Or it's really been about this year, the fact he is 2-5, and hasn't beaten a winning team all year.
PM to Tequilla
- Thread starter DoubleJDawg
- Start date
Or it's really been about this year, the fact he is 2-5, and hasn't beaten a winning team all year.
DoubleJDawg
New Fish
Bringing this back around to the original question, @Tequilla, it sounds like there aren't really games which come to mind for you as good examples of using this strategy - just more of a lack of belief that having called TO would make any difference. (let me know if I got this wrong) I don't agree with that, but I get it. Now that you've brought it up, I'll definitely keep my eyes open for similar tactics from other coaches because I'm genuinely interested to see if that crops up again.
I would be interested, though, to hear if you would have wanted TCU to do the same thing in that spot -- and if not, why they should have handled it differently
Intriguing points regarding fan base expectations, too. Not sure I agree with the motivation -- I think the pressure on Peterman is higher because he's actually experienced and we expect him to get the details right (he picks up sunflower seeds off the locker room floor, dammit), whereas when Sark, Gilby, Lambo and even Neu got the details wrong, it was upsetting but completely believable given their coaching styles. Might be unfair to Peterman but it is what it is...
I would be interested, though, to hear if you would have wanted TCU to do the same thing in that spot -- and if not, why they should have handled it differently
Intriguing points regarding fan base expectations, too. Not sure I agree with the motivation -- I think the pressure on Peterman is higher because he's actually experienced and we expect him to get the details right (he picks up sunflower seeds off the locker room floor, dammit), whereas when Sark, Gilby, Lambo and even Neu got the details wrong, it was upsetting but completely believable given their coaching styles. Might be unfair to Peterman but it is what it is...
Tequilla
Active poster
I've never really thought about keeping a mental note of the examples before. Normally you see a game winning FG happen on the last play of the game. The situation that you see come up probably more often is the defense faced with giving up a game winning FG or giving up a TD on purpose to try to get the ball back.
I get the reasoning of why to call the timeout. The reasons are logical. In this particular case, I don't think that there's any reason to prolong the game. Kickoff was going to go out of the end zone. Miles doesn't possess the ability to make the throws necessary for us to get into FG range. I would say that the odds of us finding a way to get a 50 yard attempt off would definitely be less than 5%. It's probably fair to say that if you had a QB that you believed was capable of making those plays to get you in a position you probably have the thought of calling a timeout to give any time on the tip of your mind.
I would say that my biggest problem with the fixation on this being that it's an example that people can point to as something that they would have done differently but the reality is that the impact it had on the game was minimal. Nobody would have said anything about this if the kicker missed the 47 yard FG - far from a sure thing.
TCU had a comparable, but different situation earlier this year in their loss to Baylor. They were at the Baylor 45 yard line with about 1:15 left in the game with the score tied facing a 4th and 3. On one hand, if you go for it and pick it up, you control the rest of the game with a chance to win it or go to OT. On the other hand, your defense was really struggling at that point and giving a short field would have led to a likely loss. You could have argued that even with a punt there that Baylor would have gone 70 yards in a minute to get into FG range. My thought at the time was that TCU should have punted there, put Baylor inside the 10, made them go 70 yards to get into FG range without making a mistake. But also hard for me to criticize a coach for playing to win the game. The last 10 minutes of the 4th quarter of that game may end up costing TCU a chance to play for a title.
I get the reasoning of why to call the timeout. The reasons are logical. In this particular case, I don't think that there's any reason to prolong the game. Kickoff was going to go out of the end zone. Miles doesn't possess the ability to make the throws necessary for us to get into FG range. I would say that the odds of us finding a way to get a 50 yard attempt off would definitely be less than 5%. It's probably fair to say that if you had a QB that you believed was capable of making those plays to get you in a position you probably have the thought of calling a timeout to give any time on the tip of your mind.
I would say that my biggest problem with the fixation on this being that it's an example that people can point to as something that they would have done differently but the reality is that the impact it had on the game was minimal. Nobody would have said anything about this if the kicker missed the 47 yard FG - far from a sure thing.
TCU had a comparable, but different situation earlier this year in their loss to Baylor. They were at the Baylor 45 yard line with about 1:15 left in the game with the score tied facing a 4th and 3. On one hand, if you go for it and pick it up, you control the rest of the game with a chance to win it or go to OT. On the other hand, your defense was really struggling at that point and giving a short field would have led to a likely loss. You could have argued that even with a punt there that Baylor would have gone 70 yards in a minute to get into FG range. My thought at the time was that TCU should have punted there, put Baylor inside the 10, made them go 70 yards to get into FG range without making a mistake. But also hard for me to criticize a coach for playing to win the game. The last 10 minutes of the 4th quarter of that game may end up costing TCU a chance to play for a title.
MikeDamone
Well-known poster
Here's the deal. He should have been using timeouts. And if he did UW would of gotten the ball with around 30 seconds left. And the odds that it would have made a difference was extremely low. But if it's even 1 in a million that's still a chance according to Lloyd Christmas. It wouldn't have mattered in the outcome, but would make Petersen look better in the post game analysis.
Petersen had the chance to increase the win expectancy of his team and did not take it. Even if the increase is from 15% to 15.5% he needs to make the move. Over the course of a game and season the cumulative impact of those actions adds up. For someone who preaches details this is a detail that he missed. Actions louder than words and all that.
I look forward to LIFPO and see if Petersen has the self reflection to improve himself and his staff in the offseason like James did. Either way it will be interesting.
I look forward to LIFPO and see if Petersen has the self reflection to improve himself and his staff in the offseason like James did. Either way it will be interesting.
MikeDamone
Well-known poster
Fixed and agreed.
Last edited:
DoubleJDawg
New Fish
Well... peterman said in his presser just now he wouldn't change anything - he let the clock run all the way down because he didn't think the kicker would make it. Clearly he and @Tequilla are in cahoots...
Then shortly after that he said "I guess we could have called timeout with 33 seconds left"
Is he still thinking through what was the right call, or is he just fucking with the media? (My guess is the latter)
Then shortly after that he said "I guess we could have called timeout with 33 seconds left"
Is he still thinking through what was the right call, or is he just fucking with the media? (My guess is the latter)
spuden
New Fish
I would venture to guess a lot of people watching were screaming for Petersen to call the timeout. I was at a bar in Kansas City with no other Husky fans around and everyone was amazed he wasn't calling the timeout as the clock ticked down. Not after the fact, but realtime, as the clock ran down we were all yelling at him to call the timeout. It was a no-brainer to call the timeout. Even if you don't think Miles can lead the team back down if he makes the field-goal, there is no reason on earth not to give yourself and your team the opportunity to try. The worst thing that could happen is you fail, but Petersen didn't even give them an opportunity to fail. It was a bad decision. Petersen's claims that he didn't think the Arizona kicker would make the field-goal are bizarre...even if you don't think he makes it, why would you not put your team in a position to win on the offchance that he does make it? While I've been concerned about some things I'm willing to LIPO, but the fact Petersen didn't call the timeout there is eye-opening and concerning. There was no reason to not take the timeout. It was a pretty big mistake, and he should have owned up to it and admitted he should have called the timeout.