs is making some good luck happen.
Also, it has been alleged that Browning checked into the 3d and goal out. In case you didn't hate him enough. -
Caple said it on an Athletic article.HillsboroDuck said:
If that's true holy shit.AZDuck said:missed you this weekend
Good write-up. We? were lucky to get the win. That being said, good teams make their own luck, and I think that Cristoballs is making some good luck happen.
Also, it has been alleged that Browning checked into the 3d and goal out. In case you didn't hate him enough.But the Huskies stalled, and Browning’s final throw of the game — a fade to receiver Ty Jones, which Browning said was a check from a called running play because he saw one-on-one coverage — fell incomplete, so they settled for Henry’s chip shot. -
Yikes
-
1-2) I agree that Pete should have been more aggressive. But I have a counter. We all know Jake has a habit of making terrible decisions. Imagine Jake doesn't even throw a pick, but takes sack. A sack in that situation would have seriously hurt. I think they could have ran a couple more times up the gut and had a kick under 30 yards. Looking back, if the ball was up another 8-10 yards it might have gone through. He didn't miss by much.
4) Was Sewell hurt on a dead ball or a running clock? I'll have to look back. But if it was supposed to be a running clock, then yes, a timeout should have been enforced. But, you can't really expect the refs to catch that considering they almost botched a simple fumble by Brooks-James on the kickoff return. PAC 12 refs are awful, same as always.
6) The OT td run was a brilliant play design. He was actually going to throw it, but when UW showed they were dropping 8 back in coverage, our OC told Cristobal to call timeout. The fact that our HC gives other coaches that kind of authority is a good sign. I like a boss that trusts his staff. Arroyo then realizing that Mitchell might get doubled, lined him in the slot and sent him in motion drawing two defenders out of the play. Oregon then ran it right behind the motioned defenders. Schematically, it was a perfect call. I also really like the physicality Oregon has. Compare how Oregon's OL and DL played 2 years ago to today. This team can stand toe to toe with anybody from a physicality aspect. Cristobal still needs more weapons on the outside, which looks like he's doing. You are right, bringing in top 5 talent as a good coach is good enough to be every year contenders.
7) Totally agree. They need to find a way to call this like the NBA calls flagrant fouls. Helmet to helmet contact like that should be penalized 15 yards, but ejection from a game should be for more malice hits to the head. I think there really needs to some sort of intent or recklessness. I don't think either player "launched" themselves at the quarterback. They lowered their head sure, but I think you could add a more severe category to warrant ejections. For instances where players "launch" their bodies while exposing the crown of their helmet.
8) I agree. I don't think Oregon beats both WSU and Utah. The Ducks will drop one I think. As long as UW doesn't wet the bed, they are still in good shape. -
I thought of Michigan 2002 immediately after this game as well.
-
I think 4-5 yards closer and that kick goes ingreenblood said:1-2) I agree that Pete should have been more aggressive. But I have a counter. We all know Jake has a habit of making terrible decisions. Imagine Jake doesn't even throw a pick, but takes sack. A sack in that situation would have seriously hurt. I think they could have ran a couple more times up the gut and had a kick under 30 yards. Looking back, if the ball was up another 8-10 yards it might have gone through. He didn't miss by much.
-
Yes. 6 to 10 feet probably squeaks in.BeerThirty said:
I think 4-5 yards closer and that kick goes ingreenblood said:1-2) I agree that Pete should have been more aggressive. But I have a counter. We all know Jake has a habit of making terrible decisions. Imagine Jake doesn't even throw a pick, but takes sack. A sack in that situation would have seriously hurt. I think they could have ran a couple more times up the gut and had a kick under 30 yards. Looking back, if the ball was up another 8-10 yards it might have gone through. He didn't miss by much.
-
If that was our best it's not enough to run the rest of the table. I think our best football so far was played during the first 3 quarters against Stanford, before the fluke stuff sent UO going in the wrong direction. Herbert had a subpar game, UW's elite defense had a big role to play in that, as for the rest I don't know, he was just clearly off his game. It didn't help that linemen kept getting injured. It's a good sign though that we can pull off a win against a team ranked in the top 10 without our QB playing well. Our best football is still ahead of us this year imo. Still waiting for that complete game where Herbert is playing Heisman level ball and the rest of the team follows suit with low penalties and no costly mistakes.HillsboroDuck said:
6. Cristoball impressed me. He might not be Taggart 2.0. He was really patient, willing to stick with the run, but mostly didn't try to force Herbert for some bullshit Heisman or All America purposes. He wanted to win and realized Herbert wasn't his best shot in this specific game. Also his willingness to repeatedly go for it on fourth down was the difference in this game. He showed balls. I still don't think he's likely a great coach but he's probably a good one, and with the talent he's bringing in he'll be an issue. That said I imagine this was the best game he called and the best his team will play all year. -
The Buffs are winning tomoorrow.HillsboroDuck said:That loss hurt. Like Michigan 2002 hurt. Like damn near SB 49 hurt.
We had them beat and we blew it.
A few random thoughts that have probably already been covered but there's no way I'm reading through everything I missed the past 48 hours.
1. The loss is on Pete, Completely. It's one thing to do everything you can and have to settle for a field goal. It's another thing to play for a field goal. Pete played for a field goal and that shit almost never works. It's been my biggest frustration (among many) with Pete Carroll the past few years. Anytime your game management is being compared to Pete Carroll you've done something massively wrong. Playing for a FG, with a kicker whose done nothing to chinspire confidence, is just a complete and total fail. My only hope is that Pete learns from this. We know he hates losing. Hopefully we never see that shit again.
2. I've seen a few people on Twitter mention that running one or two more plays doesn't necessarily mean you make the kick. Of course it doesn't. Which is why you don't run one or two more plays, you play to score a TD. IIRC, we had 50 seconds and two time outs when we started sitting on it. The problem is not that we didn't run it into the middle of the line one or two more times to gain three more yards. The problem is we chose to try and win it with a FG. If you run your plays and you get down to fourth down or out of time to where you have to try the FG that's a different thing. You played to win. Chintentionally putting the ball in the hands of your shit kicker is just awful.
Yes, I realize playing to score the TD means you have to risk a sack or a turnover. It means you might not get a FG attempt or a longer FG attempt. There's some risk involved. But you have to accept the risk, dial up some play calls that get the ball out quickly and safely, and try and score. Sitting on the ball is for pussies.
3. I know everybody hates Bush but I think you guys are wrong. He called a terrible game at Auburn but he's gotten significantly better. There were two or three calls Saturday that pissed me off but the overall game plan was beautiful. We only threw the ball 25 times with maybe another 4 or 5 called passes that Browning was sacked or ran on. We called 40 runs. FORTY. That's over 60% run. And they were quality, effective runs for the most part. And he did all that with Gaskin banged up all game and Ahmed banged up for a lot of it. The last drive in regulation was brilliant until Pete put the brakes on. We got the ball at our own 8 yard line, then moved the ball 70 yards with both of our top 2 RB's on the bench. It was perfectly called, including the 4th down pickup.
It wasn't a perfect game obviously. The 3rd and 2 pass on the opening drive of the 3rd was annoying and the last two calls before the field goal in OT were bad. But I've seen a bunch of people say he's worse than Babushka and I think that's insane. He's a clear upgrade, and most importantly he's getting better. The chart just needs to have a talk with him about the damn goalline fade and we'll be good.
4. Did the rule change about a chinjury in the final minutes of the half costing you a timeout? On Oregon's TD drive in the first half Sewell went down on the fourth and one, but Oregon wasn't charged a timeout. They also didn't take advantage of the injury timeout to review the spot, which was highly questionable. Since Oregon doesn't burn a TO there they have a timeout left which they use at 3rd and 7 with 21 seconds and throw the TD on the next play.
Then on UW's end of regulation drive Jordon Scott goes down with 2:15 left. I think anything outside of 2 minutes never costed a timeout anyway but I can't remember what the exact cutoff was, but regardless Scott's chinjury didn't cost them a TO either. So of course Cristoball has the extra timeout to ice Henry, Henry makes the kick but it doesn't count, and the rest is history.
I don't think the second one should have cost a TO but Sewell's absolutely should have unless the rules have completely changed. Anyone have any explanation of this?
5. Scheduling isn't the reason we lost but it clearly was a factor in the loss and damn it's frustrating. The Pac needs to get it's shit together, but we know it won't.
6. Cristoball impressed me. He might not be Taggart 2.0. He was really patient, willing to stick with the run, but mostly didn't try to force Herbert for some bullshit Heisman or All America purposes. He wanted to win and realized Herbert wasn't his best shot in this specific game. Also his willingness to repeatedly go for it on fourth down was the difference in this game. He showed balls. I still don't think he's likely a great coach but he's probably a good one, and with the talent he's bringing in he'll be an issue. That said I imagine this was the best game he called and the best his team will play all year.
