I ❤️ Bobbyball!!!

[AZGrizFan]

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

Nobody's "wrong". It's a discussion of opinions.

 

[garizzalies]

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.

Assumes? I ain’t assuming shit. You are. You are the one speculating about all kinds of things including jump passes.
I’m the guy talking about reality, you must be the other guy.

 

[kemajic]

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.

You nailed it. We must have, since we won the game beatibng the #3 team in their house.

 

[mcg]

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 CU Buffs threw an incomplete pass near the end of the Stanford game. Cost them the win.

 

[garizzalies]

The 3 rule changes seemed so subtle in the off-season but coaches are freaking out because the impact has been bigger than expected. A team might only get one possession in a half.

From the Athletic:

The three changes are aimed at shortening Division I and II college football games and reducing the number of plays per contest. Reducing the number of plays is both a player safety concern, with an expanded College Football Playoff on the way next season, and a fan engagement concern, with FBS games averaging close to three hours and 30 minutes while the NFL average is 3:10. Additional plays per game create additional opportunities for collisions and injuries. The game’s stakeholders are trying to limit the total number of “exposures,” as experts and administrators call them, that athletes experience across the entire season.

National coordinator of officials Steve Shaw said this week that the rules were changed with three goals in mind.

“No. 1 is to keep the game moving, the pace of play,” Shaw said. “No. 2 is to modestly take out plays in the game. In FBS, we averaged 178 plays per game last year. If you look at the NFL, they averaged 151 plays per game — so, that’s a pretty significant difference. There is not a target goal but just the idea that we wanted to modestly reduce the number of plays per game. The commissioners support that as well. And finally, we want our clock mechanics to be exactly the same between every official.”

 

[garizzalies]

https://twitter.com/Brett_McMurphy/status/1698340142128259248

 

[AZGrizFan]

Assumes? I ain’t assuming shit. You are. You are the one speculating about all kinds of things including jump passes.
I’m the guy talking about reality, you must be the other guy.

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.

Sure sounds like you're assuming any additional passes were gonna be dropped (based on what I don't know)...

Every pass thrown in the 2nd half:

Incomplete deep ball to Fontes
Complete 22 yards to White
Incomplete slant to Gillman
Complete 9 yards to Fontes
Complete 1 yard to Bergen

 

[3-7-77]

:shock: :argue:

garizzalies:
"Don't raise your voice, improve your argument." -- Desmond Tutu

Tutu was a Griz fan. Fact. Always wearing maroon. Don't believe me? Ask him.

 

[bgbigdog]

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

The only thing youre correct about here is that I am an old dog.

Pretend all you want, Saturday was the bones of Hauck in any and every version. Get a lead against a quality opponent, tighten spinchter and hang on for the clock to run out. Prove to the team that you believe in them and let them continue to do the things that Idaho had no answer for.

Prevent offense is nothing more than a hope, not a winning strategy. And there are no new tricks. You'd know that if you'd just open your eyes. I will understand if you don't, it; 's much easier to pretend.

 

[AZGrizFan]

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

The only thing youre correct about here is that I am an old dog.

Pretend all you want, Saturday was the bones of Hauck in any and every version. Get a lead against a quality opponent, tighten spinchter and hang on for the clock to run out. Prove to the team that you believe in them and let them continue to do the things that Idaho had no answer for.

Prevent offense is nothing more than a hope, not a winning strategy. And there are no new tricks. You'd know that if you'd just open your eyes. I will understand if you don't, it; 's much easier to pretend.

God damned near an instant replay of the Villanova championship loss.

 

[3-7-77]

WOOF! Those goddamned old dogs! How dare they have their own opinions. :roll: SHEEESH!

 

[Ursus1]

One only needs to look at the TOP for the second half in Idaho game to point out the risks.. A defense that is on the field that long is in jeopardy of losing a lead especially against a QB and receivers like Idaho. If that onside kick was not offsides, griz would likely have lost by a fieldgoal as time expires. For whatever reason, there was a major change in offensive play selection as noted above. They came away with the win this time, but sooner or later it will bite the Griz in the ass being too conservative and going away from what was working. The offensive game plan in the first half was excellent, they just tried to "not lose" too early in the game. Lucky the new timing rules shortened the game.

 

[mthoopsfan]

One only needs to look at the TOP for the second half in Idaho game to point out the risks.. A defense that is on the field that long is in jeopardy of losing a lead especially against a QB and receivers like Idaho. If that onside kick was not offsides, griz would likely have lost by a fieldgoal as time expires. For whatever reason, there was a major change in offensive play selection as noted above. They came away with the win this time, but sooner or later it will bite the Griz in the ass being too conservative and going away from what was working. The offensive game plan in the first half was excellent, they just tried to "not lose" too early in the game. Lucky the new timing rules shortened the game.

I am still doubting the great change in play-calling and the play not to lose stuff. My view is that what occurred is that the Griz O didn't convert many 3d downs and didn't have many first downs the second half. I would blame that on Idaho adjustment and failure of UM to execute.

In the 3d Q, UM had 1 drive plus 1 play. The drive started with 2 passes including a 22 yard completion. 1st down. Then, a run, and incomplete pass, and a sack. What was conservative or play not to lose there? The problem was the 3d down sack.

Next drive into 4th, was a run, a McDowell run, and a completed pass for a first down. Then, a McDowell run and 2 Ostmo runs followed by a FG. That's not overly conservative, except maybe there could have been a 3d and 4 pass.

Next drive started at 5:38 left in the game. That's pretty late in game. Then 2 runs by Gillman and a short pass complete to Bergen on 3d and 5. Punt.

