Golden Nuggets for 11.17.08
At the time, I said Tim Brewster made the right call. It was the end of the first half. The Gophers were up 21-7. We had just recovered a fumble to stymie a Wisconsin drive. As Brewster was running out the clock, some in the game thread questioned the move. They suggested we should try and set up a field goal to end the half.
I instead was thinking about how aggression at the end of a half hurt the Gophers against Northwestern. I imagine that's what Brewster was thinking too. I can see both points of view, but hindsight being what it is, I'm inclined to say my initial call was wrong and so was Brewster's.
Having to read a Wisconsin fan state the following hurts:
As distasteful as it may be to say, Jefferson’s scary injury seems now to have been the turning point of the game, perhaps sucking some life out of Minnesota and providing Wisconsin with a rallying point. Consider this: The result of the play that injured Jefferson was a fumble recovered by Minnesota, giving them the ball on their own 21-yard-line with 2:05 remaining on the clock and two time outs. Instead of attempting to score — and the Gophers were at that point having about as much trouble moving the ball on Wisconsin as John Madden has trouble inhaling a tender and juicy turducken — Gopher coach Tim Brewster, either feeling overconfident with his 14-point lead or thinking it unsavory to score again on a team that just had one of its players leave on a stretcher, ran out the clock.
What do you think? Was it the right call Brewster made?
- Without giving any justification or telling us where he went to speak to a soothsayer, Charley Walters tells us that Paul Carter will lead the Gophers in scoring this year. I'd be willing to bet Shooter that Lawrence Westbrook leads the team in scoring.
- Sticking with the PiPress, Phil Miller opines that the "Colton Iverson era of Gopher basketball" has begun. Iverson did have a very nice game defensively Saturday night with nine blocks against BGSU. But the Iverson era?
- Proof anything is possible: Pat Reusse has a somewhat positive article about Gophers football.
- I know this is just some random blog, but this is why I harp on the negative perception around Tubby Smith's recruiting ability. "Tubby was a good in-game coach, but not a recruiter." I'm so sick of hearing this. Do UK fans realize Smith's 2008 and 2009 classes have arguably been superior to UK's?
- Good news for those that want that bronzed pig. Eric Decker is expected to play against Iowa.
- Don Lucia's boys kept their undefeated streak a live with a win and a tie this weekend against Michigan Tech. Gopher Puck Live has more on Alex Kangas' first shutout of the year on Sunday.
0 recs |
9 comments
Comments
UK Blogger
Tubby won 76% of his games at UK – 75% with a mixture of his players and leftovers (1998 thru 2002) and 77% with his own players (2003 thru 2007).
You cannot win 77% of your games unless you have recruited good players. He did. At Tulsa, Georgia, and Kentucky. And still does. At Minnesota.
by FortyYearCatFan on Nov 17, 2008 6:26 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Today's comments
Charley Walters is decent at providing information but absolutely terrible at making accurate predictions.
Why do you continue to read Ruesse? I refuse to click on his column which would give Strib editors reason to think he’s popular.
And now you guys are Gopher Hockey fans?
by FishingMN on Nov 17, 2008 7:31 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
lol ...
I’m a Gophers fan in general. I just don’t know hockey well enough to feel I can comment on it without sounding totally clueless!!!
As for Reusse, I hear you. Unfortunately I either first see the headline via Google Alerts or a reader and don’t usually know who the author is until I open it.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.
by PJS on Nov 17, 2008 8:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That is pretty positive for Reusse
He could still use a drink, though.
by WhiteSpeedReceiver on Nov 17, 2008 10:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Brewater's Call
I am with you….. barely. At the time I also felt it was best not to take a chance. It hasn’t been mentioned that the injury timeout ran just under 20 minutes. I was terrified that Weber would pass and that the time out would have negatively impacted his or a receivers timing or focus. In retrospect, throwing a very short, high percentage pass to get back in the groove would have made sense. Then, a decision could have been made.
All that said, I think those who see this decision as a 100% Brewster error are wrong. Its a close call. If Weber had thrown an interception, or worse – if a freshman receiver had bumbled a ball and it ended up in the hands of a defender, these same complainers would be screaiming that anyone knows after a long injury time out that the coach should protect the lead and take it to halftime.
Tough decision. I am not going to use this instance as a reason to find fault with Brewster.
by SenatorsGuy on Nov 17, 2008 10:57 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
No, Brewster didn't...
make the right decision. I actually disagreed with him both on this decision, and his decision at the end of the Northwestern game…and here’s why. We were expected to win the Northwestern game, and it was at home, and if we sit on the ball there, we can take our chances in overtime. The chances were slim that we would’ve moved the additional 40-45 yards we needed in less than a minute, and it was just too risky to try to advance in our own half of the field, especially in a tie game.
Conversely, we were 2-TD underdogs against Wisconsin, we were moving the ball with ease through most of the first half, and the reward of going into halftime with a 17- or 21-point lead was more than worth the risk of giving up a FG or TD against a team we were supposed to lose to anyway.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not like either call was cut-and-dried…both were coin flips, and he just happened to pick the wrong side of the coin both times. It definitely cost us the NU game, and might’ve cost the Wisconsin game as well.
by dpodoll68 on Nov 17, 2008 11:03 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
what we are expected to do?
should have no bearing.
Why risk giving them something positive for a shot at three points with a shaky kicker in cold/windy conditions. You have all the momentum and your team is playing with great confidence, don’t do anything to screw that up in the last 20 seconds.
what you say here can, and will, be used against you
by GopherNation on Nov 17, 2008 11:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I couldn't disagree with you more
What we are expected to do means everything in the world. You’re telling me you wouldn’t play a little riskier against Ohio St than Montana St? In games you’re expected to lose, you need to take chances to try and mitigate the disparity in talent, homefield advantage, etc., etc. Not to mention the fact that Wisconsin was sure to play with more emotion in the second half after seeing their teammate taken off the field in an ambulance.
by dpodoll68 on Nov 17, 2008 2:48 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
you can disagree with both decisions
but it is because they were very different scenarios in different games. Being at home vs. on the road is one thing but because we were “expected” to beat NU isn’t why he should have taken a knee. I can completely see the argument that at home you play for overtime, or because after 60 min you feel that your defense can stop what you have seen from NU you play for overtime. But being favorites before kickoff has little to do with it.
Same for the Wisconsin game. The argument that we were moving the ball, had timeouts to use and only need another 20 yards to get a legit FG opportunity is a good one. But again it has nothing to do with pre-game is all I’m saying. It has everything to do with current the situation. If we were down I’m certain we would have gone for more points. But we were up and playing with great confidence, there was no reason at that time to risk giving momentum back before halftime.
what you say here can, and will, be used against you
by GopherNation on Nov 18, 2008 11:06 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

by 











