[Husker] Risky Business

[Pat Gaule]

Kaufsss at aol.com wrote:

> 
> 
>Well, buy me a ticket and send me to Vegas - I'll put a $1000 on red till  it 
>loses - I just love the action!!!!  I agree with the end of Skylar's  post. 
>And - I don't think the call was as horrible as this board has been  talking 
>about.  If the play would have worked, the momentum would have been  
>overwhelmingly in NE favor. 
>

As I have mentioned about 3 previous times, if the play had worked, NU 
still would have 40-50 yards out of scoring range. I am not convinced 
that momentum would be enough to carry the team down the field.  In the 
Nebraska/Kansas State game, Ron Prince ran a fake punt on a 4th and 5 
from his own 12 yard line.  That was a *horrible* call, but it got 
K-state the first down.  Nonetheless, their drive stalled immediately 
thereafter. At best, it gained them a slight advantage in field 
position. Similarly, NU ran a fake punt against USC early in the game 
and the drive stalled immediately thereafter.  To take such a big risk 
for a possible "momentum change" is simply a horrible decision.

> It was a play, just like any play, that has  possible 
>implications.  
>

In this situation, the "possible implications" were titled way too much 
toward risk without very much benefit.


>Everyone is calling Peterson a genius, but if the  ball got dropped 
>in the statue of liberty play or the ladder didn't hook- what  would people be 
>saying?  
>
People need to watch the replay of that play and realize that BSU likely 
wouldn't have converted the first down if not for the lateral.  Whether 
or not it worked, I would have been applauding the call.  I know this is 
hard for some fans to grasp, but there are some of us that judge the 
quality of a play call on more merits than whether it worked.

>The Huskers were trying to make  things happen- just like 
>Osborne did going for 2 against Miami.  
>

 From the standpoint of winning that game, it was the only decision 
Osborne could have made.  I don't think you can even try to compare that 
to a fake punt on 4th down in the 1st half, deep in our own territory.

>As I said  when people were 
>complaining about the previous trick plays - this shows a great  deal of confidence in 
>his players and the abilities - not the opposite.   
>

I don't think anyone is complaining about "trick plays."  I think people 
are complaining about when they are run.  When Callahan runs trick plays 
where the penalty for error is not a complete disaster (i.e. NU has a 
comfortable lead, good field position, first down, 4th down and just 
outside of Congdon's range, etc.), then the results have been 
overwhelmingly positive.  The problem people have is when they are run 
in a high risk situation, where the benefit is minimal and the penalty 
is huge.

>The players like them - 
>look at the kids from Boise State.  I do not  believe (as some have said) that 
>even if it worked, they would be  complaining.  It is all risk and reward- 
>hopefully next year the ball  always bounces the right way!!
> 
> 
>  
>
The decision to run a certain play should never be entirely reliant on 
"the ball bouncing the right way."  There should be a specific reason 
why a play is called, and the implications of succes or failure always 
need to be taken into consideration before all else.  The ball is 
*never* going to "always bounce the right way."

Furthermore, I never said I would complain about the call if it had 
worked, but I would not hesitate to call it a "needless gamble."  As 
I've said many times before, a play call is not necessarily bad if it 
fails, and a play call is not necessarily good even if it succeeds.  
Sometimes, a team gets lucky after making a poor decision.  Other times, 
a team will fail despite flawless execution and a perfectly designed 
play.  Sometimes, coaches make a bad decision and it costs the team.  
That's what happened to Callahan on Monday.