ok...so I've heard lot's of logic on both sides, and the middle ground
about what the reasoning is behind slowing the game down when you
lead by a couple touchdowns and have a young D, like we do.
Somebody here mentioned that we were pretty successful running
the ball until Toledo sold out to stop the run since they "knew" we
were trying to burn the clock. (or something like that)
Now, if that's so, and I believe it is, then you might say that the
very reason we -were- pretty successful running (up to then)was
the fact that we -passing- the ball aggressively (up to that point)?
And, the reason we became unable to take enough time off the clock
so as to win in reg. was because we tried to slow down the pace, as
opposed to keep sticking the knife in offensively...hmmm
Ok, so maybe what we're really needing to see improved, as far as game
strategy calling, is the need to be much more -unpredictable- later
in the game and not neccesarily more or less conservative.
I mean, if they "know" you're going to run, and you don't, and instead
go over the top to TB say and burn them for TD, do think they're going
to be as likely to sell out to stop the run the next time, whether our
defense holds them or not?
Another thing nobody has mentioned, what effect do you suppose
slowing down the game has on our defense? Now, if they were a
bunch of jrs. and srs. and were game tested and proven in the trenches,
would be one thing, but they're not. Our offense is our real strength,
and everybody knows it.
Now, to me, all I'm doing is stating the obvious up to this point, (and
maybe not), but...
Why then, do some of us seem to think it makes sense to play to a
strategy that -in the end- puts the most responsibility on the defenses shoulders?
If our offense is our trump suit, and it is, and we have an unlimited
number of aces, shouldn't we keep playing the high card?
peace
m.
about what the reasoning is behind slowing the game down when you
lead by a couple touchdowns and have a young D, like we do.
Somebody here mentioned that we were pretty successful running
the ball until Toledo sold out to stop the run since they "knew" we
were trying to burn the clock. (or something like that)
Now, if that's so, and I believe it is, then you might say that the
very reason we -were- pretty successful running (up to then)was
the fact that we -passing- the ball aggressively (up to that point)?
And, the reason we became unable to take enough time off the clock
so as to win in reg. was because we tried to slow down the pace, as
opposed to keep sticking the knife in offensively...hmmm
Ok, so maybe what we're really needing to see improved, as far as game
strategy calling, is the need to be much more -unpredictable- later
in the game and not neccesarily more or less conservative.
I mean, if they "know" you're going to run, and you don't, and instead
go over the top to TB say and burn them for TD, do think they're going
to be as likely to sell out to stop the run the next time, whether our
defense holds them or not?
Another thing nobody has mentioned, what effect do you suppose
slowing down the game has on our defense? Now, if they were a
bunch of jrs. and srs. and were game tested and proven in the trenches,
would be one thing, but they're not. Our offense is our real strength,
and everybody knows it.
Now, to me, all I'm doing is stating the obvious up to this point, (and
maybe not), but...
Why then, do some of us seem to think it makes sense to play to a
strategy that -in the end- puts the most responsibility on the defenses shoulders?
If our offense is our trump suit, and it is, and we have an unlimited
number of aces, shouldn't we keep playing the high card?
peace
m.
