Why is this the subject of debate? When you have a big lead you don't continue to pass.

[DarthCat]

I am seeing detailed points arguing as to the strength or lack thereof of EIU, the true reason for which is to argue whether it was valuable to have Thorson continue to throw despite a 41-0 lead. I am seeing posts with posters 'hoping' we get a big lead so Thorson can work on his passing game. What?!?!

When, ever, has anyone seen any team continue to run a pass heavy attack when it has a huge lead? I am not even talking about whether or not Fitz is "too conservative" as he's NEVER done that, but I cannot think of any team in recent memory where they have done so. Up big, you want the game over. You want to run out the clock and not give your opponent any time to come back. Why would a team continue passing, risking incompletions which stop the clock and lengthen the game. As it was, that game was over three hours long with all the clock stops due to our scoring. You wanted our team out there longer than that in a game that was clearly won, thereby risking injury by running plays unneeded to win the game? I don't get it.

Every team at every level has had young quarterbacks that needed to get experience to live up to their potential. Yet I cannot think of any situation where a team put its young QB in a position to keep passing the ball with a huge lead in a game. Yet all these teams are somehow able to develop young, inexperienced QBs into veteran, talented upper classmen. Now admittedly, I don't watch a ton of college football games. Can someone please give me an example of a young, inexperienced QB playing in a game when his team was way up, and being given a pass heavy package to continue to run?

 

[FeliSilvestris]

I am seeing detailed points arguing as to the strength or lack thereof of EIU, the true reason for which is to argue whether it was valuable to have Thorson continue to throw despite a 41-0 lead. I am seeing posts with posters 'hoping' we get a big lead so Thorson can work on his passing game. What?!?!

When, ever, has anyone seen any team continue to run a pass heavy attack when it has a huge lead?

Maybe when a team has three untested QB's none with significant playing time, and the team takes advantage of the opportunity as a live practice/scrimmage against competition that is not its own scout team???

Just a thought.

 

[shakes3858]

Utah was up 14 against Fresno and threw a TD with like 9 seconds to go. Not saying it was a good move just that's it happened.

 

[IGNORE2]

I am seeing detailed points arguing as to the strength or lack thereof of EIU, the true reason for which is to argue whether it was valuable to have Thorson continue to throw despite a 41-0 lead. I am seeing posts with posters 'hoping' we get a big lead so Thorson can work on his passing game. What?!?!

When, ever, has anyone seen any team continue to run a pass heavy attack when it has a huge lead? I am not even talking about whether or not Fitz is "too conservative" as he's NEVER done that, but I cannot think of any team in recent memory where they have done so. Up big, you want the game over. You want to run out the clock and not give your opponent any time to come back. Why would a team continue passing, risking incompletions which stop the clock and lengthen the game. As it was, that game was over three hours long with all the clock stops due to our scoring. You wanted our team out there longer than that in a game that was clearly won, thereby risking injury by running plays unneeded to win the game? I don't get it.

Every team at every level has had young quarterbacks that needed to get experience to live up to their potential. Yet I cannot think of any situation where a team put its young QB in a position to keep passing the ball with a huge lead in a game. Yet all these teams are somehow able to develop young, inexperienced QBs into veteran, talented upper classmen. Now admittedly, I don't watch a ton of college football games. Can someone please give me an example of a young, inexperienced QB playing in a game when his team was way up, and being given a pass heavy package to continue to run?

Great research question and not a slow day for me. But I think it happens frequently - especially considering the limitations to practice time and require starter turnover due to eligibility limits.

I know Arizona continued to pile it on my Bears this past Sunday.

 

[hdhntr1]

I am seeing detailed points arguing as to the strength or lack thereof of EIU, the true reason for which is to argue whether it was valuable to have Thorson continue to throw despite a 41-0 lead. I am seeing posts with posters 'hoping' we get a big lead so Thorson can work on his passing game. What?!?!

When, ever, has anyone seen any team continue to run a pass heavy attack when it has a huge lead? I am not even talking about whether or not Fitz is "too conservative" as he's NEVER done that, but I cannot think of any team in recent memory where they have done so. Up big, you want the game over. You want to run out the clock and not give your opponent any time to come back. Why would a team continue passing, risking incompletions which stop the clock and lengthen the game. As it was, that game was over three hours long with all the clock stops due to our scoring. You wanted our team out there longer than that in a game that was clearly won, thereby risking injury by running plays unneeded to win the game? I don't get it.

