Jump to content

Do you lay up on 15?


Norm Peterson

Lay up on 15 or go for it?  

24 members have voted

  1. 1. Lay up on 15 or go for it?

    • I'm taking the risk and going for the eagle.
      15
    • I'm making a safe play and laying up.
      9


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, royalfan said:

 

That is absolutely the correct answer!!

Yes, it is.

 

In football, I think you should go for two as early as possible...when you know you eventually need to go for 2...IE down 15 or down 18 or Down 22 before a score....because if you miss the 2 pointer, you know what you need to do to catch up....if you wait until the last seconds, there is no chance to recover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based ont the 2 point conversion talk:

 

Also, in basketball, I think coaches wait too long before implementing the fouling technique and are forced to foul generally the best foul shooters on the opposing team.

 

If you start selectively fouling (once you are in the bonus) players that are below average FT shooters, I think you can make more progress and hurt the other teams rhytmn more than doing it with less than minute to go.

 

Also, I would teach my players that player x and player Y are to be blitzed when they catch it...we are trying for a steal, but if we get a foul, we don't care....


I would start this at the 4 minute Mark in a 10-15 point game,,,,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Blindcheck said:

Yes, it is.

 

In football, I think you should go for two as early as possible...when you know you eventually need to go for 2...IE down 15 or down 18 or Down 22 before a score....because if you miss the 2 pointer, you know what you need to do to catch up....if you wait until the last seconds, there is no chance to recover.

 

bingo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, royalfan said:

 

bingo

An example I have seen so many times and never understood why coaches wouldn't do it.

 

regardless of time of the game, a team is down by 8...they score a touchdown to make it a 2 point game and kick the XP...so as an example, it is 14-6 and then after the XP is 14-13....

 

the game goes on and neither team scores again...and the final score is 14-13...why wouldn't you always tie a game when you have the chance...even if it is in the first quarter...you never know, that might be the last time either team has a chance to score.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PimpMario said:

Life isn't about money or playing it safe.  You go for it.  Plus if you mess up surely you will make it before running out of balls.  And by finishing high enough you will qualify for next year's event.

 

We could use a Kevin Costner as coach.

 

Definitely GO FOR IT! You only have but 1 life to live. Be bold. Be daring. Be original.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Blindcheck said:

An example I have seen so many times and never understood why coaches wouldn't do it.

 

regardless of time of the game, a team is down by 8...they score a touchdown to make it a 2 point game and kick the XP...so as an example, it is 14-6 and then after the XP is 14-13....

 

the game goes on and neither team scores again...and the final score is 14-13...why wouldn't you always tie a game when you have the chance...even if it is in the first quarter...you never know, that might be the last time either team has a chance to score.

 

 

I've also seen the other side of it where they don't get it and then they keep trying to play catch up and leave a lot of points off the board as a result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/15/2019 at 5:03 PM, AuroranHusker said:

 

Nebraska vs Oregon in 2016. Huskers won 35-32 because the Ducks went for 2 & missed a bunch of times.....

 

 

In this game, were they going for two regardless...or trying to tie the game at a particular time.

 

To me it is different, if your strategy is to always go for two or you are actively trying to tie a game or catch up in a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Blindcheck said:

In this game, were they going for two regardless...or trying to tie the game at a particular time.

 

To me it is different, if your strategy is to always go for two or you are actively trying to tie a game or catch up in a game.

 

It's going for 2. That was the point of this discussion, as far as I understood it.

 

No idea why Oregon did... they made the 1st then never did again. Stupid in that case.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer my own question, I think you have to go for it.

 

This was brought up, so let's be clear: money isn't an object. You're a pro golfer; you had to win in order to qualify to play in the Masters. So, assume that the difference between finishing 2nd and finishing 5th (or whatever) isn't a large enough difference to be determinative. You have the money. BTN has paid something like $55 million to have their logo on your shirt, so money is not the issue. You have the money.

