win the toss, elect to receive

[Orangepace]

But having LSU drive the field and score in 5 minutes is better?

Take your chances setting the tone.

I understand the advantage of getting it to start the second half and agree with deferring against most teams but let's be honest, what are the odds it will even matter by then in this game?

If they drive the field and score in 5 minutes, it actually is much better than us getting the ball, going 3-and-out and them scoring on a short field all in much less than 5 game minutes. With a walk-on or the equivalent in Wilson taking snaps, you want to take less risks because the level of risk with them at the helm is already extremely high and unfortunate. The chances of something big falling in our favor with them at the helm and electing to receive (given the option) would be 5% or less. It could happen, but the chances of one of going 3-and-out or turning the ball over is much higher than that. Like I said, with Dungey, basing my opinion off his gameplay thus far, you could convince me differently. However, without him at the helm, no way. Let's analogize:

Scenario - I have a 60 soldiers with me and the enemy has 150 (meant to effect the disparity in talent level).

Option 1: I could take the offensive and hope that somehow my 60 soldiers can outgun 150 in one strong move.

Result 1: We're able to somehow overcome the long odds and successfully win the battle. The momentum is extreme and puts them on their heels for the rest of the war.
Result 2: We're completely decimated and have to hope that somehow we're able to rebound later in the war to shift the momentum.​

Option 2: I could take the defensive and hope that my 60 are able to hold off their first wave. Setting up for me to take the offensive second strike.

Result 1: We lose the battle and are decimated. Again, we have to somehow change the momentum later.
Result 2: We lose the battle but significantly weaken them. Might not be enough remaining for a successful second strike, but have set the tone that we are here to fight and that they need to bring their A game.
Result 3: We win the battle. The momentum is extreme and puts them on their heels for the rest of the war.
​

I'm going Option 2 in every case here.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I can just see how this is going to play out.

"You take the ball." "No, we don't want it. YOU take it." "No, you." "No way, you take it." "I insist, you take it." "Dude, seriously, I don't want it. You take it."

This continues for 37 minutes until finally the refs just give up and call the game.

That... that's not actually a bad outcome for us.

 

[Scooch]

Not me. I pound my opponent right out of the gate. They understand immediately how their day will go. They know they are playing from behind and I will always have the advantage.

This post is fantastic if you pretend it's being said by...

 

[NineOneSeven]

If they drive the field and score in 5 minutes, it actually is much better than us getting the ball, going 3-and-out and them scoring on a short field all in much less than 5 game minutes. With a walk-on or the equivalent in Wilson taking snaps, you want to take less risks because the level of risk with them at the helm is already extremely high and unfortunate. The chances of something big falling in our favor with them at the helm and electing to receive (given the option) would be 5% or less. It could happen, but the chances of one of going 3-and-out or turning the ball over is much higher than that. Like I said, with Dungey, basing my opinion off his gameplay thus far, you could convince me differently. However, without him at the helm, no way. Let's analogize:

Scenario - I have a 60 soldiers with me and the enemy has 150 (meant to effect the disparity in talent level).

Option 1: I could take the offensive and hope that somehow my 60 soldiers can outgun 150 in one strong move.

Result 1: We're able to somehow overcome the long odds and successfully win the battle. The momentum is extreme and puts them on their heels for the rest of the war.
Result 2: We're completely decimated and have to hope that somehow we're able to rebound later in the war to shift the momentum.​

Option 2: I could take the defensive and hope that my 60 are able to hold off their first wave. Setting up for me to take the offensive second strike.

Result 1: We lose the battle and are decimated. Again, we have to somehow change the momentum later.
Result 2: We lose the battle but significantly weaken them. Might not be enough remaining for a successful second strike, but have set the tone that we are here to fight and that they need to bring their A game.
Result 3: We win the battle. The momentum is extreme and puts them on their heels for the rest of the war.
​

I'm going Option 2 in every case here.

 

[dollarbill44]

Ummm..


I don't even know how to respond to this it's so off base

Apparently, you're having trouble communicating your thoughts today. Maybe I'm just thick. Explain to me what is so off base about what I said. At least try.

Let me try to help:

Why is a coach "soft" for deferring?
Why is giving examples of coaches who always defer off base?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Option 2: I could take the defensive and hope that my 60 are able to hold off their first wave. Setting up for me to take the offensive second strike.

Result 1: We lose the battle and are decimated. Again, we have to somehow change the momentum later.
Result 2: We lose the battle but significantly weaken them. Might not be enough remaining for a successful second strike, but have set the tone that we are here to fight and that they need to bring their A game.
Result 3: We win the battle. The momentum is extreme and puts them on their heels for the rest of the war.
​

​

You're playing a loser's game.

This post is fantastic if you pretend it's being said by...

You get me.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Apparently, you're having trouble communicating your thoughts today. Maybe I'm just thick. Explain to me what is so off base about what I said. At least try.

Let me try to help:

Why is a coach "soft" for deferring?
Why is giving examples of coaches who always defer off base?

The greatest coach for one of the greatest franchises of all time, whose team is favored in the majority of their games, and you use that as your comparison?