Every team at every level has had young quarterbacks that needed to get experience to live up to their potential. Yet I cannot think of any situation where a team put its young QB in a position to keep passing the ball with a huge lead in a game. Yet all these teams are somehow able to develop young, inexperienced QBs into veteran, talented upper classmen. Now admittedly, I don't watch a ton of college football games. Can someone please give me an example of a young, inexperienced QB playing in a game when his team was way up, and being given a pass heavy package to continue to run?

The old statement that if you pass, three things can happen and two of them are bad comes to mind. I also have not seen a situation where the first string QB would use getting a big lead as the time to develop passing skills.

 

[hdhntr1]

Great research question and not a slow day for me. But I think it happens frequently - especially considering the limitations to practice time and require starter turnover due to eligibility limits.

I know Arizona continued to pile it on my Bears this past Sunday.

But they did not wait until they had the lead. They just continued what they were doing.

 

[DarthCat]

Maybe when a team has three untested QB's none with significant playing time, and the team takes advantage of the opportunity as a live practice/scrimmage against competition that is not its own scout team???

Just a thought.

So, basically any time a team loses a multi year starter, you think this this happening? Because any time there is a loss of a veteran quarterback who has been a starter for multiple seasons, the team is left with "untested QB's, none with significant playing time". Every single team. Yet still, the scenario you describe doesn't happen. Still don't have an example of ever seeing it.

What you are describing is a team that dominates a game running the ball as we did, gets a huge lead doing so, and THEN starts passing more frequently in order to "take advantage of the opportunity as a live practice/scrimmage against competition that is not its own scout team."

Please, just one. Give me one example where that scenario has occurred. I am not looking for an example where a qb has thrown a pass once the game was out of reach. That's not what you're suggesting. I'm looking for an example of a run dominant team that built a huge lead, and THEN increased the frequency of it's passing plays in the 4th quarter for 'practice'.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

Give me one example where that scenario has occurred.

Why on earth do I have to find you examples? I couldn't care less whether it has happened or not. The question is whether it makes sense for US to do it or not. And the answer is it makes TONS of sense.

We have an opponent that is down 30-40 pts. We have THREE QB's with very little playing experience. We have very little to lose by allowing our untested QB's (starter or reserves) just to run a normal playbook. It's not just passes. There can be option plays, and some running plays. Just a normal offense.

If for some strange reason it starts backfiring and the opponent mounts some kind of comeback we can always change the strategy. With a 5 TD or more lead you can afford to take some risks.

 

[NUCat320]

So, basically any time a team loses a multi year starter, you think this this happening? Because any time there is a loss of a veteran quarterback who has been a starter for multiple seasons, the team is left with "untested QB's, none with significant playing time". Every single team. Yet still, the scenario you describe doesn't happen. Still don't have an example of ever seeing it.

What you are describing is a team that dominates a game running the ball as we did, gets a huge lead doing so, and THEN starts passing more frequently in order to "take advantage of the opportunity as a live practice/scrimmage against competition that is not its own scout team."

Please, just one. Give me one example where that scenario has occurred. I am not looking for an example where a qb has thrown a pass once the game was out of reach. That's not what you're suggesting. I'm looking for an example of a run dominant team that built a huge lead, and THEN increased the frequency of it's passing plays in the 4th quarter for 'practice'.

I didn't watch Mississippi put up 70 points about 10 days ago, or 70 the week before that, but I assume that there was some passing in the second half of those games. Mississippi has a quarterback seeing his first D1 action after two years in JuCo ball.

I did see Mississippi beat Alabama in Tuscaloosa three days ago. Did they put up 40-plus points because of dumb luck and Alabama's own sloppiness? Maybe. Could keeping the foot on the gas pedal in their previous two games have contributed? Maybe, as well.

 

[NUCat320]

Why on earth do I have to find you examples? I couldn't care less whether it has happened or not. The question is whether it makes sense for US to do it or not. And the answer is it makes TONS of sense.

We have an opponent that is down 30-40 pts. We have THREE QB's with very little playing experience. We have very little to lose by allowing our untested QB's (starter or reserves) just to run a normal playbook. It's not just passes. There can be option plays, and some running plays. Just a normal offense.

