How About Just Going for the Win?

[winnerwinner]

According to the Omaha World Herald, Rhule said the following about the final offensive play call last Saturday...“If we just sit here and keep everything really simple, we're never going to win at a high level,” Rhule said. “So we're trying to be competitive, man.”

What's wrong with winning, man?

I love Rhule, but he appears to be in serious denial about the past 2 games.

 

[Hville]

Kicking the FG doesn't necessarily win the game for us. It probably does, and conservative as I am, I would have run the ball and then tried to kick a field goal. but the way they marched down the field after the interception makes me wonder whether they could have made a touchdown on that drive.

Probably not, but I've watched a lot of games this year and end of game surprises have happened throughout the football world.

Doesn't mean I would have tried a pass at that point, but frankly that was a good play made bad by a faulty decision by a freshman WR. If he grabs the ball he walks in and that makes it tougher for MD. Doesn't mean we win, but makes it more likely.

I just can't see putting it all on the play call.

One of the things that would have helped is there would have been at least 30 more seconds off the play clock had we run the ball. I also can't remember, because it was on peacock and couldn't record it, if we were actively running out the clock the first 3 downs. Or were we snapping the ball with 10 seconds on the clock?

 

[SierraRed]

Here is the sequence of the final 3 plays on that drive:

1st Down - Designed run. Purdy throws ball. Would have lost yardage if he ran the play as called.
2nd Down - Run play. Lost yardage.
3rd Down - Maryland stacks the box. Pass intercepted.

Once we got near the goal line the Terps defense tightened up and there was no place to run the ball. After ineffective run plays on 1st and 2nd down, why are people so certain a run on 3rd down would have been any different?

 

[PaSker]

But the reality is, they did what they thought would give the best chance of winning 8n the moment.

Except that isn't what the coach said

 

[Wandering Nebraskan]

According to the Omaha World Herald, Rhule said the following about the final offensive play call last Saturday...“If we just sit here and keep everything really simple, we're never going to win at a high level,” Rhule said. “So we're trying to be competitive, man.”

What's wrong with winning, man?

I don't have an OWH sub, so I can't see the context [would be nice if someone would post], but this is a wild over-simplification of what Rhule said. That quote is pulled out from a long answer he was making. In short, he wants a team that plays to win as opposed to one that plays not to lose. Listen for yourselves:

 

[The Big Red Lebowski]

It's like some of you are new to high-level college football. That was all coach-speak, and the purpose was to take some heat of his OC. He's keenly aware of what's being said around the water cooler and a third of the fanbase wanted to see Satterfield canned after the game on Saturday.

Rhule understands that if you want to build something, you can't meet every failure with a firing. If you don't give your staff at least 2 years to show something, you'll never get anyone worth a damn to Lincoln. Maybe some of you haven't noticed, but it's been the place coaching careers go to die for 2 decades.

 

[CO4NU]

It's like some of you are new to high-level college football. That was all coach-speak, and the purpose was to take some heat of his OC. He's keenly aware of what's being said around the water cooler and a third of the fanbase wanted to see Satterfield canned after the game on Saturday.

Rhule understands that if you want to build something, you can't meet every failure with a firing. If you don't give your staff at least 2 years to show something, you'll never get anyone worth a damn to Lincoln. Maybe some of you haven't noticed, but it's been the place coaching careers go to die for 2 decades.

Very true.

Unless your an A&M, then the dollars they can throw around will lure anyone even knowing they may make it only a couple years. If they do well they get even more money. If they don't and get canned, doesn't matter because the buyout is so extravagant.

 

[Bigger Ed]

It's like some of you are new to high-level college football. That was all coach-speak, and the purpose was to take some heat of his OC. He's keenly aware of what's being said around the water cooler and a third of the fanbase wanted to see Satterfield canned after the game on Saturday.

Rhule understands that if you want to build something, you can't meet every failure with a firing. If you don't give your staff at least 2 years to show something, you'll never get anyone worth a damn to Lincoln. Maybe some of you haven't noticed, but it's been the place coaching careers go to die for 2 decades.

Well stated. Never take what a coach says in a press conference verbatim. A (smart) coach always has fans, administration, and donors in mind when he's behind a microphone.

 

[The Big Red Lebowski]

Very true.

Unless your an A&M, then the dollars they can throw around will lure anyone. Even knowing they may make it only a couple years. If they do well they get even more money. If they don't and get canned, doesn't matter because the buyout is so extravagant.

Even Jimbo got just shy of 6 years to get it done. Very few programs can get away with a "fire, ready, aim" strategy.

If it's not crystal clear after 20 years of trying that Nebraska is not one of them, I don't know what else to say. A lot of players had 3 different coordinators and/or position coaches during the Riley>Frost era, and it was an unmitigated disaster.

 

[winnerwinner]

Even Jimbo got just shy of 6 years to get it done. Very few programs can get away with a "fire, ready, aim" strategy.

If it's not crystal clear after 20 years of trying that Nebraska is not one of them, I don't know what else to say. A lot of players had 3 different coordinators and/or position coaches during the Riley>Frost era, and it was an unmitigated disaster.

this is true in the grand scheme of things. but the problem is, there are certain decisions that are agnostic of where your program is. you will always have programs similar in quality or level. when playing such teams, you do not put your players in risky positions to cost your team the win. even in the nfl, this is absolutely the case. heck, seattle lost a superbowl because they chose to pass the ball on the 2 yard line with their all-world talent.
so, it's the decisions in key moments on offense, not the personnel that's the problem. if you have michigan level talent, and you make that kind of a decision against georgia in the final 4 minutes of a game where an additional postseason game and 15 practices are at stake, it still would be a terrible playcall.

 

[2nd and 3]

Even Jimbo got just shy of 6 years to get it done. Very few programs can get away with a "fire, ready, aim" strategy.

If it's not crystal clear after 20 years of trying that Nebraska is not one of them, I don't know what else to say. A lot of players had 3 different coordinators and/or position coaches during the Riley>Frost era, and it was an unmitigated disaster.

But, but, but fire the OC. And call your head coach names on a message board. Because it will show how awesome you are as a person/fan.

You are spot on about big time college football. There are so many moving parts and conversations going on behind the scenes and during games. Rhule hears all the play calls on every down, he was OK with what was called. Plays were not executed. Now people want somebody to burn for the outcome. To each their own.

 

[The Big Red Lebowski]

Offensive football has become so QB-centric over the past 20 years that it's impossible to overstate how much more important the QB is than the OC or head coach.

If a guy is getting fired at the college or NFL level, it's principally because he doesn't have a high-caliber QB. You can count the truly great offensive coaches on one hand. The rest are in the peloton so to speak. A few break out of the pack with a string of great QBs and then get promoted to their level of incompetence.

Satt will sink or swim based on QB play just like everyone else who's not elite (which includes 98% of OCs).

 

[Red Reign]

Drool's take on this is outrageous, and the avoidable losses are inexcusable. Hope he enjoys the heat, because he's earning it.

Another thread ban for you and some vacation time for accumulation of these sort of posts

RR

 

[Husker Robbie]

If he wasn't going for the win, what do you think he was doing?

The Seattle Seahawks were going for the win when they threw an interception from the two yard line. Marshawn Lynch would have run it in. Seahawks lose.

What do I think he was doing? Making a VERY poor play call with a third string quarterback and the game on the line. Huskers lose.

No participant ribbons and juice boxes in big time college football.

 

[Husker Robbie]

That statement by Rhule bothers me too. Situationally, that single play clearly called for a conservative approach to take what I would argue would be an almost certain win - and not just for that game but for the whole goal of the season. Be developmental on all the rest of the plays after that one for the rest of the year. But win this damn game.

And it's odd to me because I feel he's done a very good job through the year of going for the win, even as he's balanced that with development. For example, all year he's rotated young players in more than I can recall any of our coaches being willing to do before, but not to the point of just writing off the season all for development, like he's talked about having done elsewhere in year one.

I think up to til now he's wrung as many wins as was possible out of who we are and what these players (and these coaches) are capable of, while still developing the team. I've been impressed by him on exactly this point.

I think maybe he said this simply to get the pressure off Satt. And maybe a little off himself too. I'm guessing Satt called it and Rhule concurred or at least didn't object even if he was thinking at the time that the tradeoff between the probability of success and development made it risky even situationally.

If you think about it, Rhule has explicitly thought about the balance on that issue in roughly one million decisions he's already made in this job. He's gotten it right a lot. Nobody's going to get it right all the time. He could well wish he could take this one back. But he's still right that you get development benefit from letting the players play free, including when a lot is on the line.

I think it was a bad call but when everything is said and done all we can do is judge Rhule by where he is topping out in some future year when it's the right time. From what I've seen so far I believe that will be well north of 6 or 7 wins.

Very well stated! And respectfully so. Cheers!