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

Donate To GopherHole
Dave H said:
If the coach of another team is in your head you might need to find a hobby :unsure::cool::ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Dave, you’re a weak poster even though you are one of those guys who feels like you are always the smartest guy in the room. Context on here is Gophers football. Every one of us should have an Iowa issue considering the last decade.
 

On the “playing to win” topic, it is now mid-2nd Q in the Vikings-Packer game. Green Bay is up 14-3. It’s scores have come in a 105 yard kick off return and a 75 yard Pick Six. In a tight game against an excellent opponent, you are playing to win when you cut STs and D loose to create their own forms of offensive scoring.
 

I think the difference is primarily which side of the score you are on. You can only play to "not lose" if you are leading. If you are acting like you can't wait for the clock to run out and are dragging your feet, it gives the impression that the energy level is low. That may or may not be the case, but a team mounting a comeback always is viewed as having a lot of energy, ie; trying to win. And if is a close score that will impact how it is viewed as well.

On the other hand if you are behind and trying to score, you are never playing to not lose, you are playing to win. Everything is all out. Chances are taken. Time is of the essence and that is how an observer will feel about it....
 

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...
Deciding to run clock your last possession of the half, then for the entire second half with two backs who could not get a first down, is playing not to lose.

This was all the more remarkable on a terrible field where receivers have a huge advantage in the short passing game.
 

MNVCGUY said:
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.
Click to expand...
Quit with the "fans are idiots" line. It is a very legitimate discussion of when to take the air out of the ball and put the game on the defense.
 


Gopherchase said:
Dave, you’re a weak poster even though you are one of those guys who feels like you are always the smartest guy in the room. Context on here is Gophers football. Every one of us should have an Iowa issue considering the last decade.
Click to expand...
Jesus it was a joke. Are you this uptight in real life as well? No coach for any team is in my head except my dad. (even ones I played against) No game bothers me for very long after the final horn. (some exceptions apply but not a regular season game against Iowa I can tell you that) I just choose to not let it bother me that much...you do and hey whatever gets you through the day. There is nothing wrong with looking at things differently.

I don't like losing to Iowa, it annoys me that we seem to always pee down our leg against them and since my uncle was a huge Iowa fan before he passed there is a little family rivalry too. Outside of that sentence I won't think about it again until next season.

And your description of me is so laughably off base it is pretty funny. I never want to be the smartest man in the room let alone do I think I am. I much prefer to keep the room laughing, not lord over them. Hell half the time I don't even like giving my strong opinions because I like hearing other people's opinions more. That is why I come here and go to other message boards. The problem is people have forgotten that just because I might have a different opinion doesn't mean I just shut down other people's thoughts and opinions. The art of spirited debate seems to have been lost in the last decade or so and it is sad and makes things way less fun.

I am sorry if I offended you, I put the emojis in to kind of show I was joking around. Usually I would have put a "poking" emoji along with it to show I am just kind of "poking the bear" but I could not find one here. If you knew me you would know I take none of this too seriously. YMMV.
 

GoldGoldGold said:
I think the difference is primarily which side of the score you are on. You can only play to "not lose" if you are leading. If you are acting like you can't wait for the clock to run out and are dragging your feet, it gives the impression that the energy level is low. That may or may not be the case, but a team mounting a comeback always is viewed as having a lot of energy, ie; trying to win. And if is a close score that will impact how it is viewed as well.

On the other hand if you are behind and trying to score, you are never playing to not lose, you are playing to win. Everything is all out. Chances are taken. Time is of the essence and that is how an observer will feel about it....
Click to expand...
There are also shades of gray in between. If my team has a two score lead in the second half, it makes sense to be a little more cautious on the margins, like making sure the QB knows not to force one into double coverage. What I don't want them to do is handcuff the offense so much that they are making it very unlikely they add points and increase the lead, and are effectively hoping they can run down the clock before the lead evaporates.

If you are up 14 late in the third, I think a coach playing to win says "alright, let's not do anything reckless or stupid, but if we can put up one more TD or get one more big stop on defense, there is no way they can catch us." A coach playing not to lose says "it doesn't matter if we don't score or of they do, as long as we can keep the clock moving on offense, and force them to throw underneath and take what we give them on defense, I think they run out of time before catching us."

