Riverboat Gambler

[Boonan 0]

I always find it amusing when a coach makes a call like Tubs to run a fake like that and it works, and everyone talks about how gutsy it is and how great it was and all that.

Don't get me wrong, Tubs definitely showed he has a pair, and it was pretty cool, but...

all these same (mostly radio) people would go absolutely nuts if Washington State had stuffed it and stranded the D at its own 16 or whatever the yardline was.

Of course I'd properly be right in there on my knees with my arms to the sky and screaming "WHY?!?!?!?"

[saniflush 0]

Don't know. I want to believe that CTT saw it as an opportunity to give future opposition something else to think about. That would be the PRO spin.

[WarTim 3,456]

The "River Boat Gambler" gave me a semi-heart attack Saturday Night !

[GoAU 1,600]

Don't know. I want to believe that CTT saw it as an opportunity to give future opposition something else to think about. That would be the PRO spin.

I agree - he had a reputation for being quite unpredictable, that IMO, gave him an advatgae at times. Over the past two seasons we have seen less and less of that, and I think he wanted to dust a bit of that image off again.

[AUesquire 1]

That was a

It worked but that was the wrong place and the wrong time to pull something like that.

[Dyebama 2]

From what i remember, we did not run too many fakes last year.. and we have soooo many weapons on O that we just might see more of it if the opportunity arises.

or who knows, that may be the only fake we run and every body else will have to prepair for it just in Case.

Only Time Will Tell .... one game at a time.

[abrnfanatc 6]

Don't know. I want to believe that CTT saw it as an opportunity to give future opposition something else to think about. That would be the PRO spin.

I agree - he had a reputation for being quite unpredictable, that IMO, gave him an advatgae at times. Over the past two seasons we have seen less and less of that, and I think he wanted to dust a bit of that image off again.

Absolutely.

I have heard much complaining around here about how he hasn't lived up to his image lately. IMO, that was much better than breaking out a gadget play. Anyone knows there is a threat of a fake punt anytime any team lines up to punt it away. Just opened a few eyes on future punt coverage teams, which should keep from getting any punts blocked for a while at least.

[RadioWryn 0]

That was a

It worked but that was the wrong place and the wrong time to pull something like that.

I'll tell Tuberville to defer to you on coaching questions from now on. K?

It worked, Tigers got the momentum back after WSU had nobody guarding the middle of the line.

Would you also like to go on recruiting trips while we're at it?

Geez.

[saniflush 0]

Let me expound a little on my original post.

1) I think throughout most of CTT's career including other schools, his talent level was at best mid-range and he needed these plays and fake punts to try to even the playing field and get some momentum.

2) With his talent level being what it is now he does them every now and then for a completely different reason. If by running that fake punt he takes thirty minutes of defensive or offensive practice time away from our opponents so that they can work on defending a fake, then it is worth it. That to me is what's happening

You saw more of these plays when he felt he had to use them to level the playing field.

[Ranger12 46]

Okay, before the bickering starts about if it was the right thing or not even if it worked or not, let's remember something about the game. Every play called could be up for question because every play called does not always work, regardless if it is a play run numerous times a game or a trick play.

Also, trick plays are a "gamble" for a reason. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. You are a hero if it works or a goat if it doesn't. To debate trick plays, IMHO, is a waste of time just because of their nature. Most of the time they are going to fail, but those times they do work, it is a glorious thing to behold.

[saniflush 0]

Okay, before the bickering starts about if it was the right thing or not even if it worked or not, let's remember something about the game. Every play called could be up for question because every play called does not always work, regardless if it is a play run numerous times a game or a trick play.

YEA! What was the coaching staff thinking calling those running plays the beginning of each half!

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

I'll tell Tuberville to defer to you on coaching questions from now on. K?

Like playing time for running backs?

[RadioWryn 0]

The score was 26-14 following a long WSU touchdown pass in the 3rd quarter. Momentum was with the Cougars following the play. Following a 3-and-out (I believe), Auburn had 4th and long from its own 15.

Auburn's special teams unit went out with the fake punt play, but were going to option out of it if WSU had linemen in the middle of the defensive line. They didn't, the play stood, and a relatively safe "draw" play ensued out of the punt formation.

Momentum was with the Tigers (I found the halfback pass later on the drive to be stranger) and they scored two more touchdowns in the fourth for the winning margin. If Auburn punts right there, WSU undoubtedly gets great field position and another TD makes it a 5-point game.

[RadioWryn 0]

I'll tell Tuberville to defer to you on coaching questions from now on. K?

Like playing time for running backs?

Sure.

[AUesquire 1]

I'm glad it worked. But there is nothing safe about a fake punt deep in your own territory while you're up by two scores. Rationalize it any way you want. It's a huge risk that has far more bad possibilities than positives that might come out of it. I'd rather take my chances on my new DC making the proper adjustments to get the momentum back. They did do that, by the way.

I don't mind fake punts, field goals, a few gadget plays here and there. I just question the timing of this one. Hey, it worked. So, how dare I question the decision making.

[Ranger12 46]

I don't mind fake punts, field goals, a few gadget plays here and there. I just question the timing of this one. Hey, it worked. So, how dare I question the decision making.

Not trying to defend it either way, because it did work, but the timing of a play like that does determine the success rate of those type of plays.