If for some strange reason it starts backfiring and the opponent mounts some kind of comeback we can always change the strategy. With a 5 TD or more lead you can afford to take some risks.

Felis, you're a genius!

 

[DarthCat]

Oh, so you're a visionary. A genius as NUCat320 thinks, advocating a plan that seems just have been 'missed' by the majority of the coaching community.

Why not run passes and your full playbook, including the option, in a game that has already been decided? I dunno, maybe to not subject your QB to injury on a blitz or hit on an option play by a team that doesn't want to be shown up any worse than they already have been? Probably why the QBs wear those bright red shirts or different colors in practice, so they aren't getting jacked by their own team as they 'practice'.

But you're right, they should get such practice in in a game that's already been won against an opponent who feels they are being disrespected by being used as scout team practice. Sure, that's a great environment for any of your QBs to develop, in a live tackle exercise.

 

[d'son d]

Think Hayden fry as well as the old Nebraska teams ... thats who runs up the score !!!

 

[DarthCat]

Think Hayden fry as well as the old Nebraska teams ... thats who runs up the score !!!

Question was never asking "who runs up the score" or denying teams do it. But thanks.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

..advocating a plan that seems just have been 'missed' by the majority of the coaching community.

YOU are the one saying that it has been missed by the majority of the coaching community...as others have pointed out to you, just look at lopsided games...it isn't that rare to find scores into the 60's, 70's, and even more occasionally...You may start with the Portland St. Delaware St game in 1980 (hint: total score added up to 105 and one of the teams did not score at all!), or the 1995 Florida State 77, North Carolina State 17, the 1997 Florida 82, CMU 6, the 2002 Oklahoma 68, UTEP 0, the 2003 Oklahoma 77 A&M 0, or more recently the 2012 OkSU 84, Savannah St. 0 (the famous Ga Tech 222, Cumberland 0 it's probably too old to deserve consideration)...those should get you started but you can surely find many more like those...It's a safe bet that in those and similar blowouts the winning team kept playing their normal playbook...probably with many of the 2nd/3rd stringers in the game, but normal nonetheless...seems to work for a lot of teams.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

YOU are the one saying that it has been missed by the majority of the coaching community...as others have pointed out to you, just look at lopsided games...it isn't that rare to find scores into the 60's, 70's, and even more occasionally...You may start with the Portland St. Delaware St game in 1980 (hint: total score added up to 105 and one of the teams did not score at all!), or the 1995 Florida State 77, North Carolina State 17, the 1997 Florida 82, CMU 6, the 2002 Oklahoma 68, UTEP 0, the 2003 Oklahoma 77 A&M 0, or more recently the 2012 OkSU 84, Savannah St. 0 (the famous Ga Tech 222, Cumberland 0 it's probably too old to deserve consideration)...

A few additional recent ones:
TCU 82, TxT 27 -- 2014
North Carolina 80, Old Dominion 20 -- 2013
Florida State 80, Idaho 14 -- 2013
==>> Wisconsin 83, Indiana 20 -- 2010

 

[Hungry Jack]

Great research question and not a slow day for me. But I think it happens frequently - especially considering the limitations to practice time and require starter turnover due to eligibility limits.

I know Arizona continued to pile it on my Bears this past Sunday.

LOL. The Bears are so inept, they made it look like the Cards were running up the score.

 

[shakes3858]

Ga Tech 222, Cumberland 0 i

Now you're showing your true stupidity. Cumberland had dropped their football program but Georgia Tech refused to let them out of their contracted game and wanted a 3000 buyout because coach John Heisman was mad that the Cumberland baseball team beat Georgia Tech 22-0 using pros as ringed. Cumberlands former equipment manager put together a makeshift team of 12 of his fraternity brothers to play the game.

Now here's why you're really stupid. You're using this game to argue that it's ok to pass the ball to get the QB some work in a game no matter the level of the opponent. Look at the box score. Georgia Tech had 40 carries for 978 yards. Ready for Gtech's passing stats? They were 0-0 for 0 yards 0 TDs although GTech can hang their hat on throw 0 interceptions in their 0 passes.

Basically, Georgia Tech kicked off. Cumberland went 3 and out and punted. Gtech handed off the ball and the tailback waltzed in for a TD. Gtech kicked off and Cumberland fumbled and Gtech ran in. This cycle basically repeated itself. On the 40 carries, Gtech had 32 rushing TDs. They didn't feel a need to pass the ball one time to give anyone experience at running the offense.