Keeping the sticks moving kills a lot more clock than three runs and a punt, adding to the lead makes it tougher for the other team to come back, and the other team can't score if they don't have the ball. That's what I want the coach's mentality to be, and it doesn't mean I want them to go air raid or start rolling out the trick plays.
 

Dakota2 said:
Quit with the "fans are idiots" line. It is a very legitimate discussion of when to take the air out of the ball and put the game on the defense.
Click to expand...
All MNVC evee does is attack other posters.
 

Gophergrandpa said:
On the “playing to win” topic, it is now mid-2nd Q in the Vikings-Packer game. Green Bay is up 14-3. It’s scores have come in a 105 yard kick off return and a 75 yard Pick Six. In a tight game against an excellent opponent, you are playing to win when you cut STs and D loose to create their own forms of offensive scoring.
Click to expand...
(I havent watched the game)

Couldn't you also argue that if the Vikes were playing a bit more conservatively they would not have had a pick 6 in theory?

The problem with the "playing to win" argument is that it only really works if you actually win. If you play aggressively and win you then "played to win" and are a hero. If you call the same play and it leads to a turnover or something bad happening many of the same people who laud your "playing to win" would argue "if you just play smart you win that game!". It is almost completely results based. It is why fans complain after every play that isn't successful.

If you are a fan who wants the team to be aggressive and are willing to deal with the possible negative outcome then great. I know I would have preferred the Gophs take a few more chances but I also know I don't have all of the story. We don't know why a play was called, or if there is a reason they threw to the check down receiver or any other number of factors that play in. Maybe the opposing coach has tendencies in situations and you are trying to take advantage of it or maybe a player is being used as a decoy or whatever else we can think. Like how yesterday after Michigan crawled back to make it a close game they blitzed on 3rd and long (very aggressive) and TCU called a rather safe swing pass anticipating a possible blitz (and likely not leading to any worse outcome than a punt) and one miss tackle later Michigan's comeback is thwarted as it became a long TD play. Or the '09 Title game...would you not rather Favre was a bit less aggressive when he threw the pick? It is way more complicated than we all like to think it is watching from our couch :)

We like to pretend we know what the right play or level of aggression in a situation is but there is a reason we are just randos on a message board and not coaching ;)
 



Dave H said:
(I havent watched the game)

Couldn't you also argue that if the Vikes were playing a bit more conservatively they would not have had a pick 6 in theory?

The problem with the "playing to win" argument is that it only really works if you actually win. If you play aggressively and win you then "played to win" and are a hero. If you call the same play and it leads to a turnover or something bad happening many of the same people who laud your "playing to win" would argue "if you just play smart you win that game!". It is almost completely results based. It is why fans complain after every play that isn't successful.

If you are a fan who wants the team to be aggressive and are willing to deal with the possible negative outcome then great. I know I would have preferred the Gophs take a few more chances but I also know I don't have all of the story. We don't know why a play was called, or if there is a reason they threw to the check down receiver or any other number of factors that play in. Maybe the opposing coach has tendencies in situations and you are trying to take advantage of it or maybe a player is being used as a decoy or whatever else we can think. Like how yesterday after Michigan crawled back to make it a close game they blitzed on 3rd and long (very aggressive) and TCU called a rather safe swing pass anticipating a possible blitz (and likely not leading to any worse outcome than a punt) and one miss tackle later Michigan's comeback is thwarted as it became a long TD play. Or the '09 Title game...would you not rather Favre was a bit less aggressive when he threw the pick? It is way more complicated than we all like to think it is watching from our couch :)

We like to pretend we know what the right play or level of aggression in a situation is but there is a reason we are just randos on a message board and not coaching ;)
Click to expand...
How true. Message Boards are the apogee of 20-20 hindsight. That is certainly why 99% of what is said here (by commenters like me) is largely uninformed opinion. But that is also why these Board can be so damn much fun. Humans are inveterate second guessers, of themselves and others. Most of us would actually melt down if we had to make and install a game plan each week, and we’d be causing a worldwide shortage of Depends if we had to make some of the quick calls that are commonplace during a hotly-contested game. Nonetheless, I’ll keep posting … because I’m retired!
 

