• The KillerFrogs

Gameday Thread: Sooners vs Horned Frogs

T

TCUWIN

Active Member
Moose Stuff said:
Everybody on here blasting GP and yet we were one play away from winning a game that none of you truly expected to win. Maybe a bunch of the stuff he did tonight was way more right than you're giving him credit for.
Click to expand...
I agree that we were one play away from winning a game very few expected to win. So why not be disappointed when we lose that game when we had a slim chance to win? His defense did great. The team played with great effort. The questioning comes in the dumb decision to go for two in the third and the decision to go for two to win the game. I guess I just look at it from the perspective of the players. If they win this game, they are playing in 6  days for a conference championship and potentially a NY6 bowl. Instead we lose another game and now play Baylor for positioning for the best of the rest bowl games. Not as satisfying after beginning the year in championship conversations. 
 
S

smufrogger

Active Member
Going for two is at best a 50/50 proposition there. If we go to overtime I give frogs an 80% win. Sorry- but as the fourth quarter went- we should have been confident to go to ot. No reason not to be looking for ot in this game
 
TCURiggs

TCURiggs

Active Member
Pharm Frog said:
Okay...would it still be possible to win on Friday if we played only 2 OT sessions? Or one? I said it sounds excuse-ish and it does to me. And an unnecessary justification at that. He has already handled the question well.
Click to expand...
 
Of course it would still be possible to beat them, but it also makes a ton of sense that he didn't want to send his guys back out there for an unknown extra amount of plays/time with a short turnaround. You seem to be a really smart guy, so I'm surprised that you don't see the logic in that. It seems pretty simple... go for the win and don't risk any extra fatigue/injury.
 
M

Mean Purple

Active Member
I just listened to GP on the radio with Brian on the TCU Wrap Up. And now, not only do I still think it was a horrible call to go for two, I'm ticked about the reason. He said they have a standing rule that when they are on the road and the other team does not have timeouts, they go for 2.  Stupid Rule. And I trust him at his word. The philosophy is totally void of evaluating each situation. Our Offense was owning them after the qb change...and the defense was bowing up stomping. Overtime was on our side. I'll get over this tomorrow. But I'm staying ticked for now. He then went on to say that you can't turn the ball over and expect to win in Norman. That line does not work so much on this one. Because we could have kicked for the tie and over time. Geez! It is like it did not even occur to him.
 
Our Frogs fought too hard to get screwed by a bad low percentage call. And had we gotten the two, I would have still said it was a bad call. We lost to both schools from the North. So, even though we played OU better than Baylor did, BU will likely go to a better bowl even if we beat Baylor.
 
The fact that Patterson is too stubborn to see the problem with his "rule" irks me. Our SRs should not have that happen to them. 
 
R

Reptilian

Active Member
Bloated Frog said:
This x 1 million. I thought it was idiotic at the time...dumb decision.
Click to expand...
Hahaha. Irony considering your post was idiotic at the time...dumb decision. Are you an emotional 15 year old school girl. LOL. Grow some hair.
 
M

Moose Stuff

Active Member
smufrogger said:
Going for two is at best a 50/50 proposition there. If we go to overtime I give frogs an 80% win. Sorry- but as the fourth quarter went- we should have been confident to go to ot. No reason not to be looking for ot in this game
Click to expand...
Why is it 50/50 there but 80% in overtime? I'd love see you quantify that.
 
M

Mean Purple

Active Member
You don't worry about a short turn around, TCUR., you worry about winning the game at hand. And based on what he told Brian in the wrap up show, he was not thinking about next week. Heck, because of his rule, he was not thinking about much.
 
