What does "play to win" look like in a game - how is it different than "playing not to lose?"

Donate To GopherHole







Some guy said:
Throwing two incompletions then attempting a field goal to close the game? Is that playing not to win?
Click to expand...
You mean after running a dive and not trying to move the ball down the field? That was brutal. Don't go read the OSU boards. They obviously view it quite a bit differently than you.
 

hello-world said:
Yes, it seemed to work out very well for him. I'm sure he doesn't at all regret calling a super aggressive coverage while up two scores and watching his DB fall down with no safety help while Georgia threw a 70-yard pass to draw pull within one score.
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with his last offensive series but solid strawman, I guess...?
 




I'm A Maroon 2! said:
You mean after running a dive and not trying to move the ball down the field? That was brutal. Don't go read the OSU boards. They obviously view it quite a bit differently than you.
Click to expand...
They had one completion on the final drive. Stroud was 3-7 while getting sacked multiple times in the fourth quarter for about 27 yards

They were moving the ball down the field by running not throwing
 

Some guy said:
They had one completion on the final drive. Stroud was 3-7 while getting sacked multiple times in the fourth quarter for about 27 yards

They were moving the ball down the field by running not throwing
Click to expand...
They were running because they had a lead and were trying to kill the clock. They weren't losing until the last drive, hence they had to pass. Stats tell little of the story on the last drive. Especially since the biggest gainer was a pass play that Stroud ran on. Day botched it. Once he got "in range" the quick hitters on the edge seemed to stop and they were hoping for a shot in the end zone. Stroud is lucky he didnt get sacked on 3rd down as well. It was a brutal 4 plays after Stroud's run.
 

I'm A Maroon 2! said:
They were running because they had a lead and were trying to kill the clock. They weren't losing until the last drive, hence they had to pass. Stats tell little of the story on the last drive. Especially since the biggest gainer was a pass play that Stroud ran on. Day botched it. Once he got "in range" the quick hitters on the edge seemed to stop and they were hoping for a shot in the end zone. Stroud is lucky he didnt get sacked on 3rd down as well. It was a brutal 4 plays after Stroud's run.
Click to expand...
They were running on the final drive because their backup wideouts couldn’t beat man coverage and running the QB was the answer.
While many will complain about running 1/3 plays and playing “not to lose” the correct answer was the run the quarterback on one of those last two incompletions, take the timeout and attempt a 42-46 yard field goal.

Ohio state kicker perfect from 48 or less this year
0-fer on 50+

They were too aggressive and tried to throw the ball down field too much at the end. Should’ve thrown quick hitters. They probably win the game with 5 more yards (which is why they tried running in the first place).
 

Some guy said:
They were running on the final drive because their backup wideouts couldn’t beat man coverage and running the QB was the answer.
While many will complain about running 1/3 plays and playing “not to lose” the correct answer was the run the quarterback on one of those last two incompletions, take the timeout and attempt a 42-46 yard field goal.

Ohio state kicker perfect from 48 or less this year
0-fer on 50+

They were too aggressive and tried to throw the ball down field too much at the end. Should’ve thrown quick hitters. They probably win the game with 5 more yards (which is why they tried running in the first place).
Click to expand...
Even before this they were calling stupid aggressive defense and got burned by it on that 70-yard TD. They out-athleted everyone all year and had no idea what to do when playing against a team that could compete with them.
 



hello-world said:
Even before this they were calling stupid aggressive defense and got burned by it on that 70-yard TD. They out-athleted everyone all year and had no idea what to do when playing against a team that could compete with them.
Click to expand...
Correct. Maybe that’s why they were in the game and that’s why they are running man…but anyone saying that Ohio state lost because they were too conservative simply didn’t watch the game or has a very different definition of conservative than me


To me, unsuccessful and conservative are two different words.
To some, anything unsuccessful was automatically conservative


Ohio state did some bad things at the end. Running on first down with 2 timeouts wasn’t one of them.
If they gain 5 yards on that play their kicker makes that field goal 100% of the time this year.
 

Some guy said:
They were running on the final drive because their backup wideouts couldn’t beat man coverage and running the QB was the answer.
While many will complain about running 1/3 plays and playing “not to lose” the correct answer was the run the quarterback on one of those last two incompletions, take the timeout and attempt a 42-46 yard field goal.

