I ❤️ Bobbyball!!!

[AZGrizFan]

So you're blaming the drops for Bobby going conservative?

No. Where’d you get that?
Your flipping the “switch” theory doesn’t hold water as BH mentioned the issue at halftime. The plan was already in place. The increasing drops sealed it.
The new rules make Bobbyball 1.0 different than 2.0.
Drops are now more important than ever.

I misread your post, sorry. But saying the "increasing drops sealed it" does imply that he moved to a run run run mentality partially because of the drops.

Oh I understand that was Bobby's plan. It's ALWAYS Bobby's plan. It's how you take a beautiful performance where you're running them out of the building utilizing their own game strategy against them and end up "winning ugly" or "not aesthetically pleasing". :lol: :lol:

 

[garizzalies]

You mean the ugly girl? That would never happen. My love is undying. Do I need to put more hearts in the title?

The saying refers to staying true to what got you to where you were. Rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Look it up.

 

[garizzalies]

No. Where’d you get that?
Your flipping the “switch” theory doesn’t hold water as BH mentioned the issue at halftime. The plan was already in place. The increasing drops sealed it.
The new rules make Bobbyball 1.0 different than 2.0.
Drops are now more important than ever.

I misread your post, sorry. But saying the "increasing drops sealed it" does imply that he moved to a run run run mentality partially because of the drops.

Oh I understand that was Bobby's plan. It's ALWAYS Bobby's plan. It's how you take a beautiful performance where you're running them out of the building utilizing their own game strategy against them and end up "winning ugly" or "not aesthetically pleasing". :lol: :lol:

Do the math. You’re great at math. Now measure the risk. You’re probably the best on the board at that. What does the book say? = Run the fucking ball/clock.
The way they lose that game is by panicking and abandoning the plan.
You’re coming around. Earlier you argued nothing indicated unsustainablity and in the same breath said the team looked “exhausted”.

 

[bgbigdog]

I misread your post, sorry. But saying the "increasing drops sealed it" does imply that he moved to a run run run mentality partially because of the drops.

Oh I understand that was Bobby's plan. It's ALWAYS Bobby's plan. It's how you take a beautiful performance where you're running them out of the building utilizing their own game strategy against them and end up "winning ugly" or "not aesthetically pleasing". :lol: :lol:

Do the math. You’re great at math. Now measure the risk. You’re probably the best on the board at that. What does the book say? = Run the fudge ball/clock.
The way they lose that game is by panicking and abandoning the plan.
You’re coming around. Earlier you argued nothing indicated unsustainablity and in the same breath said the team looked “exhausted”.

The plan you're referring to only works when you're running the dammed ball behind lines that can impose their will. I know of two right now. Neither one of them plays in Missoula. The plan was to score more points than Idaho, take advantage of their opportunities on defense to create turnovers and dominate the kicking game.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I misread your post, sorry. But saying the "increasing drops sealed it" does imply that he moved to a run run run mentality partially because of the drops.

Oh I understand that was Bobby's plan. It's ALWAYS Bobby's plan. It's how you take a beautiful performance where you're running them out of the building utilizing their own game strategy against them and end up "winning ugly" or "not aesthetically pleasing". :lol: :lol:

Do the math. You’re great at math. Now measure the risk. You’re probably the best on the board at that. What does the book say? = Run the fucking ball/clock.
The way they lose that game is by panicking and abandoning the plan.
You’re coming around. Earlier you argued nothing indicated unsustainablity and in the same breath said the team looked “exhausted”.

Negative. Now you've misread MY post. What they were doing in the FIRST half was perfect, and nothing about it indicated unsustainability. The Griz were rolling, Idaho was reeling and we were about one more score from Idaho packing it in. What they were doing in the SECOND half was what made the defense ultimately look exhausted, and rightly so. They were on the field 24 of the 30 minutes (or something like that). 18 plays to 48. It's a freaking miracle they pulled it off, honestly and hats off to them.

I get going conservative, I do. And I understand it. But to go SO conservative that you put your defense in THAT position?

