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

Donate To GopherHole
MNVCGUY said:
I visit a college football message board because it is place to go to interact with other fans and discuss the team.

But if you think anything posted here actually matters you are giving all of us way too much credit.
Click to expand...
btowngopher said:
A lot of “play to win” seems to be synonymous with letting your offense win the game, whereas “play to not lose” is let your defense win the game.
Click to expand...
No. Multiple people have defined it in this thread.
Prevent defense = playing to lose.

If you want a picture of it, Google: Glen Mason grinning looking up scoreboard white teeth Texas tech two man rush
 

short ornery norwegian said:
A lot of this is subjective.

I guess my short and simplistic definition would be this situation:

you have the ball 4th & 1 at the opponent's 45 yard line. If you get the 1st down, you can run more time off the clock or maybe score more points. But if you don't get the 1st down, you hand the other team the ball with great field position. so the choice is go for it versus punting.

from the fan's point of view, going for it is "playing to win" while punting is "playing not to lose."

there are cases to be made for either approach. it comes down to a matter of coaching philosophy.

of course - if also depends on who you are playing.
Click to expand...
That's not it at all. Punting for field position and trusting your defense is not ultra conservative, it is smart.

Not at all the same as going into a shell on offense and letting the defense pack the box because they know you are running three downs. That's not smart.
 

btowngopher said:
A lot of “play to win” seems to be synonymous with letting your offense win the game, whereas “play to not lose” is let your defense win the game.
Click to expand...
That is actually a very good way of summing it up.

We have a number of fans that will never be ok with a conservative offensive approach and will always want to see the more wide open attack you see from some other places.
 

Dakota2 said:
That's not it at all. Punting for field position and trusting your defense is not ultra conservative, it is smart.

Not at all the same as going into a shell on offense and letting the defense pack the box because they know you are running three downs. That's not smart.
Click to expand...
Honest question. How many times do you feel that being conservative with the lead has cost us the game?
 

USC running out of their own end zone twice when Tulane hadn’t come close to putting a hand on Caleb Williams all day but had shut down the run is a good example of “wtf, why are you changing up what was working”?

Thank god they did though. Never thought my alma mater would win a big six bowl before the Gophers.
 



Replacement Gopher said:
I’d include could have cost us but didn’t and include the most recent game.
Click to expand...
Why would you include could have lost games but didn't? The goal is to win the game, style points don't matter. If your plan works and you win the game you did your job.

You must have watched a different bowl game than I did because the one I watched had us up 15 late in the 4th quarter.

So the only games that matter are the ones where playing not to lose cost us the game.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Why would you include could have lost games but didn't? The goal is to win the game, style points don't matter. If your plan works and you win the game you did your job.

You must have watched a different bowl game than I did because the one I watched had us up 15 late in the 4th quarter.

So the only games that matter are the ones where playing not to lose cost us the game.
Click to expand...
Didn’t know you get to decide what games matter. Must be nice.

If I got a vote I’d include putting games at risk because you go into a turtle shell.
 

MNVCGUY said:
That is actually a very good way of summing it up.

We have a number of fans that will never be ok with a conservative offensive approach and will always want to see the more wide open attack you see from some other places.
Click to expand...
Not some other place. Almost every place other than Army and Navy. Balanced attack to spread the defense is not a radical idea. One of best benefits is that it helps the running game.
 



MNVCGUY said:
Honest question. How many times do you feel that being conservative with the lead has cost us the game?
Click to expand...
Don't have that kind of memory. But you would also need to look at a few times late in first half we tried to kill the clock only to give up a score and eventually lose.

Pinstripe win came from unusual ST and defensive score for win despite offensive plan that produced one (or two?) rushing first down in second half.
 


Replacement Gopher said:
Didn’t know you get to decide what games matter. Must be nice.

If I got a vote I’d include putting games at risk because you go into a turtle shell.
Click to expand...
So what are the games then where this strategy has cost us or almost cost us? There must be tons of examples since it is clearly such a massive issue.

You have issues with the bowl game....a game we won when leading by 15 points late in the 4th quarter. There have to be a bunch of others right?
 

Dakota2 said:
That's not it at all. Punting for field position and trusting your defense is not ultra conservative, it is smart.

Not at all the same as going into a shell on offense and letting the defense pack the box because they know you are running three downs. That's not smart.
Click to expand...
That may be how you feel (and me too BTW) but there is a loud part of the "play to win!!1!!" contingent that would call that "chickenbleep" and playing not to lose because "all you need is a yard". That is also of course dependent on how much time is left of course...

Part of that too is the Analytics portion of the argument. Stats Nerds will say it is always smarter to not give them the ball back so 1 yard is worth the risk. I find that way too simplistic...

I think we can agree that situations dictate what is and is not "playing to win". If you have a Top defense trusting them makes sense. If you have a later on Glen Mason defense you should never punt ever. I guess to me "playing to win" is doing what puts your team in the best position to win. That might be the conservative choice. I think a lot of people conflate the two and dont realize they arent necessarily mutually exclusive.
 



Replacement Gopher said:
Didn’t know you get to decide what games matter. Must be nice.

If I got a vote I’d include putting games at risk because you go into a turtle shell.
Click to expand...
Of course we get to decide...who gets to decide if we the fans don't?

So if being aggressive puts the game at risk is that also problematic in your eye? Is that playing "not to lose" or is it "playing to win" but losing because you made stupid decisions?

(honest questions)
 

Dakota2 said:
Don't have that kind of memory. But you would also need to look at a few times late in first half we tried to kill the clock only to give up a score and eventually lose.

Pinstripe win came from unusual ST and defensive score for win despite offensive plan that produced one (or two?) rushing first down in second half.
Click to expand...
That offensive plan was changed after our starting QB went down and our starting runningback was out of the game. Before that we were hardly being conservative.