 

If you lay up, you're effectively giving up a shot at the Green Jacket and are playing for 2nd because the leaders behind you are probably going to come through and birdie this hole. You have to figure out a way to get up and down from 235 yards out, right here and now on #15, if you have any hope of catching the leaders.

 

It's worth the risk because the number of times you've been in this position before (zero) is likely a reflection of the number of times you're likely to ever get there again. And when you have a legit shot at putting yourself among the leaders late in the day on Sunday at August National, you have to take it.

 

I should mention this: when I said you'd never been in contention at a major championship before, that wasn't actually true. You have been in contention before, but it was many years ago.

 

In 1986, you made the tourney but missed the cut.  You also played but missed the cut in 1993, 1998 and 2014.

 

But, in 1991, you briefly held the lead on the front nine on Saturday before picking up a quad-bogey on 12 from which you never recovered. In 1992, you made the cut again, but you never seriously challenged for the lead.  Same thing in 1994.

 

So, once in the last 33 years, you had a taste of what being a leader on the course at the Masters was like.

 

You're not in this position often.  You gotta go for it.  Because it might be a long damn time before the circumstances line up again where you have a chance to pull even with the leaders on Sunday at the Masters.

 

Two shots off the lead, with a chance to be putting for eagle on #15 on Sunday at the Masters, you'd be an idiot to pass up that opportunity. You don't lay up.  Even if it doesn't work out and your ball winds up wet, you'll know it was still the right decision because you were playing to win, not playing to not lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

To answer my own question, I think you have to go for it.

 

This was brought up, so let's be clear: money isn't an object. You're a pro golfer; you had to win in order to qualify to play in the Masters. So, assume that the difference between finishing 2nd and finishing 5th (or whatever) isn't a large enough difference to be determinative. You have the money. BTN has paid something like $55 million to have their logo on your shirt, so money is not the issue. You have the money.

 

If you lay up, you're effectively giving up a shot at the Green Jacket and are playing for 2nd because the leaders behind you are probably going to come through and birdie this hole. You have to figure out a way to get up and down from 235 yards out, right here and now on #15, if you have any hope of catching the leaders.

 

It's worth the risk because the number of times you've been in this position before (zero) is likely a reflection of the number of times you're likely to ever get there again. And when you have a legit shot at putting yourself among the leaders late in the day on Sunday at August National, you have to take it.

 

I should mention this: when I said you'd never been in contention at a major championship before, that wasn't actually true. You have been in contention before, but it was many years ago.

 

In 1986, you made the tourney but missed the cut.  You also played but missed the cut in 1993, 1998 and 2014.

 

But, in 1991, you briefly held the lead on the front nine on Saturday before picking up a quad-bogey on 12 from which you never recovered. In 1992, you made the cut again, but you never seriously challenged for the lead.  Same thing in 1994.

 

So, once in the last 33 years, you had a taste of what being a leader on the course at the Masters was like.

 

You're not in this position often.  You gotta go for it.  Because it might be a long damn time before the circumstances line up again where you have a chance to pull even with the leaders on Sunday at the Masters.

 

Two shots off the lead, with a chance to be putting for eagle on #15 on Sunday at the Masters, you'd be an idiot to pass up that opportunity. You don't lay up.  Even if it doesn't work out and your ball winds up wet, you'll know it was still the right decision because you were playing to win, not playing to not lose.

 

So in Nebrasketball terms... what does going for it mean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hskr4life said:

So in Nebrasketball terms... what does going for it mean

 

I forgot to mention this was the 2017 Masters.

 

What "going for it" means is that certain factors have come together that have put you in position, have given you an opportunity, to do something you've never done before.  You gotta let it play out.

 

You're within 2 strokes of the lead.  And it's a risky play.  But you gotta trust your swing and hit the shot.  Because you don't get in this position often enough to not approach things as though you're going to try to win.

 

If you switch caddies, maybe you'll find a guy who does a better job of reading putts, but he might not be as good at helping you when you're between clubs and need to chose whether to hit a firm 7 or a soft 6.