Next drive started at 1:45. We should be conservative then.

I just don't get the gripe about playing not to lose and conservative play-calling. Only 1 or 2 plays can be second guessed. The problem was not getting a few more first downs, and not having many drives and plays in the second half. Idaho's drives took considerable time (they screwed themselves).

 

[GrizGuy]

The only thing youre correct about here is that I am an old dog.

Pretend all you want, Saturday was the bones of Hauck in any and every version. Get a lead against a quality opponent, tighten spinchter and hang on for the clock to run out. Prove to the team that you believe in them and let them continue to do the things that Idaho had no answer for.

Prevent offense is nothing more than a hope, not a winning strategy. And there are no new tricks. You'd know that if you'd just open your eyes. I will understand if you don't, it; 's much easier to pretend.

God damned near an instant replay of the Villanova championship loss.

I was at that game and just couldn’t believe my eyes. Scrczrzzrzr was a great player, but the Griz could have won that one.

Ugh, I’m sick thinking about it again.

 

[kemajic]

God damned near an instant replay of the Villanova championship loss.

I was at that game and just couldn’t believe my eyes. Scrczrzzrzr was a great player, but the Griz could have won that one.

Ugh, I’m sick thinking about it again.

I was there too. Nova halftime adjustments took Mariani out of the game and we had no answer to the Szczur wildcat. 2000 and 2004 are other NC games we should have won.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I was at that game and just couldn’t believe my eyes. Scrczrzzrzr was a great player, but the Griz could have won that one.

Ugh, I’m sick thinking about it again.

I was there too. Nova halftime adjustments took Mariani out of the game and we had no answer to the Szczur wildcat. 2000 and 2004 are other NC games we should have won.

Understatements of the year. Mariani literally never touched the ball in the 2nd half. Griz had no answer for Szczur OR the QB, Whitney. 351 yards rushing, 6.9/attempt.

 

[garizzalies]

One only needs to look at the TOP for the second half in Idaho game to point out the risks.. A defense that is on the field that long is in jeopardy of losing a lead especially against a QB and receivers like Idaho. If that onside kick was not offsides, griz would likely have lost by a fieldgoal as time expires. For whatever reason, there was a major change in offensive play selection as noted above. They came away with the win this time, but sooner or later it will bite the Griz in the ass being too conservative and going away from what was working. The offensive game plan in the first half was excellent, they just tried to "not lose" too early in the game. Lucky the new timing rules shortened the game.

I am still doubting the great change in play-calling and the play not to lose stuff. My view is that what occurred is that the Griz O didn't convert many 3d downs and didn't have many first downs the second half. I would blame that on Idaho adjustment and failure of UM to execute.

In the 3d Q, UM had 1 drive plus 1 play. The drive started with 2 passes including a 22 yard completion. 1st down. Then, a run, and incomplete pass, and a sack. What was conservative or play not to lose there? The problem was the 3d down sack.

Next drive into 4th, was a run, a McDowell run, and a completed pass for a first down. Then, a McDowell run and 2 Ostmo runs followed by a FG. That's not overly conservative, except maybe there could have been a 3d and 4 pass.

Next drive started at 5:38 left in the game. That's pretty late in game. Then 2 runs by Gillman and a short pass complete to Bergen on 3d and 5. Punt.

Next drive started at 1:45. We should be conservative then.

I just don't get the gripe about playing not to lose and conservative play-calling. Only 1 or 2 plays can be second guessed. The problem was not getting a few more first downs, and not having many drives and plays in the second half. Idaho's drives took considerable time (they screwed themselves).

Boom goes the dynamite!

I feel like I just won the internet.

 

[3-7-77]

Hey! Ya won the internet! Now, whatcha gonna do with it?

 

[mthoopsfan]

I am still doubting the great change in play-calling and the play not to lose stuff. My view is that what occurred is that the Griz O didn't convert many 3d downs and didn't have many first downs the second half. I would blame that on Idaho adjustment and failure of UM to execute.

In the 3d Q, UM had 1 drive plus 1 play. The drive started with 2 passes including a 22 yard completion. 1st down. Then, a run, and incomplete pass, and a sack. What was conservative or play not to lose there? The problem was the 3d down sack.

Next drive into 4th, was a run, a McDowell run, and a completed pass for a first down. Then, a McDowell run and 2 Ostmo runs followed by a FG. That's not overly conservative, except maybe there could have been a 3d and 4 pass.

Next drive started at 5:38 left in the game. That's pretty late in game. Then 2 runs by Gillman and a short pass complete to Bergen on 3d and 5. Punt.

Next drive started at 1:45. We should be conservative then.

I just don't get the gripe about playing not to lose and conservative play-calling. Only 1 or 2 plays can be second guessed. The problem was not getting a few more first downs, and not having many drives and plays in the second half. Idaho's drives took considerable time (they screwed themselves).

Boom goes the dynamite!

I feel like I just won the internet.

I said could be second-guessed. I didn’t second guess them. One had a huge blocking mistake.

 

[garizzalies]

Boom goes the dynamite!

I feel like I just won the internet.

I said could be second-guessed. I didn’t second guess them. One had a huge blocking mistake.

Oh I agree and am on the same page.
Most of the posters complaining are arguing about the possibility of calling maybe one or two passes but they do not yet appreciate the increased risk this year under the new rules that if those two would have been drops, The Griz would have had a higher chance of losing.
Taking dumb risks = playing to lose.
Managing risk appropriately = playing to win.