7. Targeting is such an awful rule. Both targeting calls were correct by the book but it's just not fair to kick a kid out of a game when the QB turns into him and he has basically no choice but to hit him that way. There has to be an in between level where it's still a flag but you're not removing someone from the game. Such a shit rule.
8. Win the North. Win the Pac. That's always the first goal. Assuming we don't have a letdown against @RuffaloSoldier we should be able to win out. But damn we should have won this game, and if we had we'd be in prime playoff position. This one's going to sting awhile. Maybe forever. -
Pat pat little buddyRuffaloSoldier said:
The Buffs are winning tomoorrow.HillsboroDuck said:That loss hurt. Like Michigan 2002 hurt. Like damn near SB 49 hurt.
We had them beat and we blew it.
A few random thoughts that have probably already been covered but there's no way I'm reading through everything I missed the past 48 hours.
1. The loss is on Pete, Completely. It's one thing to do everything you can and have to settle for a field goal. It's another thing to play for a field goal. Pete played for a field goal and that shit almost never works. It's been my biggest frustration (among many) with Pete Carroll the past few years. Anytime your game management is being compared to Pete Carroll you've done something massively wrong. Playing for a FG, with a kicker whose done nothing to chinspire confidence, is just a complete and total fail. My only hope is that Pete learns from this. We know he hates losing. Hopefully we never see that shit again.
2. I've seen a few people on Twitter mention that running one or two more plays doesn't necessarily mean you make the kick. Of course it doesn't. Which is why you don't run one or two more plays, you play to score a TD. IIRC, we had 50 seconds and two time outs when we started sitting on it. The problem is not that we didn't run it into the middle of the line one or two more times to gain three more yards. The problem is we chose to try and win it with a FG. If you run your plays and you get down to fourth down or out of time to where you have to try the FG that's a different thing. You played to win. Chintentionally putting the ball in the hands of your shit kicker is just awful.
Yes, I realize playing to score the TD means you have to risk a sack or a turnover. It means you might not get a FG attempt or a longer FG attempt. There's some risk involved. But you have to accept the risk, dial up some play calls that get the ball out quickly and safely, and try and score. Sitting on the ball is for pussies.
3. I know everybody hates Bush but I think you guys are wrong. He called a terrible game at Auburn but he's gotten significantly better. There were two or three calls Saturday that pissed me off but the overall game plan was beautiful. We only threw the ball 25 times with maybe another 4 or 5 called passes that Browning was sacked or ran on. We called 40 runs. FORTY. That's over 60% run. And they were quality, effective runs for the most part. And he did all that with Gaskin banged up all game and Ahmed banged up for a lot of it. The last drive in regulation was brilliant until Pete put the brakes on. We got the ball at our own 8 yard line, then moved the ball 70 yards with both of our top 2 RB's on the bench. It was perfectly called, including the 4th down pickup.
It wasn't a perfect game obviously. The 3rd and 2 pass on the opening drive of the 3rd was annoying and the last two calls before the field goal in OT were bad. But I've seen a bunch of people say he's worse than Babushka and I think that's insane. He's a clear upgrade, and most importantly he's getting better. The chart just needs to have a talk with him about the damn goalline fade and we'll be good.
4. Did the rule change about a chinjury in the final minutes of the half costing you a timeout? On Oregon's TD drive in the first half Sewell went down on the fourth and one, but Oregon wasn't charged a timeout. They also didn't take advantage of the injury timeout to review the spot, which was highly questionable. Since Oregon doesn't burn a TO there they have a timeout left which they use at 3rd and 7 with 21 seconds and throw the TD on the next play.
Then on UW's end of regulation drive Jordon Scott goes down with 2:15 left. I think anything outside of 2 minutes never costed a timeout anyway but I can't remember what the exact cutoff was, but regardless Scott's chinjury didn't cost them a TO either. So of course Cristoball has the extra timeout to ice Henry, Henry makes the kick but it doesn't count, and the rest is history.
I don't think the second one should have cost a TO but Sewell's absolutely should have unless the rules have completely changed. Anyone have any explanation of this?
5. Scheduling isn't the reason we lost but it clearly was a factor in the loss and damn it's frustrating. The Pac needs to get it's shit together, but we know it won't.