 

Besides, you've changed caddies about every 6-7 years lately and you haven't gotten any better results.

 

Except now, in 2017, you're actually in contention.  You gotta try to win with what you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The golf question is missing a key piece:

What hole the leader is on relative to you.

 

Is the leader in the clubhouse? Then you could lay up, play for the short bird, trim to one and then go get a birdie on the last 3 holes. (Probably 18.) depends on what shot suits your game and eye. 

 

are you one group ahead? Then yeah, probably, you go for it, because you’re really down 3 strokes, given the guy can play 15 in 3 shots and you can’t.

 

Anyway, if this is all a metaphor for deploying no-sit conditions for Purdue instead of Iowa, then, yes, Nebraska needs to go all no-sit on the 15th hole. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. This wasn't about whether we should do a no-sit for Purdue vs. Iowa.

 

This was about a lot of things, but mostly about the people coming out of the woodwork, with the benefit of hindsight, saying we should have canned Miles 2 years ago.

 

I wanted an analogy that would capture the kind of futility we've experienced as fans of a program that has never won an NCAA tourney game.  Because that's a reality that multiple coaching changes hasn't fixed.  And if it hasn't readily worked in the past, I'm not sure what would make anyone think it would readily work the next time we try it.

 

For Pete's sake, people, we have been to only six NCAA tourneys in the last 30 years and only two of the last 25.

 

And so you're the Nebraska AD standing on the fairway of #15 trying to decide whether to lay up and fire the coach or let this thing play out.  Sure, there was a disappointing end to the '16-'17 season.  But it was a young squad with plenty of young talent.  On top of that, we had 2 transfers sitting out who were both consensus top 100 high school recruits, including the program's FIRST EVER Rivals 5-star.

 

And, though you haven't seen the transfers play yet, you have to realize the talent level is better than it's been in years. Decades, even.

 

Are you going to blow up that roster and take your chances with a coaching change? I don't think there's any way in hell you would do that.  What's it gain you to change coaches in 2017? If you do a coaching change, you start over at square one and with a lot of unknowns including probably a completely revamped roster. If you keep the coach, the absolute worst-case scenario is that you just make the coaching change a year later.  And for a program that's been around longer than any current fan has been alive, what's one more year?

 

The best-case scenario if you keep the coach is that we make the dance and win a game, with those Rivals 4- and 5-star player, which is frankly better than the best-case scenario if you change coaches. The talent was there.  There might be some rosters you'd be willing to blow up to make a coaching change, but not that one. Not if you're Nebraska. Miles had already shown you he could get you there.  And so I think you had to let it play out. See if all these Rivals 4- and 5-stars could get you into the top half of the conference and back into the Big Dance.

 

And last year, they almost did it. And this year, virtually every single one of us was confident they actually would. And most of the national media agreed.  We were ranked for several weeks for goodness' sake.  Or at least receiving votes.

 

In all probability, we wouldn't have been any of those things if we'd made a coaching change two years ago. You had to let it play out, you had to try to reach the #15 green in two.  And even if it didn't work out, it was still the right decision.  Because you were doing what gave you the best chance at that moment.

 

Even knowing what happened with Copeland's knee, I would not have traded the opportunity to see this season play out with this coach and these players in exchange for whatever the hell would have been behind door #3 two years ago.  Until Copeland's untimely injury, these players and this coach represented the best chance to get us into position to win that elusive NCAA tourney game that we've had since 1994.

 

Think about that, and then tell me again how we should have fired Miles 2 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

I forgot to mention this was the 2017 Masters.

 

What "going for it" means is that certain factors have come together that have put you in position, have given you an opportunity, to do something you've never done before.  You gotta let it play out.

 

You're within 2 strokes of the lead.  And it's a risky play.  But you gotta trust your swing and hit the shot.  Because you don't get in this position often enough to not approach things as though you're going to try to win.

 

If you switch caddies, maybe you'll find a guy who does a better job of reading putts, but he might not be as good at helping you when you're between clubs and need to chose whether to hit a firm 7 or a soft 6.