Gophergrandpa said:
How true. Message Boards are the apogee of 20-20 hindsight. That is certainly why 99% of what is said here (by commenters like me) is largely uninformed opinion. But that is also why these Board can be so damn much fun. Humans are inveterate second guessers, of themselves and others. Most of us would actually melt down if we had to make and install a game plan each week, and we’d be causing a worldwide shortage of Depends if we had to make some of the quick calls that are commonplace during a hotly-contested game. Nonetheless, I’ll keep posting … because I’m retired!
Click to expand...
I can't even handle playing Madden! Every time I find myself saying "X is a moron for calling that play" I then have to remember most likely that moron is smarter than me when it comes to this stuff.
Its why I can't watch games with other fans usually. I end up rolling my eyes at their comments. BLITZ MORE!1!1! Then they blitz, get burned and complain about the coverage! TAKE A SHOT DEEP!!1! Then it doesn't work and it kills the series!! My faves though are always the people who laud teams that call the same plays over and over and have them work, then when we do it (and it works) complain that we arent being balanced enough! Then when we balance it out, just for a little extra fun they wonder why we call something else when we have plays that are guaranteed to work!

Coach Fan is undefeated, we always know everything :) Everyone else though is an idiot ;)
 


Dakota2 said:
Quit with the "fans are idiots" line. It is a very legitimate discussion of when to take the air out of the ball and put the game on the defense.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I love Gopherhole and all the back and forth that takes place here....

But fans are idiots (myself included), we base our opinions and reactions on a fraction of the information out there and pretend like we know more than coaches and players who devote countless hours to film study and game prep. :)
 



MNVCGUY said:
Don't get me wrong, I love Gopherhole and all the back and forth that takes place here....

But fans are idiots (myself included), we base our opinions and reactions on a fraction of the information out there and pretend like we know more than coaches and players who devote countless hours to film study and game prep. :)
Click to expand...
That is not the point (that coaches are professional and know best). The point being discussed is what, in general, is the best guiding philosophy for offensive football in the current era.

Offense has all the advantage over defense given two teams with similar athletes. Offense gives up much of the advantage by being predictable in a confined area of the field.

Watching the top teams play each week shows the best of them taking fullest advantage of stressing the defense all over the field no matter if leading or trailing. They understand the best way to run the clock when leading is to get first downs and keep the other offense off the field.

That is what is being discussed.
 

AZGopher8 said:
It is playing, not to lose a chance for a field goal attempt once you are in range rather than calling aggressive plays to score a touchdown.

It is running up the middle on first and second down (and often even on 3rd down) with a slim lead when the defense is loading the box and your chance to get a first down is slim. So instead of putting a game clinching drive together, you punt and pray your defense is up to the challenege of winning the game.

It is limiting the passing game to 15ish throws per game when you have shown potential to move the ball with a more balanced attack.

It is punting on there side of the field instead of going for it on 4th and short.

It is running out the clock rather than trying to score at the end of the half.

It is never returning a punt or kickoff (this changed at the end of the year).
Click to expand...
This was the best take of all the posts on "playing not to lose." Offensive and defensive play calling is an art form and there needs to be a bit of a gambler in there as you have to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. The biggest coaching gaffes this staff has made weren't from being too conservative when they should have been more aggressive it's actually been the opposite - the going for it on 4th and short deep in their own zone, getting stuffed and giving up an easy TD as a result. Those are the calls that really kill you.
 

Dakota2 said:
That is not the point (that coaches are professional and know best). The point being discussed is what, in general, is the best guiding philosophy for offensive football in the current era.

Offense has all the advantage over defense given two teams with similar athletes. Offense gives up much of the advantage by being predictable in a confined area of the field.

Watching the top teams play each week shows the best of them taking fullest advantage of stressing the defense all over the field no matter if leading or trailing. They understand the best way to run the clock when leading is to get first downs and keep the other offense off the field.

That is what is being discussed.
Click to expand...
To be fair though the top teams have more talent top to bottom than a team like the Gophers ever will. (I don't consider our peers like Iowa and Wisconsin "Top Teams" for the purposes of this discussion since they don't really compete with them either) It is much easier for a team like Ohio State or Alabama to do certain things than it will be for say for the Gophers.