And while it may have been the plan, I think the way you lose the game is by abandoning what's clearly working. 256 yards of offense in the first half. 49 yards in the 2nd. Here's every drive in the 2nd half: 5/18 yards (P,P,R,P,P), 6/18 yards (R,R,P,R,R,R) 3/6 (R,R,P) 4/7 (R,R,R,R) That's 18 offensive plays. TWO passes in the last 3 drives. 4/5 passes on the first drive, 2/13 passes/plays on the last three. You can clearly see where Bobby shut it down attempting to shorten the game. The offense getting just two first downs in the entire 2nd half is what put the defense in a position of a) exhaustion and b) having to save the game--again. I would say we're incredibly fortunate that they're 3/3 in that department since the NAU game.

I'm NOT confident we can continue to deploy that strategy against Sac or PSU or MSU.

One final thought: All this would be a moot point if they'd picked up the 4th down attempt...and as I said in the thread I started, I LOVED the call (its a "step on the throat" mentality), just hated the PLAY call. A jump pass right there would have been lethal. A play that flowed to the right and then throw back to the left would have been lethal. Because let's be honest. The clock was stopping regardless of what play was run if we didn't make it. I just think it was a opportunity to open the entire playbook and they chose an incredibly conservative play at a time when creativity would have probably won the day/game at that moment.

 

[garizzalies]

You are arguing against the proven results. Griz won. It is easier for me to conclude your speculation would have resulted in a loss than for you to speculate the conclusion would have been different. I’ve got the power of hindsight on my side.

Looks like you are essentially talking about wanting two passes on the last two series, assuming on third downs when most expected. Again, is the risk on those two passes really worth it? At the time, the book said no and the results confirmed.

I like that you recognize BH was playing to win, at least at the very end. I would be okay with a pass there too, but probably some RPO rather than a jump pass. However, I probably also would have went with the best play that day—QB power—which is exactly what they called. It was proven and way safer than some novelty passing play.

I think our biggest disconnect is that you and bigdog are both looking at the team as having two sides (O and D) and the game as having two halves. I disagree. It’s one team; one game. You can’t have it both ways. We aren’t built for it. That’s kind of the point. So stop trying to fight it and embrace it.

 

[garizzalies]

Last thing then I’ll shut up.
If we really are talking about only two passes, and if those two would have been dropped consistent with the other drops in the second half, The Griz would have gift wrapped at least one minute and twenty seconds of game time to UI which is almost as much time as their two prior scoring drives.
Two little drops don’t seem like much of a risk but it’s almost like giving another scoring drive.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Last thing then I’ll shut up.
If we really are talking about only two passes, and if those two would have been dropped consistent with the other drops in the second half, The Griz would have gift wrapped at least one minute and twenty seconds of game time to UI which is almost as much time as their two prior scoring drives.
Two little drops don’t seem like much of a risk but it’s almost like giving another scoring drive.

Nope. The clock was stopping on the 4th down attempt regardless.

And nope. I don’t need to embrace Bobby’s “play not to lose” mentality. It’s worked so far. When it fails (and it will), don’t come crying to me. :lol:

 

[garizzalies]

Nope. I’m talking about your two theoretical passes on prior drives which likely would have been drops resulting in enough time for UI to have another short scoring possession

 

[AZGrizFan]

Nope. I’m talking about your two theoretical passes on prior drives which likely would have been drops resulting in enough time for UI to have another short scoring possession

Lol….”likely would have been drops”.

Way to have faith, brother.

 

[3-7-77]

Two little drops don’t seem like much of a risk but it’s almost like giving another scoring drive.

The play not to lose strategy is fine, IF you have a defense that is dominant and NEVER gets tired.
If I were a defensive player, I'd be pissed that the offense was getting it's beauty sleep while the defense was on the field twice as long as they were.

 

['68griz]

So you're blaming the drops for Bobby going conservative?

Hauck going conservative with the lead has been his MO since literally forever.

This!!!!!

 

[mthoopsfan]

I don't agree that Hauck plays not to lose. I don't think Hauck gets anymore conservative with a lead, than any other coaches. It's just another narrative on egriz, that isn't accurate.