 

Besides, you've changed caddies about every 6-7 years lately and you haven't gotten any better results.

 

Except now, in 2017, you're actually in contention.  You gotta try to win with what you have.

 

Ah, Normie, you're bringing back fond memories.   I was sitting in the first row on the 17th tee when that happened.   Heard the roar when the eagle putt was made. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

No. This wasn't about whether we should do a no-sit for Purdue vs. Iowa.

 

This was about a lot of things, but mostly about the people coming out of the woodwork, with the benefit of hindsight, saying we should have canned Miles 2 years ago.

 

I wanted an analogy that would capture the kind of futility we've experienced as fans of a program that has never won an NCAA tourney game.  Because that's a reality that multiple coaching changes hasn't fixed.  And if it hasn't readily worked in the past, I'm not sure what would make anyone think it would readily work the next time we try it.

 

For Pete's sake, people, we have been to only six NCAA tourneys in the last 30 years and only two of the last 25.

 

And so you're the Nebraska AD standing on the fairway of #15 trying to decide whether to lay up and fire the coach or let this thing play out.  Sure, there was a disappointing end to the '16-'17 season.  But it was a young squad with plenty of young talent.  On top of that, we had 2 transfers sitting out who were both consensus top 100 high school recruits, including the program's FIRST EVER Rivals 5-star.

 

And, though you haven't seen the transfers play yet, you have to realize the talent level is better than it's been in years. Decades, even.

 

Are you going to blow up that roster and take your chances with a coaching change? I don't think there's any way in hell you would do that.  What's it gain you to change coaches in 2017? If you do a coaching change, you start over at square one and with a lot of unknowns including probably a completely revamped roster. If you keep the coach, the absolute worst-case scenario is that you just make the coaching change a year later.  And for a program that's been around longer than any current fan has been alive, what's one more year?

 

The best-case scenario if you keep the coach is that we make the dance and win a game, with those Rivals 4- and 5-star player, which is frankly better than the best-case scenario if you change coaches. The talent was there.  There might be some rosters you'd be willing to blow up to make a coaching change, but not that one. Not if you're Nebraska. Miles had already shown you he could get you there.  And so I think you had to let it play out. See if all these Rivals 4- and 5-stars could get you into the top half of the conference and back into the Big Dance.

 

And last year, they almost did it. And this year, virtually every single one of us was confident they actually would. And most of the national media agreed.  We were ranked for several weeks for goodness' sake.  Or at least receiving votes.

 

In all probability, we wouldn't have been any of those things if we'd made a coaching change two years ago. You had to let it play out, you had to try to reach the #15 green in two.  And even if it didn't work out, it was still the right decision.  Because you were doing what gave you the best chance at that moment.

 

Even knowing what happened with Copeland's knee, I would not have traded the opportunity to see this season play out with this coach and these players in exchange for whatever the hell would have been behind door #3 two years ago.  Until Copeland's untimely injury, these players and this coach represented the best chance to get us into position to win that elusive NCAA tourney game that we've had since 1994.

 

Think about that, and then tell me again how we should have fired Miles 2 years ago.

 

All good stuff, Norm, but a couple of critiques with the analogy.  I don't put it all on Copeland's knee.   We were playing like absolute dog crap for 3 weeks prior to his injury.   Whatever buttons coaches are supposed to push for several mill a year weren't getting pushed.   

 

And I have trouble equating what the AD did 2 years ago with going for it on 15.    Because he hedged.     Sure, he didn't fire the coach.   But he didn't exactly support him either.  In fact, "going for it" in terms of going all in with the coach and supporting him is not close to what happened with the lack of an extension and weird lack of a public statement other than a succinct tweet.   And I do think that contributed to the lack of depth in '18-19.  With a coach barely alive but twisting  in the wind, all the sudden we're only signing guys whose best offer was NU (Tom Allen excepted).   Thor, Nana, KD, are you kidding me?).      When I think of a "go for it" mentality, I think of Arnold Palmer, not SE.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...