6. Cristoball impressed me. He might not be Taggart 2.0. He was really patient, willing to stick with the run, but mostly didn't try to force Herbert for some bullshit Heisman or All America purposes. He wanted to win and realized Herbert wasn't his best shot in this specific game. Also his willingness to repeatedly go for it on fourth down was the difference in this game. He showed balls. I still don't think he's likely a great coach but he's probably a good one, and with the talent he's bringing in he'll be an issue. That said I imagine this was the best game he called and the best his team will play all year.
7. Targeting is such an awful rule. Both targeting calls were correct by the book but it's just not fair to kick a kid out of a game when the QB turns into him and he has basically no choice but to hit him that way. There has to be an in between level where it's still a flag but you're not removing someone from the game. Such a shit rule.
8. Win the North. Win the Pac. That's always the first goal. Assuming we don't have a letdown against @RuffaloSoldier we should be able to win out. But damn we should have won this game, and if we had we'd be in prime playoff position. This one's going to sting awhile. Maybe forever. -
Im just hoping for a clean game with no injuries. Good luck the rest of the way!RuffaloSoldier said:
The Buffs are winning tomoorrow.HillsboroDuck said:That loss hurt. Like Michigan 2002 hurt. Like damn near SB 49 hurt.
We had them beat and we blew it.
A few random thoughts that have probably already been covered but there's no way I'm reading through everything I missed the past 48 hours.
1. The loss is on Pete, Completely. It's one thing to do everything you can and have to settle for a field goal. It's another thing to play for a field goal. Pete played for a field goal and that shit almost never works. It's been my biggest frustration (among many) with Pete Carroll the past few years. Anytime your game management is being compared to Pete Carroll you've done something massively wrong. Playing for a FG, with a kicker whose done nothing to chinspire confidence, is just a complete and total fail. My only hope is that Pete learns from this. We know he hates losing. Hopefully we never see that shit again.
2. I've seen a few people on Twitter mention that running one or two more plays doesn't necessarily mean you make the kick. Of course it doesn't. Which is why you don't run one or two more plays, you play to score a TD. IIRC, we had 50 seconds and two time outs when we started sitting on it. The problem is not that we didn't run it into the middle of the line one or two more times to gain three more yards. The problem is we chose to try and win it with a FG. If you run your plays and you get down to fourth down or out of time to where you have to try the FG that's a different thing. You played to win. Chintentionally putting the ball in the hands of your shit kicker is just awful.
Yes, I realize playing to score the TD means you have to risk a sack or a turnover. It means you might not get a FG attempt or a longer FG attempt. There's some risk involved. But you have to accept the risk, dial up some play calls that get the ball out quickly and safely, and try and score. Sitting on the ball is for pussies.
3. I know everybody hates Bush but I think you guys are wrong. He called a terrible game at Auburn but he's gotten significantly better. There were two or three calls Saturday that pissed me off but the overall game plan was beautiful. We only threw the ball 25 times with maybe another 4 or 5 called passes that Browning was sacked or ran on. We called 40 runs. FORTY. That's over 60% run. And they were quality, effective runs for the most part. And he did all that with Gaskin banged up all game and Ahmed banged up for a lot of it. The last drive in regulation was brilliant until Pete put the brakes on. We got the ball at our own 8 yard line, then moved the ball 70 yards with both of our top 2 RB's on the bench. It was perfectly called, including the 4th down pickup.
It wasn't a perfect game obviously. The 3rd and 2 pass on the opening drive of the 3rd was annoying and the last two calls before the field goal in OT were bad. But I've seen a bunch of people say he's worse than Babushka and I think that's insane. He's a clear upgrade, and most importantly he's getting better. The chart just needs to have a talk with him about the damn goalline fade and we'll be good.
4. Did the rule change about a chinjury in the final minutes of the half costing you a timeout? On Oregon's TD drive in the first half Sewell went down on the fourth and one, but Oregon wasn't charged a timeout. They also didn't take advantage of the injury timeout to review the spot, which was highly questionable. Since Oregon doesn't burn a TO there they have a timeout left which they use at 3rd and 7 with 21 seconds and throw the TD on the next play.