And as far as running up the score? Heisman even shortened the quarters in the second half.

 

[d'son d]

Thanks for the history lesson Shakes. see, you can always learn something every day. Some of the score run-ups as they were in the past was trying to impress bowl selection committees that they were a great team (see the score we made?). Yes, this board never ceases to amaze me with what little tid bts are found, real gems (seriously) like the history of the 222-0 game. But Iowa and Nebraska back in the day were trerrible about running it up, especially our bowl loss where 66 points(?) were put up.

 

[mikewebb68]

Thanks for the history lesson Shakes. see, you can always learn something every day. Some of the score run-ups as they were in the past was trying to impress bowl selection committees that they were a great team (see the score we made?). Yes, this board never ceases to amaze me with what little tid bts are found, real gems (seriously) like the history of the 222-0 game. But Iowa and Nebraska back in the day were trerrible about running it up, especially our bowl loss where 66 points(?) were put up.

And you have to remember that, in the days when there were less bowls, you ran it up to impress the smaller pool of bowl scouts. Nowadays, every winning team makes a bowl, and running up the score is not even rewarded in the football playoff selection process, So comparing scores from decades ago to now is truly an apples to oranges comparison.

 

[MRCat95]

I am seeing detailed points arguing as to the strength or lack thereof of EIU, the true reason for which is to argue whether it was valuable to have Thorson continue to throw despite a 41-0 lead. I am seeing posts with posters 'hoping' we get a big lead so Thorson can work on his passing game. What?!?!

When, ever, has anyone seen any team continue to run a pass heavy attack when it has a huge lead? I am not even talking about whether or not Fitz is "too conservative" as he's NEVER done that, but I cannot think of any team in recent memory where they have done so. Up big, you want the game over. You want to run out the clock and not give your opponent any time to come back. Why would a team continue passing, risking incompletions which stop the clock and lengthen the game. As it was, that game was over three hours long with all the clock stops due to our scoring. You wanted our team out there longer than that in a game that was clearly won, thereby risking injury by running plays unneeded to win the game? I don't get it.

Every team at every level has had young quarterbacks that needed to get experience to live up to their potential. Yet I cannot think of any situation where a team put its young QB in a position to keep passing the ball with a huge lead in a game. Yet all these teams are somehow able to develop young, inexperienced QBs into veteran, talented upper classmen. Now admittedly, I don't watch a ton of college football games. Can someone please give me an example of a young, inexperienced QB playing in a game when his team was way up, and being given a pass heavy package to continue to run?

Perhaps (and only perhaps) you pass on 3rd and intermediate-to-long to try to keep a drive alive, but that's it. Of course, that situation didn't arrive against EIU as our 4th, 5th and 6th string RBs ran roughshod through EIU on 1st and 2nd down.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

Now you're showing your true stupidity. Cumberland had dropped their football program but Georgia Tech refused to let them out of their contracted game and wanted a 3000 buyout because coach John Heisman was mad that the Cumberland baseball team beat Georgia Tech 22-0 using pros as ringed.

You are having reading problems, right?
Here is what I wrote about that game, now in capital letters so that it is easier for you to notice:

(THE FAMOUS GA TECH 222, CUMBERLAND 0 IS PROBABLY TOO OLD TO DESERVE CONSIDERATION)

What part of "too old to deserve consideration" don't you understand?

I even put it within parenthesis to emphasize it wasn't part of the main example list, but wanted to mention it as it is a famous blowout.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

And you have to remember that, in the days when there were less bowls, you ran it up to impress the smaller pool of bowl scouts. Nowadays, every winning team makes a bowl, and running up the score is not even rewarded in the football playoff selection process, So comparing scores from decades ago to now is truly an apples to oranges comparison.

What about scores from the past few seasons...are they also too old?
What about this past season (2014)?
Here are some of those mentioned:
Oklahoma 68, UTEP 0 (2002)
Oklahoma 77, A&M 0 (2003)
==>> Wisconsin 83, Indiana 20 (2010)
OkSU 84, Savannah St. 0 (2012)
North Carolina 80, Old Dominion 20 (2013)
Florida State 80, Idaho 14 (2013)
TCU 82, TxT 27 (2014)

Anyway, I doubt that a team needed to go as high as 80 pts to impress bowl committees...If the victim was a decent team, just beating them by 35+ pts (5 TD's) should have been impressive enough....and if the victim was a much weaker team (often the blowout is by an FBS team against an FCS/IAA opponent) the committees wouldn't bother to consider it, in all likelihood.

