Stover?

[1987alum]

In the MCB, we forced it downfield more in the first half and it netted us two INT's. When we went back to playing within the offense, we ground it out on them and we won the football game.

Not to pick a nit, but wasn't one of those INTs an ill-advised pass by Cole Magner? What a rotten time to get cute; that play almost caused my head to explode.[/url]

[BelieveNBG]

<<Bad throws or not, we had a lot more success against Northwestern and Toledo when we played the shorter stuff and hit the longer passes when the defenses pulled up. I'm not unsympathetic to the view that we could have looked downfield more often against OU than we did, but I won't second guess anyone taking that approach with a first time starter at QB.

I guess for me the bottom line is that we did have a strategy in place to win against OSU and OU. Some folks may not agree with it and that's fine, that's what boards like this are for, but we did have a notion of how we would win the football games in question. >>

Even at Northwestern and Toledo we tended to mix in some longer throws along with the short throws alot more often than at OU. New QB could be the reason. As for bottom line, it appeared that we played the "play not to lose strategy" and not the "play to win strategy". I prefer the play the win style myself and then if you lose, you leave the game knowing that you gave it all you had.

[kdog27]

Even at Northwestern and Toledo we tended to mix in some longer throws along with the short throws alot more often than at OU. New QB could be the reason. As for bottom line, it appeared that we played the "play not to lose strategy" and not the "play to win strategy". I prefer the play the win style myself and then if you lose, you leave the game knowing that you gave it all you had.

That's precisely how I feel. Play to win. I think games like this our often overcoached.