Please Stop with "should've run on 2nd"

[ruxCYtable]

He may have wanted to run it and I would've been ok with it, but the fact that you, and others say, "I believe" we would've won does not make it so. I'm sorry, but it doesn't. There were other variables that could've taken place. What if Croney fumbles? What if ISU got any "holding" penalty? What happened, happened and the answer is that Lazard was interfered with and they botched the call. I am not a fan of those that project their feelings into the shoulda, woulda, coulda.
I am not trying to be rude, but unless you could see into the future at that time, we accept reality as it is. Passing plays were run and ISU should've had first and ten after the PI.

Of course it does not make it so. It dramatically increases the odds to keep the clock rolling.

Croney fumble? Are you aware ISU just set a record for being the first team to not lose a fumble the entire regular season?

Holding? Who cares? We get to run the play again and run even more clock .

You can call me a shoulda, woulda, coulda fan all you want. The fact is, Campbell agrees with me (and others) who thinks we should have run the ball.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

Whether you think it was stupid or not is irrelevant. The play calling worked.

The fact that the official picked up an obvious PI flag is not Manning's fault. Lemme ask you this....

How would you feel if that flag wasn't picked up? Then the narrative on here is how Manning had balls of steel and we are out to WIN games and not play to try and not lose.

You know I'm right... The narrative and all of the people on this board who are CERTAIN that running the ball would have won the game is nutzo. We won the game with the plays that were called.

Was it PI or not?

I know you're right? Quite the contrary. You are right that I can't know running the ball results in a win, but I never said that was the case. You are 100% wrong if you are arguing that throwing the ball there is a better choice.

 

[Yellow Snow]

I know you're right? Quite the contrary. You are right that I can't know running the ball results in a win, but I never said that was the case. You are 100% wrong if you are arguing that throwing the ball there is a better choice.

Throwing the ball worked. Argue with that.

 

[3TrueFans]

Throwing the ball worked. Argue with that.

We lost.

 

[Yellow Snow]

We lost.

Yes we did. But all you guys saying we'd have won had we run it are operating in hypothetical land. No matter what your coaching "charts" say.

What i know is we won that game. Ref decided we didn't, not Manning.

 

[3TrueFans]

Yes we did. But all you guys saying we'd have won had we run it are operating in hypothetical land. No matter what your coaching "charts" say.

What i know is we won that game. Ref decided we didn't, not Manning.

And we're the ones operating in hypothetical land?

 

[Yellow Snow]

And we're the ones operating in hypothetical land?

Was it PI or not? If you think it was, my take is not hypothetical. If it wasn't PI, then you have a point.

 

[3TrueFans]

Was it PI or not? If you think it was, my take is not hypothetical. If it wasn't PI, then you have a point.

Do you mean what it actually was as called on the field in the real world or what I wished it to be in my heart of hearts?

 

[Yellow Snow]

Do you mean what it actually was as called on the field in the real world or what I wished it to be in my heart of hearts?

Do you believe that the PI penalty was legit or not. Heart of hearts or real world. Up to you. Was it a legit penalty flag or not.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

LOL this guys argument is that its not our fault we made a poor decision and gambled against a team we have a pathetic history of fumbling the last few minutes against. It's the refs fault for sucking. Didn't even need to be an issue. Whether it was PI or not has nothing to do with whether he should have ran the ball there.

 

[nfrine]

We're starting to sound like Hoks.....

Bump

 

[kcbob79clone]

Respectfully disagree, instead of getting the ball and 2 timeouts and over 2 minutes KSU gets the ball with just over a minute and not timeouts. As Jack Reacher says, "plan for the worst and hope for the best". Well we say the worst play out.

See nice discussion, no 'shut up', no STFU or GTH nobody call you a troll or Hawk troll or Hawk. Yes, I'm still bitter.

I am just as upset as the next person. My point is that everyone on your side of thought is that ISU automatically wins. That just plain isn't the case. We can also assess what happened. ISU got the first down, period, end of story and the refs took it away.

What if ISU runs it twice and looks like they get the first, but KSU spots it wrong? We don't then start complaining that they didn't pass the ball, we would say, ISU followed normal play calling and still got screwed. Same principle. Just thought it was worth pointing out.

Don't think I ever said that it was a sure thing. I think it increased the odds of winning because now with no timeouts they would have had to gone further down the field on each play which would give more time for pressure. Heck, we may have even gotten a first down running.

 

[clonedlion]

Of course it does not make it so. It dramatically increases the odds to keep the clock rolling.

Croney fumble? Are you aware ISU just set a record for being the first team to not lose a fumble the entire regular season?

Holding? Who cares? We get to run the play again and run even more clock .

You can call me a shoulda, woulda, coulda fan all you want. The fact is, Campbell agrees with me (and others) who thinks we should have run the ball.

A first down off of a defensive pass interference also allows the probability of an ISU win to go up, but the refs screwed ISU over. All I am suggesting is a run is no sure thing and I don't agree with those who blindly say 2 runs would've won the game. Of course running and punting is the norm in the situation, but that doesn't mean the norm ends up working out 100% of the time.
If Campbell could do it again, he probably would run it, but he can't. This is my point. Regardless of whether everyone in the world wanted ISU to run, they threw and had a successful conversion that was taken away. End of story.

 

[ArgentCy]

They should have run on 2nd down because an incomplete also necessitates another pass on 3rd down and the possibility you leave them with only having used 1 timeout. Then depending on the result you can either run or throw on 3rd down but they only have 1 timeout left.

 

[clonedlion]

Don't think I ever said that it was a sure thing. I think it increased the odds of winning because now with no timeouts they would have had to gone further down the field on each play which would give more time for pressure. Heck, we may have even gotten a first down running.

This is the disconnect with this discussion. ISU had the first down throwing and the refs took it away. That is def PI 100/100 times and never do they pick that up. What if ISU runs and it looks like a first down and they spot the ball wrong to screw ISU?
Running is moot because the first down was achieved. That is all.

 

[3TrueFans]

This is the disconnect with this discussion. ISU had the first down throwing and the refs took it away. That is def PI 100/100 times and never do they pick that up. What if ISU runs and it looks like a first down and they spot the ball wrong to screw ISU?
Running is moot because the first down was achieved. That is all.

99 out of 100 it would seem.

 

[madguy30]

99 out of 100 it would seem.

999,999 out of 1,000,000 because that's about the probability of the late hit being called back, and PI that obvious being called back within the same drive.

 

[clonedlion]

99 out of 100 it would seem.

And that isn't a poor enough probability to say throwing it, especially on 3rd was a terrible decision.

 

[3TrueFans]

And that isn't a poor enough probability to say throwing it, especially on 3rd was a terrible decision.

The decision to pass on 3rd was more or less determined by choosing to pass on 2nd, throwing a difficult pass on 2nd was the issue.

 

[Frak]

This, had Peavy stayed on his man, game over.

Also, if Bailey hadn't jumped offsides earlier (which was also a questionable call IMO) it would be game over with the pick in the endzone.