 

[Orangepace]

You're playing a loser's game.​

Nah, playing a loser's game is taking your one shot right out of the gate when the odds are completely stacked against you... which I've said is the case with Wilson/Mahoney at QB. It's much smarter to try to force the game to be won in the 4th quarter than having it lost in the 1st.

I've qualified each of my posts in this thread stating that if Dungey is at QB, I'd say go for it. Even though the results may be the same as Wilson/Mahoney, given his really small sample size thus far I'd take that chance.

 

[Orangepace]

With Dungey playing, our odds here are probably similar or slightly below, the odds of the 1996 team making the National Championship game. Not insurmountable, but just need a few things to fall right and it can be done.

With Mahoney/Wilson, our odds are probably similar to Richmond's odds in the 1991 NCAA 1st Rd game. Can be done, but it'll shock the world.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Nah, playing a loser's game is taking your one shot right out of the gate when the odds are completely stacked against you... which I've said is the case with Wilson/Mahoney at QB. It's much smarter to try to force the game to be won in the 4th quarter than having it lost in the 1st.

I've qualified each of my posts in this thread stating that if Dungey is at QB, I'd say go for it. Even though the results may be the same as Wilson/Mahoney, given his really small sample size thus far I'd take that chance.

You're weighting the first possession waaaaaaay too much. The odds are always stacked against us in the game so long as we don't have the lead. The ONLY way that changes is if we're in front.

Even if you only have "one" shot, have you ever been in a fight? The first punch is often the only clean one.

 

[dollarbill44]

The greatest coach for one of the greatest franchises of all time, whose team is favored in the majority of their games, and you use that as your comparison?

Doesn't that kind of prove the point that it isn't a "soft" strategy?

The point of the comparison was to counter your point that deferring is a "soft" strategy. I can go much broader with the list of coaches that always defer, but when making a counter point to a statement, I find it is usually most effective to go with the clearest example that contradicts the statement.

You called Shafer a pu$$y (i.e. "soft"), citing his preference to defer. By extension, any coach that defers is also a pu$$y. It's not a question of talent or success, but the strategy.

Regardless, it's time to move on, imo.

 

[dollarbill44]

You're weighting the first possession waaaaaaay too much. The odds are always stacked against us in the game so long as we don't have the lead. The ONLY way that changes is if we're in front.

Even if you only have "one" shot, have you ever been in a fight? The first punch is often the only clean one.

But, if that first punch misses, the counter punch is usually wide open. Regardless, a football game isn't a fist fight.

 

[SU68]

If we win the toss, I would bet my ballsack that shafer defers.

Because that's what he does. He's soft.

A lot of teams do this and I've never understood why. :noidea:

 

[Halfmooncuse]

Take the wind!

 

[OttoinGrotto]

But, if that first punch misses, the counter punch is usually wide open. Regardless, a football game isn't a fist fight.

I'm saying - against LSU, their counter punch is always there because their team is stacked.

I know football isn't a fist fight, but it also isn't a war with soldiers. We're all just trying to make sense of fat guys crashing in to each other at high speeds.

 

[OrangePA]

Millhouse wants a trick play

Actually Millhouse has been spending all week reviewing the data.

He has come up with the following scripted Orange game plan:

The man is just super smart.

 

[HeaterCuse22]

Def going to deep to Ismael or Estime, right?

You mean the series after we run the opening kick back?

 

[Macky44]

Nah, playing a loser's game is taking your one shot right out of the gate when the odds are completely stacked against you... which I've said is the case with Wilson/Mahoney at QB. It's much smarter to try to force the game to be won in the 4th quarter than having it lost in the 1st.

I've qualified each of my posts in this thread stating that if Dungey is at QB, I'd say go for it. Even though the results may be the same as Wilson/Mahoney, given his really small sample size thus far I'd take that chance.

He apparently likes to blow his load right off the bat...

 

[rrlbees]

If we win the toss, I would bet my ballsack that shafer defers. Because that's what he does. He's soft.

Deferring is the opposite of soft.

 

[retro44]

By the tone of some of the posts I get the impression that some here want to win the toss and then walk off and forfeit. This kids are pumped and will play their hearts out.

 

[LAOrange]

If we get the ball, I'd love to start the game with a play action, deep route. Let them know we aren't scared to throw the ball with Mahoney.

Well, that our coaches aren't scared of throwing the ball, anyway.

Lester said he corrected his mechanics. That said, I watched Mahoney's tape and that kid can throw the ball downfield.

 

[SUskibum]

Me, I'd rather take the ball and get the first TD and play with the lead, but I'm just a stone cold assassin like that.

Well I am pretty sure our Defense/Special teams combo has a good chance of outscoring our Offense in this game, so deferring would in fact give us the best chance to play with a lead? :noidea:

 

[bee rye]

If I was Schafer, I am taking the ball first. And on the first drive, I am pulling out all the stops. Best chance of victory is to get a lead and hold on for dear life. That is how you slow down Fournette

 

[tipphill]

lsu would be stupid to defer---if they do,they will apply the pressure immediately ---this is the best chance to creatively score

 

[LAOrange]

lsu would be stupid to defer---if they do,they will apply the pressure immediately ---this is the best chance to creatively score

No creativity to it. LSU will receive and I guarantee that Fournette gets the ball 6 out of the first 8 possessions.