Then on UW's end of regulation drive Jordon Scott goes down with 2:15 left. I think anything outside of 2 minutes never costed a timeout anyway but I can't remember what the exact cutoff was, but regardless Scott's chinjury didn't cost them a TO either. So of course Cristoball has the extra timeout to ice Henry, Henry makes the kick but it doesn't count, and the rest is history.
I don't think the second one should have cost a TO but Sewell's absolutely should have unless the rules have completely changed. Anyone have any explanation of this?
5. Scheduling isn't the reason we lost but it clearly was a factor in the loss and damn it's frustrating. The Pac needs to get it's shit together, but we know it won't.
6. Cristoball impressed me. He might not be Taggart 2.0. He was really patient, willing to stick with the run, but mostly didn't try to force Herbert for some bullshit Heisman or All America purposes. He wanted to win and realized Herbert wasn't his best shot in this specific game. Also his willingness to repeatedly go for it on fourth down was the difference in this game. He showed balls. I still don't think he's likely a great coach but he's probably a good one, and with the talent he's bringing in he'll be an issue. That said I imagine this was the best game he called and the best his team will play all year.
7. Targeting is such an awful rule. Both targeting calls were correct by the book but it's just not fair to kick a kid out of a game when the QB turns into him and he has basically no choice but to hit him that way. There has to be an in between level where it's still a flag but you're not removing someone from the game. Such a shit rule.
8. Win the North. Win the Pac. That's always the first goal. Assuming we don't have a letdown against @RuffaloSoldier we should be able to win out. But damn we should have won this game, and if we had we'd be in prime playoff position. This one's going to sting awhile. Maybe forever. -
@RuffaloSoldier , bitchmade by NebraskaRuffaloSoldier said:
The Buffs are winning tomoorrow.HillsboroDuck said:That loss hurt. Like Michigan 2002 hurt. Like damn near SB 49 hurt.
We had them beat and we blew it.
A few random thoughts that have probably already been covered but there's no way I'm reading through everything I missed the past 48 hours.
1. The loss is on Pete, Completely. It's one thing to do everything you can and have to settle for a field goal. It's another thing to play for a field goal. Pete played for a field goal and that shit almost never works. It's been my biggest frustration (among many) with Pete Carroll the past few years. Anytime your game management is being compared to Pete Carroll you've done something massively wrong. Playing for a FG, with a kicker whose done nothing to chinspire confidence, is just a complete and total fail. My only hope is that Pete learns from this. We know he hates losing. Hopefully we never see that shit again.
2. I've seen a few people on Twitter mention that running one or two more plays doesn't necessarily mean you make the kick. Of course it doesn't. Which is why you don't run one or two more plays, you play to score a TD. IIRC, we had 50 seconds and two time outs when we started sitting on it. The problem is not that we didn't run it into the middle of the line one or two more times to gain three more yards. The problem is we chose to try and win it with a FG. If you run your plays and you get down to fourth down or out of time to where you have to try the FG that's a different thing. You played to win. Chintentionally putting the ball in the hands of your shit kicker is just awful.
Yes, I realize playing to score the TD means you have to risk a sack or a turnover. It means you might not get a FG attempt or a longer FG attempt. There's some risk involved. But you have to accept the risk, dial up some play calls that get the ball out quickly and safely, and try and score. Sitting on the ball is for pussies.
3. I know everybody hates Bush but I think you guys are wrong. He called a terrible game at Auburn but he's gotten significantly better. There were two or three calls Saturday that pissed me off but the overall game plan was beautiful. We only threw the ball 25 times with maybe another 4 or 5 called passes that Browning was sacked or ran on. We called 40 runs. FORTY. That's over 60% run. And they were quality, effective runs for the most part. And he did all that with Gaskin banged up all game and Ahmed banged up for a lot of it. The last drive in regulation was brilliant until Pete put the brakes on. We got the ball at our own 8 yard line, then moved the ball 70 yards with both of our top 2 RB's on the bench. It was perfectly called, including the 4th down pickup.
It wasn't a perfect game obviously. The 3rd and 2 pass on the opening drive of the 3rd was annoying and the last two calls before the field goal in OT were bad. But I've seen a bunch of people say he's worse than Babushka and I think that's insane. He's a clear upgrade, and most importantly he's getting better. The chart just needs to have a talk with him about the damn goalline fade and we'll be good.
4. Did the rule change about a chinjury in the final minutes of the half costing you a timeout? On Oregon's TD drive in the first half Sewell went down on the fourth and one, but Oregon wasn't charged a timeout. They also didn't take advantage of the injury timeout to review the spot, which was highly questionable. Since Oregon doesn't burn a TO there they have a timeout left which they use at 3rd and 7 with 21 seconds and throw the TD on the next play.
