Closing out games

Statalyzer

Statalyzer

10,000+ Posts
Maryland: Had a 29-24 lead, Maryland ends game on 10-0 run
Tulsa: Had a 21-0 lead, Tulsa ends game on 21-7 run
USC: Up 2 at halftime, Texas won the 2nd half 21-0
TCU: Down 10-16, Texas ended the game on a 21-0 run
Kansas State: We were shut out after halftime and KSU ended the game scoring the last 14 points
Oklahoma: We were up 21, Oklahoma ended the game on a 21-3 run
Baylor: We were shut out after halftime although at least Baylor didn't go on a run
Oklahoma State / WVU: We lost but neither team really had a 2nd half "run".
Texas Tech: We were up 34-17, Tech ended the game on a 17-7 run.
Iowa State: We gave up 1 TD at the end but they didn't really go on a run
Kansas: We were up 21-0 and then they went on a 17-3 run to end the game.

So that's 2 games where we finished strong (USC/TCU), 3 games where we finished ok (OSU/WVU/ISU), 1 where we merely didn't finish well (Baylor), and 6 (Maryland/Tulsa/K-State/OU/Tech/Kansas) where we finished very poorly. Now we did manage to go 5-1 in those games, but this is a worrying trend. We've been outscored 122-58 in the 4th quarters, but as Baylor, Kansas State, and Tulsa have shown, it's not just a 4th quarter issue, we just seem to mostly get worse as the game goes on. The baffling thing about it is that it doesn't at least seem to be a conditioning issue, so I'm not sure what to chalk it up to. In a couple of cases maybe our offense went into a little bit too much of a shell trying to a protect a lead, but that's not what happened against Oklahoma or Texas Tech as they roared back to tie games they never should have been in - we just flat-out got stopped and failed to make stops.
 
IMO, this trend is evidence that we are not yet an appreciably better team (athletically) than the competition. As such, it requires consistently high levels of focus and execution for us to prevail. If/when we have a lapse in concentration, the result is a run by the opposing team.
In short, we're just not that good yet. On the bright side, we're staying focused enough and exhibiting enough mental and physical toughness to win games that we had been losing.
 
It’s probably a depth issue. As over 75% of Charlie’s recruits left the program or got buried on the depth chart. In 19’ and 20’ this will become less of an issue as TH recruits build back in all the depth. CS left this program inside of a dumpster fire! TH stated we are overachieving this year with the shape the program was in at the beginning of his tenure.
 
The common thread in those games is pretty consistent. Herman wants the ID of this team to be one that can go out, physically dominate with the run game, get a lead, and then just suck the life out of an opponent with ball-control and efficient passing. Right now, this team isn't good enough up front to line up and run on teams that are determined not to let that happen. So the run game tends to stagnate down the stretch, we get in long-yardage situations, and the team starts to play behind the chains more.

I would also argue there have been some extenuating circumstances that have made those trends look worse (Sam going out in two of them was a big part of it, and frankly Sam's subpar game on Friday was the only reason this trend got repeated against Kansas.)

The second common thread is that in the games we lost as well as the Tech and OU game, the defense basically got gassed down the stretch against very good offenses that were able to spread us out and pick us apart. I don't think this is as big a threat now, as we're starting to work in more young guys (and getting Jones and Roach back as well). The defense was a lot fresher down the stretch in both of the last two games as a result.

It's annoying, and it's a little troubling, but I think the issues is more that we just have to find a way to run the ball consistently when we need to work the clock.
 
Great post and also agree with Prodigal. I would argue that in each of the 6 games noted we’ve lost our edge at about the moment mentioned in the original post. Closing out an opponent is very difficult in any sport. I think it’s a learned team trait and it’s more difficult for young teams like ours. Typically, an opponent with any character will raise its level of play out of desperation; thus, the team in the lead needs to do the same as well. You can’t have penalties that nuke key plays (eg, OU); turn-overs (MD, among others); or simply allow your level of play to drop. Nor can you go plain vanilla or overly conservative in play calling. I thought in MD, for example, the team took a collective sigh of relief when we first took the lead, almost as if thinking, ok, the universe is right now. And I had this da,e feeling against OU when we were up 21, against TTU when we were up 17 and KU when Sam scored our 3rd TD. The best teams find a way to keep- their level high even when in the lead by large margins. This is a learned team trait in my view (Ie, coaches and players) and I think it will come, though i had hoped grester progress would have shown by the KU game.
 
WorsterMan said:
aggy had a lead going into 4th, now tied, but they will find a way to lose... watch.
Click to expand...

LSU starting to wear out their D - scored on a long fumble return, then got a drive where the running game started to work and all of a sudden they're up 7. 6:41 to play, in fairness to A&M I don't think they've "aggied" it so much as LSU has stepped up their game on both sides of the ball.
 
WorsterMan said:
aggy had a lead going into 4th, now tied, but they will find a way to lose... watch.
Click to expand...
Scoop and score followed by a long drive of long runs where aggie got gutted. This will be painful if aggie loses. (Note aggie previously scored on a short field due to muffed punt).
 
As irritating as it is to listen to the SEC guys call this, they did get it right about Mond. The LSU pressure was starting to get to him in the second half, and on the fourth down play, he clearly bailed out of the pocket early and ended up coming up short on a scramble that really didn't have much of a chance.
 
Giving up PART of a lead while bleeding out the game clock conservatively is not even in the same universe as losing a lead and losing a game. The way we usually get ahead is deep 50/50 balls to our very good tall WRs. Or chancy QB runs. Or trick plays. Do you really want to run those plays when we are up 21 points, or isn’t it better to run 6 plays, make one or 2 first downs, and take 6 minutes off the clock?
 
Do you really want to run those plays when we are up 21 points, or isn’t it better to run 6 plays, make one or 2 first downs, and take 6 minutes off the clock?
Click to expand...

I just don't think that's mostly been the issue. It's not like we handed off up the middle the entirety of the KSU 2nd half, for example. And our defense giving up all those points late isn't really related to the offensive strategy change either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top