If you have a bunch of 5 star WRs you can stretch the field on every play, take chances and it will pay off. When you don't it is better to call the type of plays that take advantage of the players you have.

The problem teams like ours has (which is exasperated by having a risk averse coaching staff...and I dont mean that as a slight) is that we often have 1-2 players that are standouts so we tend to tailor everything to them. This year that was obviously Mo which is why our offense was built around him. We needed a complimentary WR of around equal talent to take advantage of that and none of our guys could do that and Morgan is not the type of QB that can make WRs better. (throw them open as the wonks like to say) We played it safe...and while I don't mind that we definitely left money on the table.

I think next year will be very telling if Athan is healthy. It is pretty obviously they have a level of trust in him that they didn't even have in Morgan. It seemed to me from my untrained eye that they seemed a bit less "risk averse" with him and he actually does kind of seem like the guy who can make the WRs a bit better. If that holds next year then I think we can argue PJ was playing the game to the strengths and weaknesses of our team. If we are at close to full strength and still playing like we have Mo in the backfield then I will question it to high heaven.
 

AZGopher8 said:
It is playing, not to lose a chance for a field goal attempt once you are in range rather than calling aggressive plays to score a touchdown.

It is running up the middle on first and second down (and often even on 3rd down) with a slim lead when the defense is loading the box and your chance to get a first down is slim. So instead of putting a game clinching drive together, you punt and pray your defense is up to the challenege of winning the game.

It is limiting the passing game to 15ish throws per game when you have shown potential to move the ball with a more balanced attack.

It is punting on there side of the field instead of going for it on 4th and short.

It is running out the clock rather than trying to score at the end of the half.

It is never returning a punt or kickoff (this changed at the end of the year).
Click to expand...
Watch fourth quarter of our most recent game for a good example.
 



bleedsmaroonandgold said:
To me, "playing not to lose" means when you are outplaying the other team and get a lead, and then instead of continuing to do what got you the lead, you change the game plan to something much more conservative to try to avoid losing the lead (instead of keeping your foot on the gas and making the other team come up with an answer for what has been working for you).
Click to expand...
Post of the Day!!!!
 

MNVCGUY said:
Don't get me wrong, I love Gopherhole and all the back and forth that takes place here....

But fans are idiots (myself included), we base our opinions and reactions on a fraction of the information out there and pretend like we know more than coaches and players who devote countless hours to film study and game prep. :)
Click to expand...
If you believe “fans are idiots” and the only thing that matters are the “coaches and players who devote countless hours to film study”, then why do you visit a college football message board?

Always odd to see the guy post on a message board to say none of what is posting matters.

An old joke, but I’ll repeat it:
I think I’ll spend some time visiting a message board dedicated to the MN orchestra and respond to every thread with a: boooorrrrrriiinnngggg!!!!!
 

Replacement Gopher said:
If you believe “fans are idiots” and the only thing that matters are the “coaches and players who devote countless hours to film study”, then why do you visit a college football message board?

Always odd to see the guy post on a message board to say none of what is posting matters.

An old joke, but I’ll repeat it:
I think I’ll spend some time visiting a message board dedicated to the MN orchestra and respond to every thread with a: boooorrrrrriiinnngggg!!!!!
Click to expand...
lol
 

Play to win:
We're down 17? Gotta play aggressive to catch up. We caught up? It's a tie game? Gotta keep playing aggressive, especially when we got them on their heels.

Play to not lose:
We're down 17? Gotta play aggressive to catch up. We caught up? It's a tie game? Time to wind the clock down, time to just run on first and second downs, oh they scored a late TD? Oh crap!
 

Replacement Gopher said:
If you believe “fans are idiots” and the only thing that matters are the “coaches and players who devote countless hours to film study”, then why do you visit a college football message board?

Always odd to see the guy post on a message board to say none of what is posting matters.

An old joke, but I’ll repeat it:
I think I’ll spend some time visiting a message board dedicated to the MN orchestra and respond to every thread with a: boooorrrrrriiinnngggg!!!!!
Click to expand...
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.
 

Define it however you want, I just want to see a win. Either method can result in a loss or a win.
 


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...
This. Our opinions have zero impact. We are just rubes talking to other rubes cause it's fun!
 


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.
 

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...
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.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom