Dan Lanning got some splain’n to do

ericd7633 said:
UW had 2 sustained drives in the 2nd half(stopped at the goal-line) and two 3 and outs. Basically a 50/50 proposition to stop them, no matter where they get the ball. Is getting two yards better than a 50/50 proposition for the Oregon offense? I'd say probably. However, the play call wasn't great.

Also UW scored so quick because of the shorter field Oregon actually had time to tie it up.
Click to expand...
Hindsight’s always 20/20, but UW started their sustained drives on the 35 and the 40. Their two 3 and out drives were at the 25 and inside the 10. I’m not giving them the opportunity of a short field knowing this. Also Oregon had turned it over on downs twice before this. again hindsight’s 20/20 but still man, it wasn’t 4th and an inch
 
Red_Alert said:
There was 2:11 remaining when they went for it on 4th and 3 from the Washington 47 yd line.
Click to expand...
It was, this sounds dumber and dumber the more people defend going for it.
 
OK, it was just weird when you kept bringing stuff up from last year.
 
ralphiewvu said:
Hindsight’s always 20/20, but UW started their sustained drives on the 35 and the 40. Their two 3 and out drives were at the 25 and inside the 10. I’m not giving them the opportunity of a short field knowing this. Also Oregon had turned it over on downs twice before this. again hindsight’s 20/20 but still man, it wasn’t 4th and an inch
Click to expand...

That's fine we can disagree. I would just do everything I could to prevent that offense from getting the ball no matter where they are on the field. Seems like Lanning took that approach. Agree with the decision, just not the play call. I will say I disagree not taking the FG before half.
 
How much time would be left on the clock if the Ducks punted and UW scored a TD?

Game over if the Ducks go for it on 4th down and make it.

If I was the coach I'd go for it.
 
ericd7633 said:
That's fine we can disagree. I would just do everything I could to prevent that offense from getting the ball no matter where they are on the field. Seems like Lanning took that approach. Agree with the decision, just not the play call. I will say I disagree not taking the FG before half.
Click to expand...

I think disagreeing with the decisions are fine. They just aren't "boneheaded decisions". It's 50/50 calls that came up Tails.
 
ericd7633 said:
That's fine we can disagree. I would just do everything I could to prevent that offense from getting the ball no matter where they are on the field. Seems like Lanning took that approach. Agree with the decision, just not the play call. I will say I disagree not taking the FG before half.
Click to expand...
We’ll agree to disagree on going for it late in the 4th.

I do agree they should have kicked it on 4th before the half.

To each his own
 
michaeljordan_fan said:
OK, it was just weird when you kept bringing stuff up from last year.
Click to expand...

Trying to scroll thru 8 pages of your TCU media market bullshit fucked me up.

However, it's a good reminder that Lanning pulled the same idiotic stunt last year against Washington and lost.
 
Red_Alert said:
Trying to scroll thru 8 pages of your TCU media market bullshit fucked me up.

However, it's a good reminder that Lanning pulled the same idiotic stunt last year against Washington and lost.
Click to expand...

A lot tougher to defend the decision last year.
 
Red_Alert said:
Trying to scroll thru 8 pages of your TCU media market bullshit fucked me up.

However, it's a good reminder that Lanning pulled the same idiotic stunt last year against Washington and lost.
Click to expand...

It's amusing that Simple Jack thinks TCU is valuable because of where they are located. He fails to realize they don't deliver that market.
 
ralphiewvu said:
It’s amusing watching you say this:


It just makes you look like an absolute retard Oscar.
Click to expand...

What's amazing is other posters from Texas backing me up and you doubling down on the stupid.
 
michaeljordan_fan said:
What's amazing is other posters from Texas backing me up and you doubling down on the stupid.
Click to expand...
No one’s backing you up. They are saying it isnt the majority share but NO ONE is saying TCU doesn’t have the DFW market.

You are a fucking nitwit moron that thinks he’s smarter then what he is. And you continue to prove this
 
ralphiewvu said:
No one’s backing you up. They are saying it isnt the majority share but NO ONE is saying TCU doesn’t have the DFW market.

You are a fucking nitwit moron that thinks he’s smarter then what he is. And you continue to prove this
Click to expand...

There's a big gap between "not the majority share" and what TCU has.

It's tiny.
 
michaeljordan_fan said:
Wrong again, Simple Jack.

You went 0-fer yet again.
Click to expand...
You continue to prove you are the type of person that thinks he’s smarter then what he is.

I’m sure this will get brought up again and you’ll continue to double down on stupid. I appreciate your dedication for being wrong here.

Thanks again for staying within 3.5
 
ralphiewvu said:
You continue to prove you are the type of person that thinks he’s smarter then what he is.

I’m sure this will get brought up again and you’ll continue to double down on stupid. I appreciate your dedication for being wrong here.

Thanks again for staying within 3.5
Click to expand...

0-fer again for you. Feel free to bring up TCU's miniscule market anytime you want to get embarrassed...just like you did when you opened your trap about the PAC12 CCG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top