You are twisting this way around and trying way to hard at making this a negative
This post could be used as a response to most things Clonedude says.
You are twisting this way around and trying way to hard at making this a negative
I've got no problem with that quote. Calculating what you need from that point in the game is a natural strategic thought. He should be thinking about that.
Anyone else see the quote from Rhoads after the game about how he thought at halftime that all we would need to do to win the game would be to score 2 TD's in the 2nd half, but we were only capable of getting one?
What head coach thinks that way? This might explain why in the 2nd half our offense stalls out and looks like crap compared to the 1st halves. I wonder how many TD's he only thought we'd need in the 2nd half to beat Iowa earlier this year?
I sure hope that if he honestly felt like all we would need is 2 TD's in the 2nd half last night that he isn't telling the team that at halftime. That is loser thinking. You need to keep your foot on the gas and try to score as much as possible. You don't go into some kind of "prevent" and hope to hold on.
This is the Big 12 Paul, where teams score about 50 a game. You can never think that something like 38 pts is all you're going to need.
But if in the back of your mind you think we only need 2 TD's to win the game in the 2nd half, is that changing your play calls or your offensive strategy? Do you become less aggressive?
Do you think Art Briles thinks this way? Briles, and most other Big 12 coaches for that matter, would want to score on every possession and rub your face in it and win by 50.
Anyone else see the quote from Rhoads after the game about how he thought at halftime that all we would need to do to win the game would be to score 2 TD's in the 2nd half, but we were only capable of getting one?
What head coach thinks that way? This might explain why in the 2nd half our offense stalls out and looks like crap compared to the 1st halves. I wonder how many TD's he only thought we'd need in the 2nd half to beat Iowa earlier this year?
I sure hope that if he honestly felt like all we would need is 2 TD's in the 2nd half last night that he isn't telling the team that at halftime. That is loser thinking. You need to keep your foot on the gas and try to score as much as possible. You don't go into some kind of "prevent" and hope to hold on.
This is the Big 12 Paul, where teams score about 50 a game. You can never think that something like 38 pts is all you're going to need.
We now have a forum for Rhoads making a prediction that was accurate, and important to game planning. And had the offense continued to execute in the second half at a high level we would have won. I have no problem with this quote. Tell me Tom Herman, or Bill Snyder, or Nick Saban haven't had similar thoughts before.
It's not the quote that bothers me but that way of thinking against a high powered big 12 offense, even if we had contained them in the first half. Our 2nd half history would have suggested we needed all the points we could get. I'm not suggesting we weren't trying to score every time we got the ball but it's possible we became more conservative in the 2nd half.
Meh it was accurate but it's also what I hate the most about Paul. Stop taking your foot off the gas Paul. Only time we get turnovers is when your line backers and safeties make a great play and rip the ball. We haven't jumped a route all year. Tired of this conservative second half crap.
But we have no reason to believe it effected anything in the second half. I didn't notice any difference in play calling, and I don't think anybody else did either. It's not like they scored two touchdowns on two possession, started running draws on every play after that and then we lost by a field goal.