Then on UW's end of regulation drive Jordon Scott goes down with 2:15 left. I think anything outside of 2 minutes never costed a timeout anyway but I can't remember what the exact cutoff was, but regardless Scott's chinjury didn't cost them a TO either. So of course Cristoball has the extra timeout to ice Henry, Henry makes the kick but it doesn't count, and the rest is history.
I don't think the second one should have cost a TO but Sewell's absolutely should have unless the rules have completely changed. Anyone have any explanation of this?
5. Scheduling isn't the reason we lost but it clearly was a factor in the loss and damn it's frustrating. The Pac needs to get it's shit together, but we know it won't.
6. Cristoball impressed me. He might not be Taggart 2.0. He was really patient, willing to stick with the run, but mostly didn't try to force Herbert for some bullshit Heisman or All America purposes. He wanted to win and realized Herbert wasn't his best shot in this specific game. Also his willingness to repeatedly go for it on fourth down was the difference in this game. He showed balls. I still don't think he's likely a great coach but he's probably a good one, and with the talent he's bringing in he'll be an issue. That said I imagine this was the best game he called and the best his team will play all year.
7. Targeting is such an awful rule. Both targeting calls were correct by the book but it's just not fair to kick a kid out of a game when the QB turns into him and he has basically no choice but to hit him that way. There has to be an in between level where it's still a flag but you're not removing someone from the game. Such a shit rule.
8. Win the North. Win the Pac. That's always the first goal. Assuming we don't have a letdown against @RuffaloSoldier we should be able to win out. But damn we should have won this game, and if we had we'd be in prime playoff position. This one's going to sting awhile. Maybe forever.
There was a @RuffaloSoldier
In the heart of Amerika
Stolen from big twoolve, brought to the west coast
Fighting on arrival, fighting for survival
I mean it, when I analyze these tings
To me, it makes a lot of sense
How the wannabe Bruce Bannah was the @RuffaloSoldier
And he was taken from Kenosha, brought to Bouldah
Fighting on arrival, fighting for survival
Said he was a Hulksta, got bitchmade by Nebraska
@RuffaloSoldier, in the heart of Amerika
If you know your history
Then you would know that you always sucked
And Sal's kids wouldn't have to ask me
Where the hell they daddy is
I'm just a @RuffaloSoldier
In the heart of Amerika
Stolen from big twoolve, brought to the west coast
Said he was fighting on arrival
Fighting for survival
Said he was a @RuffaloSoldier
Win the war for da Packtwoolve
Said he was a, woe yoy yoy, woe woe yoy yoy
Woe yoy yoy yo, yo yo woy yo, woe yoy yoy
Woe yoe yoe, woe woe yoe yoe
Woe yoe yoe yo, yo yo woe yo woe yo yoe
@RuffaloSoldier, troddin' through the land woo ooh
Said he wanna ran, then you wanna brand
Troddin' through the land, yea, yea
Said he was a @RuffaloSoldier
Win the war for da Packtwoolve
Buffalo Soldier, bitchmade by Nebraska
Fighting on arrival, fighting for survival
Driven from the heartland
To primetime on Chinese TV
Singing, woe yoy yoy, woe woe yoy yoy
Woe yoy yoy yo, yo yo woy yo woy yo yoy
Woy yoy yoy, woy woy yoy yoy
Woy yoy yoy yo, yo yo woe yo woe yo yoy
Troddin' through San Fran
In the arms of Larry Scott
Troddin' through da Pack South, just a @RuffaloSoldier
Fighting on arrival, fighting for survival
Buffalo Soldier, bitchmade by Nebraska
Woe yoe yoe, woe woe yoe yoe
Woe yoe yeo yo, yo yo woe yo woe yo yoe -
Maybe deep down Pete doesn't trust Brownshorts anymore than the rest of us.HillsboroDuck said:
Disagree on that, there's definitely some here who would be screaming "how do you throw the ball in that situation". Passion would be unglued. But overall most of the blame would be on Browning.HHBruh said:Nobody is blaming Pete if there was a turnover.
But that's all inconsequential. You don't coach based on what people are going to say about it afterwards. You coach to win the damn game. Playing for a FG did not give us the best chance of that.