TCURiggs

TCURiggs

Active Member
Mean Purple said:
I just listened to GP on the radio with Brian on the TCU Wrap Up. And now, not only do I still think it was a horrible call to go for two, I'm ticked about the reason. He said they have a standing rule that when they are on the road and the other team does not have timeouts, they go for 2.  Stupid Rule. And I trust him at his word. The philosophy is totally void of evaluating each situation. Our Offense was owning them after the qb change...and the defense was bowing up stomping. Overtime was on our side. I'll get over this tomorrow. But I'm staying ticked for now. He then went on to say that you can't turn the ball over and expect to win in Norman. That line does not work so much on this one. Because we could have kicked for the tie and over time. Geez! It is like it did not even occur to him.
 
Our Frogs fought too hard to get screwed by a bad low percentage call. And had we gotten the two, I would have still said it was a bad call. We lost to both schools from the North. So, even though we played OU better than Baylor did, BU will likely go to a better bowl even if we beat Baylor.
 
The fact that Patterson is too stubborn to see the problem with his "rule" irks me. Our SRs should not have that happen to them. 
Click to expand...
 
I've enjoyed your posts since you made your debut on here, but you're off the rails tonight. Did you not see his quote about "there wasn't a single player on that sideline that didn't want to go for it"? They were trying to win the game and get the darn out of Norman. It didn't work out, but it has every other time I can think of (@Boise and @WVU). Just have a drink and appreciate what they did tonight.
 
Pharm Frog

Pharm Frog

Full Member
TCURiggs said:
 
Of course it would still be possible to beat them, but it also makes a ton of sense that he didn't want to send his guys back out there for an unknown extra amount of plays/time with a short turnaround. You seem to be a really smart guy, so I'm surprised that you don't see the logic in that. It seems pretty simple... go for the win and don't risk any extra fatigue/injury.
Click to expand...
No. GP's quote says it would be impossible. Like there's really no decision to be made at all. I think he felt like the best opp to win was right there with OU in shell shock and stadium puckered. I don't think he was doing the math on # of days, potential # of plays defended or anything like that. A follow up question may have clarified: "Coach... If 3 OTs concerned you, why not wait to go for two at the end of the first OT if necessary?"
 
TCURiggs

TCURiggs

Active Member
Pharm Frog said:
No. GP's quote says it would be impossible. Like there's really no decision to be made at all. I think he felt like the best opp to win was right there with OU in shell shock and stadium puckered. I don't think he was doing the math on # of days, potential # of plays defended or anything like that. A follow up question may have clarified: "Coach... If 3 OTs concerned you, why not wait to go for two at the end of the first OT if necessary?"
Click to expand...
 
So you think everything GP says should be taken literally? Ha. The OT thing had obviously crossed his mind or else he wouldn't have thrown it out there. I think we all know he isn't a silver-tongued fox that could come up with an excuse like that on the spot in front of a mic. I usually agree with most of your opinions, but we'll just have to chalk this one up as a difference of opinions. 
 
OmniscienceFrog

OmniscienceFrog

Full Member
Pharm Frog said:
Because everyone knows you absolutely must have seven days after a 3OT game to have any chance of winning. I liked the decision and the play call. Should have left it with "we went for the win because that's what we do". I'll never believe (and nobody else would either) that the coaches huddled quickly and said..."Damn...we have a game in five days that we can't win if we go to OT here."
Click to expand...
Did he say the coaches huddled?  I missed that.
 
pastorfrog

pastorfrog

Active Member
Mean Purple said:
Patterson's stubborn refusal to make the obvious decision cost the Frogs huge. Every year he finds a way to do that. You go for 1. And win you could not get 1 earlier...you most certainly go for 1 there. Goodbye conference championship. Goodbye major bowl shot.
He needs to apologize to the team. He blew it. They worked too hard to risk it on a low percentage play. We were owning OU at the end of the game and stood a way better chance with overtime...which we would not have needed had he gone for 1 earlier. [/quote

So wrong. Just stop.
Click to expand...
 
BABYFACE

BABYFACE

Full Member
Just to play the what if game: If TCU gets the 2, OU still has time to get within FG range. Not saying they do or don't, but just something I was thinking about when TCU lined up for 2.
 

Latest posts

Top