Ohio state kicker perfect from 48 or less this year
0-fer on 50+

They were too aggressive and tried to throw the ball down field too much at the end. Should’ve thrown quick hitters. They probably win the game with 5 more yards (which is why they tried running in the first place).
Click to expand...
I actually agree with you on the QB run stuff. With how Georgia was coming after the QB and with them playing man coverage, spread the field, send everyone deep and let Stroud pick a lane and just run. It seemed to me Day essentially called for the miracle kill shot or throw it away on those late pass plays. If I'm OSU, I'm running the same 5-10 yard outs or comeback routes where a pick is minimized. We will disagree on whether it was aggressive or not. But I said essentially the same thing about Stroud running as you did
 

Some guy said:
Correct. Maybe that’s why they were in the game and that’s why they are running man…but anyone saying that Ohio state lost because they were too conservative simply didn’t watch the game or has a very different definition of conservative than me


To me, unsuccessful and conservative are two different words.
To some, anything unsuccessful was automatically conservative


Ohio state did some bad things at the end. Running on first down with 2 timeouts wasn’t one of them.
If they gain 5 yards on that play their kicker makes that field goal 100% of the time this year.
Click to expand...
Yep. Coaches will say it all the time....when the play call works they are a genius when it doesn't they are a moron.....at least that is how fans see it.
 


I’ve come to the conclusion that when fans say “change your best”, it simply means “win more”.
 

Does Iowa play to win vs us? I thought we literally were playing to win and then threw an int vs them that led to our loss.
 

FanSinceTheFifties said:
It means that the writer prefers play that is entertaining to him rather than one that has made nine-win seasons normal.
Click to expand...
This is really what it comes down to. It isn't really about playing to win or playing not to lose because that whole distinction is stupid since coaches and players are always playing to win.
 

Playing not to lose can be a few things I think. (Both still mean you are trying to win =-)
1 - A conservative offense.
2 - A gameplan to keep a game close vs a team that has clearly better athletes.
 

kisarazu said:
Playing not to lose can be a few things I think. (Both still mean you are trying to win =-)
1 - A conservative offense.
2 - A gameplan to keep a game close vs a team that has clearly better athletes.
Click to expand...
So playing in a way that you feel will give your team the best chance to win is playing not to lose?

If your team is not built to be aggressive on offense then going out there and trying to be aggressive is probably not going to end well. If the other team has better athletes than you and you take a bunch of risks chances are they are going to go badly and put your team in a hole they can't dig out of because the other team has superior athletes.
 
Last edited:

MNVCGUY said:
So playing in a way that you feel will give your team the best chance to win is playing not to lose?

If your team is not built to be aggressive on offense then going out there and trying to be aggressive is probably going to end well. If the other team has better athletes than you and you take a bunch of risks chances are they are going to go badly and put your team in a hole they can't dig out of because the other team has superior athletes.
Click to expand...
I suppose a third one would be:
3 - Our coach is not coaching well vs ____ and we need to do something different.

All of them are complaints about not winning or not winning by enough points. I imagine that many fans would think that Iowa plays not to win every season.
 

kisarazu said:
Playing not to lose can be a few things I think. (Both still mean you are trying to win =-)
1 - A conservative offense.
2 - A gameplan to keep a game close vs a team that has clearly better athletes.
Click to expand...
To me it's different than simply being conservative. If conservative is your plan, it's a system (and one that fans often don't like) that can win games. "Playing not to lose" is when you are winning, but then you shift your strategy such that you are no longer trying to keep outplaying the other team, but rather focusing on hoping the clock runs out before they have time to catch you. I think in football, you see it when a team gets the ball with a late lead, and they seem far more invested in making sure they call three plays that keep the clock running than they are with giving themselves a reasonable chance of getting a first down, and call three predictable runs into a stacked box and getting stuffed. To me, that is fundamentally different than simply having a conservative, run heavy gameplan that seeks to minimize turnovers and negative plays.
 

kisarazu said:
I suppose a third one would be:
3 - Our coach is not coaching well vs ____ and we need to do something different.

All of them are complaints about not winning or not winning by enough points. I imagine that many fans would think that Iowa plays not to win every season.
Click to expand...
I mean I get it, the nature of being a fan is second guessing everything. You see it from the pros down to the youth level.

Has been an interesting phenomenon this year seeing people complaining about how we win. That is usually reserved for the elite programs where style points are the issue since the win is never really in doubt.

For the most part though....team wins....gameplan was good and the refs weren't out to get us. Team loses....gameplan sucked, coaches are morons, refs were against us.
 

Gopherchase said:
You must be OK with losing 8 in a row to him. Hell yes he’s in my head. I have a lot of buddies in Iowa who are Hawkeyes fans, and they think he is well past his prime yet he keeps beating us every year. We have to change our best, and we haven’t yet against him.
Click to expand...
If the coach of another team is in your head you might need to find a hobby :unsure::cool::ROFLMAO:
 

salzie said:
I think a lot fans would agree.

I'm not asking for air raid, but little more variety and aggressive calls.

I like PJ. But he needs to change his best.
Click to expand...
It's not just a question of offensive play calling. It is how you run special teams and defense. Do your kickoff returners fair catch everything, which is very safe, or do you risk something and let Redding return some KOs, one of which might be a game-changer/saver? Do you do some heavy blitzing on key passing downs and cut loose your DBs try to undercut routes because the QB is will be under pressure--both of which are up there a ways on the risk-reward spectrum--or do you de-emphasize such things to perhaps minimize explosive plays at the expense of opportunities for turnovers?

