[Husker] Risky Business

[Pat Gaule]

Kaufsss at aol.com wrote:

> 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.


With all due respect, I can't agree.  It's debatable whether the play 
would have  resulted in a first down, let alone "quite a ways" down the 
field.  It's not as if Nebraska had their fastest athlete carrying the 
ball on the play, either.

>
>
> >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

Unfortunately, it did change momentum, but to Auburn.  Nebraska never 
really seemed the same after that play, despite tying the game on a 
later drive.

>  
>
> >>.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.

I really can't see where the disagreement is, because you basically 
affirmed what I said: BSU likely would not have gotten the first down if 
not for the lateral.  They probably would have been 2-3 yards short.  I 
do not think BSU would have had success throwing downfield on 4th and 18 
against a talented Sooner defense.  Im my opinion, their chances were 
greatly increased by running the hook and ladder play.  While it's a 
trick play, it's not one that develops early (i.e. a halfback option 
pass or a throwback reverse to the quarterback), so it sets the defense 
up perfectly.  The little juke inward that the receiver did before 
lateraling the ball was a thing of beauty.

>
> >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.

Osborne's goal was to win that game *and* the title, not to just win the 
title.  At best, Callahan's goal was to get a first down that kept an 
early (and long) drive, alive.  I understand the idea of "making 
something happen", but there are situations that are better suited for 
it than others.

>
> 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! 

If you honestly believe that the "benefit far outweighed the risk" in 
the case of the fake punt, then I don't know what I can say to change 
your mind.  I don't think Callahan would even try to defend that 
position, at least not after the game.  And I apologize if I sound 
rough, but I think that was clearly a case of risk outweighing the 
potential benefit.  If you poll the majority of unbiased fans who are 
not connected to Nebraska, I don't think they would agree that the 
potential benefits outweighed the risk.  More importantly, I doubt that 
most coaches would have committed to such a call.

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

I agree, and I would never rag on a coach for something I agreed with at 
the time.  I remember after the 2002 Texas game, I was initially upset 
with Solich's decision to throw into the endzone instead of immediately 
kicking the game-tying field goal.  Of course, this resulted in an 
interception and a loss for NU.  I soon reminded myself that only 
minutes earlier, I was screaming at the team to go for the win.  I never 
complained about that call after that.