Do you feel the same about running the football on every down to eat up the clock and limit the other team's offensive possessions? If not, why is it any different? Help me out here. I see an amazingly strong similarity between what Jaime did and what many football coaches try to do when they are matched up against a very powerful offense.

 

I posted a comment on this earlier but I understand we are on page 11. The very big difference is when the football coach chooses to run the ball, his team has to compete on every play. They have to fight with all their skill and effort every 30 seconds to get yards and compete to get first downs every 3 plays. In stall ball, there is no competing. A team is standing there holding the ball for 4, 5, 6 minutes or more and doing absolutely nothing. That IMO opinion is why it rubs people wrong. A sports contest is a competition and standing still doing nothing for the majority of the game is not competing.

 

Personally, I think the Notre Dame coach messed up by not pressuring Highlands and forcing them to play. The only fault with Highlands' coach is I wonder if she sold her team short. I haven't seen the teams play so I have no real idea if Highlands had any chance versus NDA playing straight up ball. But in looking at Highlands' and NDA's scores of their games this year, it doesn't look like Highlands had no chance. Plus in basketball crazy things can happen. Beechwood only lost by 11 the first time they played NDA and then lost by 55 the second time, a 44 point swing. The fact that NDA beat Highlands by 28 the first time they played doesn't automatically mean Highlands had no chance. Highlands played each of the other 3 semifinalists games within 10 points so they were competitive with the top teams in the region. But as I said, the coach knows her team better than me and she obviously thought her team had zero chance of beating NDA without stall ball.

Wow! Did any of you go to work today? 11 pages?

As a coach, the job is to put your team in the best possible situation to win. The Highlands Coach did what she thought was the best way to win, take the other team out of their game plan and see how the dice roll.

I posted a comment on this earlier but I understand we are on page 11. The very big difference is when the football coach chooses to run the ball, his team has to compete on every play. They have to fight with all their skill and effort every 30 seconds to get yards and compete to get first downs every 3 plays. In stall ball, there is no competing. A team is standing there holding the ball for 4, 5, 6 minutes or more and doing absolutely nothing. That IMO opinion is why it rubs people wrong. A sports contest is a competition and standing still doing nothing for the majority of the game is not competing.

 

Personally, I think the Notre Dame coach messed up by not pressuring Highlands and forcing them to play. The only fault with Highlands' coach is I wonder if she sold her team short. I haven't seen the teams play so I have no real idea if Highlands had any chance versus NDA playing straight up ball. But in looking at Highlands' and NDA's scores of their games this year, it doesn't look like Highlands had no chance. Plus in basketball crazy things can happen. Beechwood only lost by 11 the first time they played NDA and then lost by 55 the second time, a 44 point swing. The fact that NDA beat Highlands by 28 the first time they played doesn't automatically mean Highlands had no chance. Highlands played each of the other 3 semifinalists games within 10 points so they were competitive with the top teams in the region. But as I said, the coach knows her team better than me and she obviously thought her team had zero chance of beating NDA without stall ball.

 

So then, who was the better coach tonight. It sounds to me like ND didn't want to compete either and played into Highlands hands. If ND pressures, more than likely, Highlands has to play a different strategy once they get behind a bit. Since ND made no adjustments, I don't see why Highlands would want to change their strategy and it shows when they had a chance to take the lead or tie very late into the game.

Such a well thought out and eloquent response.

 

I gave my response. The coaches have 1 job in the tournament, give their kids the best chance to win. HHS did that. They tried to play with them in the regular season and everyone saw that result. When overmatched, you attempt anything that gives you a chance. No one can say that they were out of this game until the final minute. They lost the last game by halftime.

So now you agree you were wrong in your account, so why didn't HHS come out and pressure NDA? I mean a loss by 1 or a loss by 70 is still a loss no matter what!

 

To ask that question, you really aren't grasping the situation or the strategy.

:deadhorse::deadhorse:

To ask that question, you really aren't grasping the situation or the strategy.

 

Thank You. But I think there is an ulterior motive there. But hey, anyone in there right mind would want to push the spotlight away from their own coach.

Would you feel the same way if, let's say, your son was the star QB of his team's football team? Throws the ball with a ton of success all year long. Come the first playoff game, his team is matched up against a team with a very high powered offense as well as a very good pass defense. Your son's coach analyzes the opponent and then decides that he is going to play a keep away offense and pound the ball all night long to keep the ball out of the other team's hands. Your son doesn't get one chance to throw the ball but because the decision of his coach, his team actually has a chance of winning the game late but loses 7-0.

 

If my son is the QB, I'm very content with the coach's decision. It's a team sport and the number one objective of any game and of every game is to win. That means taking advantage of every method within the rules to win. To many running the football every play and losing 7-0 maybe very, very boring. To me, it's great coaching if the coach didn't think he had a chance of winning running his normal offense. Jaime is a pretty smart basketball coach. She's kind of been up and down the bball court a time or two. I trust her judgment completely.

 

Do you feel the same about running the football on every down to eat up the clock and limit the other team's offensive possessions? If not, why is it any different? Help me out here. I see an amazingly strong similarity between what Jaime did and what many football coaches try to do when they are matched up against a very powerful offense.

 

No offense TAC but I'll take Jaime's knowledge of the game and her ability to assess her team's chances against NDA over yours. Again, no offense meant.

 

Another football analogy: you're a coach. Tie game. There's a minute left in the game. The other team is driving and is at about your 30. The other team has a very, very good fieldgoal kicker. Hasn't missed all year. You on the other hand have an explosive offense and have scored quickly all game. You decide to let the other team score. I mean you actually tell your defense to let the other team run unimpeded into the endzone because you are convinced based on your assessment of your team and the other team that they are likely to eat up the rest of the clock and kick a last second field goal to win the game. You decide you'd rather go down 7 but at least have a minute or so to score and go for two and the win. Is it wrong to tell those kids playing defense to let the other team score? I sure don't think so. What if it's possibly the last game of the year and your stud LBer is one tackle away of breaking the tackle record? I still don't think so. Face it, if a football coach successfully used that strategy to win a game, 99% of the people on this site would be calling him a genius. A big risk taker, but a genius.

 

Was wondering how long it would take to get some real insightful thought into this mind numbing thread of people whinning about one coach's strategy.

No offense TAC but I'll take Jaime's knowledge of the game and her ability to assess her team's chances against NDA over yours. Again, no offense meant.

 

No offense taken, she will have plenty of time to think about her decision as her knowledge of the game and her ability to assess her teams chances against NDA still puts her on the side line until next season.

Was wondering how long it would take to get some real insightful thought into this mind numbing thread of people whinning about one coach's strategy.

 

I don't blame coach Richey as it seems that this was the best strategy to win. However the basketball programs need to get over the hump. I guess regional appearances is fine. It gets old when the football faithful throws an analogy and all is right.

The bigger issue for Highlands is their level of play as a whole. Are they getting better ? Where is the program headed? How can they get to a point that they can compete with any of the top teams?

I don't blame coach Richey as it seems that this was the best strategy to win. However the basketball programs need to get over the hump. I guess regional appearances is fine. It gets old when the football faithful throws an analogy and all is right.

 

Wow! You serious batman?

The bigger issue for Highlands is their level of play as a whole. Are they getting better ? Where is the program headed? How can they get to a point that they can compete with any of the top teams?

 

You know what, this sounds awfully familiar with other sports. Can't blame football on this one. Orrrr can you!

You know what, this sounds awfully familiar with other sports. Can't blame football on this one. Orrrr can you!

 

Uh, no. Serious questions IMO.