For example take the play we are talking about into consideration. If we would have been at the 45 or 50, the defense would have more likely been looking for a fake punt. But, being inside our own 20, the defense is going to be alot less suspectful of fake punt. So, you want to run a fake punt, field goal, or any other trick play when you think the defense does not suspect it as much. Again, that is why trick plays are called "gambles" and not safe plays.

[AUesquire 1]

I just can't even bring myself to do more than play the nickel slots at Biloxi. Just not much of a gambler.

[Weagle98 119]

I agree AUesquire. I hate when people say "what was he thinking" when the play doesn't work, but don't say "what was he thinking" when it does work.

If the play didn't work and they got the ball back at our 20 yard line some of these people saying "it was a good call" would be saying "what was he thinking". You want to talk about giving them field position.

We are the ones being consistant here. The play worked, yay, don't think it was the right call still. I think we should trust our D a little more than that.

And it isn't darned if you do, darned if you don't. I don't think if he had punted anyone would be saying "CTT should have run a fake there".

Auburn would have won either way so I don't think it was that big of a deal.

[abrnfanatc 6]

I just can't even bring myself to do more than play the nickel slots at Biloxi. Just not much of a gambler.

You know they now have penny slots all over Vegas? I was in piggie heaven my last trip...

[quietfan 233]

The "River Boat Gambler" gave me a semi-heart attack Saturday Night !

Well, like so many, including apparently all of the WSU defense, I didn't catch on to the fake until after Herring had already passed the first down marker, so I had no palpatations other than excitement. Had I caught onto the fake earlier, I proabably would have at least stopped breathing.

[rolltoomer 0]

My only beef is that I didn't make the loud-voiced proclamation to the several folks watching the game with me that, "I think it would be a good time for a fake punt here".

Wazzu had the MO. The sideline camera shots showed the AU guys with furrowed brows and worried looks.

It was a big Mo changer.

[BigSammyK 171]

gamble[gam-buhl] verb, -bled, -bling, noun

-verb (used without object) 1. to play at any game of chance for money or other stakes.

2. to stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance: to gamble on a toss of the dice.

-verb (used with object) 3. to lose or squander by betting (usually fol. by away): He gambled all his hard-earned money away in one night.

4. to wager or risk (money or something else of value): to gamble one's freedom.

5. to take a chance on; venture; risk: I'm gambling that our new store will be a success.

-noun 6. any matter or thing involving risk or hazardous uncertainty.

7. a venture in a game of chance for stakes, esp. for high stakes

[AUloggerhead 2,241]

I just can't even bring myself to do more than play the nickel slots at Biloxi. Just not much of a gambler.

WSU hasn't been subjected to the ways of the Riverboat Gambler like the rest of the SEC has. Fake punts/kicks rely on surprise for success more so than down & distance situation. In this case, the surprise was total which tells me it was the perfect time to call this play. WSU wasn't familiar with CTT and never saw it coming. That can't be overstated. Plus, all the air left the WSU sails after that play and they were never a threat the rest of the game. One could argue it was a game winner.

Didn't Oklahoma's Bob Stoops run a fake punt from his own territory against uat awhile back with the same situation (i.e. close game, uat had just scored, then stopped OU on 3 plays, shifting momentum?) Stoops was labeled a genius then. I can't remember anyone asking "what was he thinking?!"

[Boonan 0]

You just have to love how CTT announced he would do it again.

Now every time they line up to punt I am going to get all sweaty and scared.

[Ranger12 46]

I agree AUesquire. I hate when people say "what was he thinking" when the play doesn't work, but don't say "what was he thinking" when it does work.

If the play didn't work and they got the ball back at our 20 yard line some of these people saying "it was a good call" would be saying "what was he thinking". You want to talk about giving them field position.

We are the ones being consistant here. The play worked, yay, don't think it was the right call still. I think we should trust our D a little more than that.

And it isn't darned if you do, darned if you don't. I don't think if he had punted anyone would be saying "CTT should have run a fake there".

Auburn would have won either way so I don't think it was that big of a deal.

You totally miss the damned if you do, damned if you don't analogy. It wasn't about if he should have ran the play or not, it was referring to if the play would have worked or not. Thus my reason for the sentence right after that statement.

Again, I will say that every play that is called can be questioned because every play fails at times. You have your "safer" plays and then you have your high risk plays. Just like the stock market, they are called high risk for a reason. They can break you or make you rich. Trick plays are in the playbook for a good reason. They are meant to be used in the most unlikely place one would expect them, otherwise they would not be a trick play, they would be a "safe" play. I don't understand the questioning of a trick play when it was ran when it is least expected. THAT IS THE WHOLE IDEA BEHIND A TRICK PLAY. Again, I think it is silly to debate the whole thing, because regardless of the outcome, they are meant to be a gamble and depending if it works or fails at the time, the coach is seen as genius or as a blockhead for calling the play then. Or as we see in this case, he is questioned even when it works. Would yo have rathered him try that play on the 45 yard line when it would have been more suspected by the defense? Little risk, little reward. So again, why debate it when by it own nature, a trick play is a gamble. Sometimes you have to take a chance folks. You can't play it safe all the time.

I am like you, Esquire, I don't like to gamble at casinos or on sporting events, but I do gamble with the stock market, so I guess it depends on how you look at something depends on how much of a gamble you think it is.