 

[Windy City Cat Fan]

Wisconsin pounded NU 70 to 24 or so not that long ago. I recall several passes and passing touchdowns even well into the second half after the game was well in hand and obviously Wisconsin is a run oriented program. Then again why should anyone care whether it has been done before. If coaches only did things other coaches did before sports in general would be a drag. No one is saying open up the full playbook or pass 20 straight downs. The thought is you have very few career passing attempts on your roster, which is pretty unusual as even when starters leave other programs the next guys up usually have had some mop up experience. Why not give Aviliti 3 to 5 passes and same with Oliver - I still see no downside to that. Fitzgerald was willing to "run up the score" anyway with Hruby.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

Wisconsin pounded NU 70 to 24 or so not that long ago. I recall several passes and passing touchdowns even well into the second half after the game was well in hand and obviously Wisconsin is a run oriented program. Then again why should anyone care whether it has been done before.

Wiscky 70-23 NU (2010) to be exact.
Also IOA 62-10 NU (2002)
NU 61-21 Ill (2000)
Neb 66-17 NU (2000)
Others somewhat closer but still big blowout losses in the modern era include:
PSU 49- 0 NU (2002)
OSU 48-7 NU (2005)
And just before GB took over, NU was outscored by 111 pts (139-28) over 2 consecutive games against MSU and Ill.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

Now you're showing your true stupidity. Cumberland had dropped their football program but Georgia Tech refused to let them out of their contracted game and wanted a 3000 buyout because coach John Heisman was mad that the Cumberland baseball team beat Georgia Tech 22-0 using pros as ringed. Cumberlands former equipment manager put together a makeshift team of 12 of his fraternity brothers to play the game.

Now here's why you're really stupid. You're using this game to argue that it's ok to pass the ball to get the QB some work in a game no matter the level of the opponent. Look at the box score. Georgia Tech had 40 carries for 978 yards. Ready for Gtech's passing stats? They were 0-0 for 0 yards 0 TDs although GTech can hang their hat on throw 0 interceptions in their 0 passes.

Basically, Georgia Tech kicked off. Cumberland went 3 and out and punted. Gtech handed off the ball and the tailback waltzed in for a TD. Gtech kicked off and Cumberland fumbled and Gtech ran in. This cycle basically repeated itself. On the 40 carries, Gtech had 32 rushing TDs. They didn't feel a need to pass the ball one time to give anyone experience at running the offense.

And as far as running up the score? Heisman even shortened the quarters in the second half.

You broke your own advice and responded!

I guess he gets a pass on this one because of his qualifying comment that it may be to OLD to be considered. Forget the fact that GT did the opposite of what he advocates.

 

[shakes3858]

You broke your own advice and responded!

I guess he gets a pass on this one because of his qualifying comment that it may be to OLD to be considered. Forget the fact that GT did the opposite of what he advocates.

I just really like that story though. It's the story of an equipment manager getting 12 fraternity brothers together to form a rag tag team and going against a team that would eventually finish the year 8-0-1. It's like the story of necessary roughness... except they didn't win in some heroic heart warming fashion... they got murdered.

 

[hdhntr1]

YOU are the one saying that it has been missed by the majority of the coaching community...as others have pointed out to you, just look at lopsided games...it isn't that rare to find scores into the 60's, 70's, and even more occasionally...You may start with the Portland St. Delaware St game in 1980 (hint: total score added up to 105 and one of the teams did not score at all!), or the 1995 Florida State 77, North Carolina State 17, the 1997 Florida 82, CMU 6, the 2002 Oklahoma 68, UTEP 0, the 2003 Oklahoma 77 A&M 0, or more recently the 2012 OkSU 84, Savannah St. 0 (the famous Ga Tech 222, Cumberland 0 it's probably too old to deserve consideration)...those should get you started but you can surely find many more like those...It's a safe bet that in those and similar blowouts the winning team kept playing their normal playbook...probably with many of the 2nd/3rd stringers in the game, but normal nonetheless...seems to work for a lot of teams.

Many of those were not passing to run up those scores. Probably had third string QB, running backs etc