I guess I can't really fault a coach for maybe going conservative when you lost a QB already (and the backup has been injured for quite some time) and your All World offensive weapon is on the sidelines and you have a lead. Now if we were playing a Big Ten game (especially a rival) where the win has some effect on standings and such I might think differently. In a second tier bowl game in the elements...not so much. If Syracuse ties it up or takes the lead then yeah you open it back up but in that specific circumstance I am fine with it. YMMV.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Why would you include could have lost games but didn't? The goal is to win the game, style points don't matter. If your plan works and you win the game you did your job.

You must have watched a different bowl game than I did because the one I watched had us up 15 late in the 4th quarter.

So the only games that matter are the ones where playing not to lose cost us the game.
Click to expand...
People nervous about that bowl game I feel like are from the Mason era and haven’t watched much Gopher Football in a long time.


It’s a weird leftover attitude…
 

Dave H said:
That offensive plan was changed after our starting QB went down and our starting runningback was out of the game. Before that we were hardly being conservative.

I guess I can't really fault a coach for maybe going conservative when you lost a QB already (and the backup has been injured for quite some time) and your All World offensive weapon is on the sidelines and you have a lead. Now if we were playing a Big Ten game (especially a rival) where the win has some effect on standings and such I might think differently. In a second tier bowl game in the elements...not so much. If Syracuse ties it up or takes the lead then yeah you open it back up but in that specific circumstance I am fine with it. YMMV.
Click to expand...
Yes, we changed because Athan went down. But not having Mo in the second half bolsters my argument. It would be easier to see deflating the ball if Mo was your back. It was insane to try that without him.

Morgan was throwing the ball ok in his few attempts (and incredibly well on the first Jackson TD). On a horribly unstable surface the receivers have an enormous advantage over the defense.

The smart approach would have been to keep a mix of short passes and rushes. The proof is one rushing first down in the second half. We won because of a pick six and a long kick return.

Of note was the blocking on that return. This has obviously been a focus in practice this season. I applaud Fleck for changing his best on return philosophy.
 

as I tried to say, I think that the notion of "playing to win" or "playing not to lose" is very subjective.

it's a "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" situation, because everyone sees it a little differently.

and it has to take a number of factors into account: score, field position, time remaining, injuries, your own strengths and weaknesses, plus the strengths and weaknesses of the opponent.

there is no single right or wrong answer. it's like a test where every question is an essay question.
your score or grade depends on the person doing the grading.

(which reminds me of a prof I had in college for a photography class. His idea of evaluating a project often turned into "it doesn't do anything for me.")
 

Dakota2 said:
Yes, we changed because Athan went down. But not having Mo in the second half bolsters my argument. It would be easier to see deflating the ball if Mo was your back. It was insane to try that without him.

Morgan was throwing the ball ok in his few attempts (and incredibly well on the first Jackson TD). On a horribly unstable surface the receivers have an enormous advantage over the defense.

The smart approach would have been to keep a mix of short passes and rushes. The proof is one rushing first down in the second half. We won because of a pick six and a long kick return.

Of note was the blocking on that return. This has obviously been a focus in practice this season. I applaud Fleck for changing his best on return philosophy.
Click to expand...

Good point on Mo...I can definitely see what you are saying and I am not totally in disagreement with you. It is a weird spot and I think they expected Potts to be able to do more than he did. Kind of bolsters what @Bob_Loblaw says that Potts is not really a strong enough RB to be the #1 next year.
 

Dave H said:
Good point on Mo...I can definitely see what you are saying and I am not totally in disagreement with you. It is a weird spot and I think they expected Potts to be able to do more than he did. Kind of bolsters what @Bob_Loblaw says that Potts is not really a strong enough RB to be the #1 next year.
Click to expand...
Potts or any of the others will be better if we run a balanced offense that keeps the defense guessing and forced to defend the whole field. If we pass just more than Army and Navy Potts will not look good.
 

Dakota2 said:
Potts or any of the others will be better if we run a balanced offense that keeps the defense guessing and forced to defend the whole field. If we pass just more than Army and Navy Potts will not look good.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I just dont see him as a season long 20 carry per game guy unless we have a fantastic line in front of him and honestly even then I think he is better as the change of pace guy.

With that said if Athan is healthy I want them to give him the chance to open things up. He will make mistakes, and I am fine with that because I think the upside offsets the risk. I also kind of hope we bring back the Kramer Wildcat in short yardage every so often...never thought I would say that.
 

Dave H said:
Yeah. I just dont see him as a season long 20 carry per game guy unless we have a fantastic line in front of him and honestly even then I think he is better as the change of pace guy.

With that said if Athan is healthy I want them to give him the chance to open things up. He will make mistakes, and I am fine with that because I think the upside offsets the risk. I also kind of hope we bring back the Kramer Wildcat in short yardage every so often...never thought I would say that.
Click to expand...
Nothing else makes sense. We brought in two quality transfers to go with Jackson, CAB, and Brockinton. Mo is gone. We absolutely must adapt the offense to fit the talent.

Without facing packed box, Evans and the two freshmen will be just fine.
 

San Fran played to win at the end of the half here.
Whoops

Should’ve taken a knee
 


Some guy said:
San Fran played to win at the end of the half here.
Whoops

Should’ve taken a knee
Click to expand...
The real question is were the Eagles playing to win or playing not to lose in the second half? They only attempted like 5 passes and had a bunch of really long drives that were almost exclusively on the ground.
 

MNVCGUY said:
The real question is were the Eagles playing to win or playing not to lose in the second half? They only attempted like 5 passes and had a bunch of really long drives that were almost exclusively on the ground.
Click to expand...
They were playing to win because it worked
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom