When we were up 50-39...

RU848789

Heisman
Jul 27, 2001
65,219
44,294
113
I honestly thought we were the better team and were going to win by 6-10 points at that point. Not quite.
 

Mr. Magoo1

Heisman
Nov 15, 2001
15,492
16,349
113
We always stop doing what gets us those leads and play “not to lose” rather than playing to win. We seem to think that draining the shot clock is more important than continuing to be aggressive . When you have the decent lead, you have to play as if the game is tied. Same thing happened at Minny and a few other games this season.
 

dvb91

Senior
Feb 5, 2003
5,184
929
0
We always stop doing what gets us those leads and play “not to lose” rather than playing to win. We seem to think that draining the shot clock is more important than continuing to be aggressive . When you have the decent lead, you have to play as if the game is tied. Same thing happened at Minny and a few other games this season.
Yeah, I noticed that. Stopped attacking with pace, trying to take the air out of the ball with no off the ball movement. It works if you finish the possession with a score, but if you don't, you lose momentum. It's like a no huddle offense using the full time clock along with a huddle. I get the reasoning, but if you are not efficient enough, it tends to let the other team get back in the game with a few shots.
 

RUJMM78

Heisman
Jul 25, 2001
26,230
12,492
113
Yeah, I noticed that. Stopped attacking with pace, trying to take the air out of the ball with no off the ball movement. It works if you finish the possession with a score, but if you don't, you lose momentum. It's like a no huddle offense using the full time clock along with a huddle. I get the reasoning, but if you are not efficient enough, it tends to let the other team get back in the game with a few shots.
Bottom line Rutgers is far more effective in a uptempo game than a slow down half course offense,