[Husker] Risky Business

[Kaufsss at aol.com]

Sorry - Some spacing got messed up at the beginning of the E-mail - Darn  
AOL!!! 
 
>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.  


Just because you say it alot - doesn't make it true - I think it looks  like  
it would have gone quite a ways and momentum WAS carrying them  down the  
field.


>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.


I respectfully disagree - I think it wasn't a momentum change, but  trying  
to 
continue the momentum
 

>>.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.

Well I guess my limited  'some fans' knowledge can't grasp these tough  
concepts - but I liked  the Boise State calls, all of them - the idea is to  
throw 
under the  defense and then get the first down with the lateral/RAC.   I 
think  
both plays had merit.


>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.

I was comparing the idea of  making something happen - did he have to win  
the 
game to be #1? He was  trying to make something happen.

>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.


Again -  respectfully disagree - I think the benefit far outweighed the risk  
-  the play would have worked if not for the timing being off from I think  
the  
snap. And by the way - people were complaining about the trick  plays, when 
they  were run, how they were run... everything about  them.  Maybe not you, 
but  
some have been.  Then 'they'  complain he closed the playbook later!  

>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.

As you said -   sometimes they make a good decesion and it costs the team 
also 

 
Steve  Kauf
A Husker fan deep in South Texas
NOT THE VICTORY BUT THE  ACTION
NOT THE GOAL BUT THE GAME
IN THE DEED THE  GLORY