On offense, it can be--once in the lead--moving away from the balanced, somewhat unpredictable attack plan that got you in the lead to a very predictable, one-dimensional attack plan that is safer but vastly reduces your own opportunities for explosive plays.

PJ's playing "not to lose" strategy has probably won us several close games and is probably the reason we have had a few 9 win seasons with him. So, in a sense, it is playing to win.

I think the crux of the argument--which is poorly conveyed by the shorthand phrases playing "to win" or "not to lose"--is how one plays in the games which either: (1) should be blow-outs with lots of depth players getting valuable reps later in the game, or (2) are very meaningful rival games with excellent opponents. Playing conservatively in Item (1) games seems like a bizarre and counter-productive choice for several reasons {and we didn't do much of that in 2022, thank God}. Playing "not to lose" in category (2) games, of which there are a few each year, can be very frustrating for fans when you eventually lose anyway. Especially if playing not to lose means moving from from balanced offensive attack patterns that worked earlier in the game to predictable, one-dimensional attack patterns. Illinois beat us this year in part because it never abandoned the passing element of its offensive attack. It never went one-dimensional. It made a lot of short, high % passes (which are almost like running plays) that kept our defense honest.

Here's the bottom line for me: PJ and Kirk always say that they'll take what the offense gives them. When we gear our offense to do that--taking what the defense gives us--we are playing to win, and playing with confidence in our players. When, in some key games, we stop taking what the defense is giving us, when we intentionally, play after play, do the opposite of what the defense is giving us in order to minimize risk and eat the clock (e.g., running repeatedly into stacked boxes), we are in my opinion playing not to lose, and we are showing a lack of confidence in many of our players. For some fans, that can be quite frustrating.

Anyway, it's a "feel thing" for most of us. SC Justice Potter Stewart famously said that he couldn't quite define pornography, but he knew it when he saw it. That's kind of how I feel about playing "not to lose." I know it when I see it.
 
Last edited:

Gophergrandpa said:
It's not just a question of offensive play calling. It is how you run special teams and defense. Do your kickoff returners fair catch everything, which is very safe, or do you risk something and let Redding return some KOs, one of which might be a game-changer/saver? Do you do some heavy blitzing on key passing downs and cut loose your DBs try to undercut routes because the QB is will be under pressure--both of which are up there a ways on the risk-reward spectrum--or do you de-emphasize such things to perhaps minimize explosive plays at the expense of opportunities for turnovers?

On offense, it can be--once in the lead--moving away from the balanced, somewhat unpredictable attack plan that got you in the lead to a very predictable, one-dimensional attack plan that is safer but vastly reduces your own opportunities for explosive plays.

PJ's playing "not to lose" strategy has probably won us several close games and is probably the reason we have had a few 9 win seasons with him. So, in a sense, it is playing to win.

I think the crux of the argument--which is poorly conveyed by the shorthand phrases playing "to win" or "not to lose"--is how one plays in the games which either: (1) should be blow-outs with lots of depth players getting valuable reps later in the game, or (2) are very meaningful rival games with excellent opponents. Playing conservatively in Item (1) games seems like a bizarre and counter-productive choice for several reasons {and we didn't do much of that in 2022, thank God}. Playing "not to lose" in category (2) games, of which there are a few each year, can be very frustrating for fans when you eventually lose. Especially if playing not to lose means moving from from balanced offensive attack patterns that worked earlier in the game to predictable, one-dimensional attack patterns. Illinois beat us this year in part because it never abandoned the passing element of its offensive attack. It never went one-dimensional. It made a lot of short, high % passes (which are almost like running plays) that kept our defense honest.

Here's the bottom line for me: PJ and Kirk always say that they'll take what the offense gives them. When we gear our offense to do that--taking what the defense gives us--we are playing to win, and playing with confidence in our players. When, in some key games, we stop taking what the defense is giving us, when we intentionally, play after play, do the opposite of what the defense is giving us in order to minimize risk and eat the clock (e.g., running repeatedly into stacked boxes), we are in my opinion playing not to lose, and we are showing a lack of confidence in many of our players. For some fans, that can be quite frustrating.

Anyway, it's a "feel thing" for most of us. SC Justice Brennan famously said that he couldn't quite define pornography, but he knew it when he saw it. That's kind of how I feel about playing "not to lose." I know it when I see it.
Click to expand...

Great post.
 

Gophergrandpa said:
Anyway, it's a "feel thing" for most of us. SC Justice Brennan Potter Stewart famously said that he couldn't quite define pornography, but he knew it when he saw it. That's kind of how I feel about playing "not to lose." I know it when I see it.
Click to expand...
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom