Oregon also would have loved to score again against Auburn. I definitely definitely definitely do NOT get your point. I am nowhere remotely close to getting your point. So you will have to pull out lots and lots of examples. As many examples as you need to prove that an explosive offense is actually a bad thing. That Chip Kelly should tell Lamichael James to run out of bounds after he gains ten yards instead of scoring. Yes, you will definitely have to do much much more to persuade me of the wisdom of not scoring as a strategy to aid in winning.
It seems to me that the gist of his argument is that if a team can't effectively play Fulmer ball and sit on a lead and play not to lose, then they're not a championship team. If that's it, I couldn't disagree more.
There's a time and a place for it. Playing conservative while up by 10 with 2 quarters to go is stupid. When you have a 17 point lead with12 minutes to go, milk the clock. When you rely solely on the passing game and your qb is off, you're [uck fay]ed.
Oregon is perfectly capable of running out the clock should they need to, because they run the ball. Texas Tech never did under Leach. Hence, the game gets drawn out considerably. Both teams get a lot more chances to score. At the end of a close game when you're losing, that's super. When you're up a score, it'd be nice if you limited the opponent's chances. This isn't exactly a groundbreaking or radical philosophy. Not sure why you're getting so riled up about it.
It is about 10x more likely to happen if you are forced to pass the ball because your run game sucks ass. Ask Tyler Bray about it.
Because they continued to throw the ball, instead of handing the ball off. Okie State should be 10 times better than Iowa State at every position. The only way they had a chance was because you continued to extend the game. Run the ball, kill time and escape. Oh wait, they can't do that.
But the only way to do that is to limit your own chances, and increase your own chances of turning the ball over. Yeah, it isn't groundbreaking...but it's also bad strategy if you have a team that can score. Mike Leach throws five yard passes. His offense can run the clock out in the same way Oregon's could. BTW, have you ever seen the Oregon offense intentionally get short yardage instead of breaking open an 80 yarder? How would that even work?
They did exactly that against Cal last season when they were getting physically abused throughout the game. They ground 8 or 9 minutes off the clock to close out the game.
So you think a team like Wisconsin is more likely to turn the ball over a ton than a team that routinely aims for the big play? All plays are not created equal. I could run the ball with Montario Hardesty 100 times and have a better chance of not turning the ball over than I would throwing one deep pass. LSU doesn't have a big play, fast-scoring, or even really all that high scoring and they have the fewest turnovers in the nation.
LSU throws 2 deep passes a game to Ruben Randle off of play action. It's actually pretty funny to watch because you can damn near call when it's going to happen. 1st down after a turnover or 2nd down and short. Once in the first half, once in the second half.
Right, because turnovers wouldn't have happened in the absence of passing. Oh wait. They lost two fumbles. Also, you can score quickly without passing. See Oregon. My argument isn't about passing vs. running. It's about killing time vs. scoring as an offensive strategy. And, more specifically, it is that if you have the ability to score quickly you do so. A time killing drive only happens when a team can't score quickly. You would never ever ever ever want to "kill time" as opposed to scoring again if you had the ability to score again. To kill time, a team must continue to pick up lots of first downs but without moving too far up the field with a give play. This means that "killing time" involves running a shitload of plays, which just presents more opportunites for turnovers. And, yes, they can come from INTs and fumbles. Hypothetical Question: you are the coach and your team is up 24-7 with 12 minutes to go in the third quarter. You have to choose one of two options: (a) score on the first play of your next drive, or (b) try to run as much time off the clock as possible on the next drive. Are you actually telling me that you choose option (b)?
It depends. Robert Griffin III has thrown two picks this year. Baylor has way more fumbles than that. But you're getting away from my point. Which is a really simple point. We're debating two offensive strategies: (a) trying to run time off the clock, or just (b) trying to score again. With LSU, the very nature of their offense dictates that in pursuing option (b), a good bit of option (a) will happen. But what if LSU had Lamichael James? For you all to be consistent with your argument, you have to concede that you are advocating that LaMichael James should slide after running ten yards when he could have otherwise broken off an 80 yarder and scored. If you disagree with the last sentence, then you actually agree with me. And I hope this is true, because it is definitely NOT the preferred strategy to intentionally try to milk the clock rather than simply scoring...again, this only applies to teams that are explosive and can score quickly.
They were intentionally running plays to get short yardage as opposed to breaking open big runs? And they were doing this not because Cal was shutting off their ability to get outside on the edges with their speed, but because they wanted to run time off the clock? I'd love to see the tape. Knowing Chip Kelly, I would have to see this to believe it.
Guys back on topic...Ainge has claimed there is big news coming...likely he wants you to listen later today but maybe a new OC? Please I beg...
c) Kill 8 minutes and score a TD (even a FG, that's fine) It depends on your defense. If they're not any good, all your doing is swapping points and letting the other team have hope. There are times you need to shorten games and gtfo with a W. 3 of them would not have happened. And wasn't one of the fumbles caused when Weeden was sacked? (I think it was, I'm not sure).
Here's another. You've got five minutes left in the game. You're up 3. You break a big play, run 70 yards but get tackled at the five. You attempt to get into the endzone, running the playclock for all it's worth each time, but can't get the TD. Settle for a field goal and now kick off, up 6 to a team that has 3:30 to score a TD for the win. There's a million different ways to win or lose a game.
If I can find the post game interviews, I'll post them. Chip Kelly said exactly that. I'm sure Droski will remember the game.
I'm not sure I understand the point of the LaMichael James stuff. We don't have him, a player in the same position of his caliber, and we aren't about to get one. Hiring a new offensive coordinator won't change that. Handing the ball off to LaMichael James is one thing (although it's something Leach probably wouldn't do very often) throwing a deep pass or any kind of pass for that matter, to Justin Hunter is another entirely. Handing the ball off to James is the lowest risk play on the field when you have the lead. His hands fumble-wise are as good as anyone on the team. If he gets tackled, even for a loss, the clock still rolls. If he breaks for a TD, that's great, too.