 

[Fahque]

I don't agree that Hauck plays not to lose. I don't think Hauck gets anymore conservative with a lead, than any other coaches. It's just another narrative on egriz, that isn't accurate.

Probably because you have been staring at his abdomen the entire time he's been here

 

[3-7-77]

:shock: Oooh, that's 'below the belt'! :lol:

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I’m so pissed that we won in the way that we won! If we win another game like that I will have a gasket and blow a cow. Bobby should know to sail that ball with a lead in the second half on the road. Get that rock in the air to make sure the secondary has a chance to make plays. It’s only fair.

 

[GrizGuy]

Seeing several posts saying BH needs to play not to lose, not take his foot off the pedal, or not turn conservative.

Like he has a choice.

Do you really think BH prefers close games and would rather not blow teams out?

We are ugly because we are not pretty. Ugly girls cannot simply decide to be pretty. They have to work really hard and play the hand they’re dealt.

I think BH knows he does not have the horses, playmakers, or depth to blow teams out and most games will be tight. He’s said it.

He can scheme for a half and adjust for the other, and has just enough to put two halves together. That’s why he always talks about “balance” and all three phases. Beat Idaho at their own game.

With the new rules, controlling the game, including number of scoring possessions and not just TOP, is more than “aesthetically pleasing”—it’s a thing of beauty.

I appreciate where you’re coming from, but disagree with the conclusion.
What’s frustrating is when the offense is clicking, and Coach goes into keep away mode. There’s no reason to do that if you’re having success. Yet we see it all the time.
I agree that if you don’t have the horses, you best not try racing. But that’s not why you’re seeing those posts (which I’m pretty sure I’m guilty of). It’s the tendency to shut things down when they seem to be working.

 

[3-7-77]

I appreciate where you’re coming from, but disagree with the conclusion.
What’s frustrating is when the offense is clicking, and Coach goes into keep away mode. There’s no reason to do that if you’re having success. Yet we see it all the time.
I agree that if you don’t have the horses, you best not try racing. But that’s not why you’re seeing those posts (which I’m pretty sure I’m guilty of). It’s the tendency to shut things down when they seem to be working.

Exactly. I think most of us just disagree on semantics. Those 'always pro-BH' are just repeating a spin. If something works keep at it. There are no style points. There comes a time to back off a bit when the game is in the bag, but it ain't right after halftime. In the bag! Ha!

Reminds me of a story, true story, of a hot shot Surgeon and his 'Gas Man' who came to Montana and we're quite successfull. Then, Elk season came, and these new 'Montanan's' were so self-assured that the would bag their trophy Bull they made an appointment with a Taxidermist to stuff their kill. OK, Elk hunters, how did that play out? Pfhtttt!

Bobby needs to wake up.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I don't agree that Hauck plays not to lose. I don't think Hauck gets anymore conservative with a lead, than any other coaches. It's just another narrative on egriz, that isn't accurate.

Well he most certainly got way more conservative in the 4th quarter of the Idaho game. First half? 40 plays, 12 passes, 28 rushes. First (and only) drive in the 3rd quarter, 5 plays, 4 passing plays (including 2 deep shots and the dropped slant by Gillman across the middle). So at that point (end of 3rd), we'd run 45 plays, 16 of which were pass plays, 29 of which were rushing attempts. a 35.6%/64.4% split.

After that? 4th quarter play calling was R, R, P, R, R, R, R, R, P, R, R, R, R. 11 runs. 2 pass attempts. A split of 15.3%/84.7%. And interestingly enough, BOTH passes were completed. Which contradict's garizzlies narrative that he just assumes any additional passes would be dropped.

Maybe you don't call that going "more conservative". I do.

 

[garizzalies]

The plan you're referring to only works when you're running the dammed ball behind lines that can impose their will.

The play not to lose strategy is fine, IF you have a defense that is dominant and NEVER gets tired.

You old dogs can’t even agree. Which is it?
Hint: you’re both wrong because you’re both still stuck under the old rules and BH 1.0. That’s the point of this thread—wake up and get with the times. It’s no longer about TOP or number of plays.
What’s that saying about old dogs and new rules? You guys are great sayings