Failure to rein in Canada tupidity on 4th and one as the wildcat was a dreadful call

Coincidence Canada and Chrystal were asleep goin or entertaining offers elsewhere during ros.
.

Please

That call does nothing in the grand scheme of things, they punted it back after three plays and we scored easily. That play doesn't tick me off as much as many others.

Bielema didn't hold Canada back, Canada just didn't have the creativity, period.

They had creativity on their big play of the game when the faked the dive and pitched out for an easy first down. THat's called creative play calling. You don't need to pass the ball in the situation where we got stuffed you just need to do something different.

buckyfever1 wrote: Failure to rein in Canada tupidity on 4th and one as the wildcat was a dreadful call

Coincidence Canada and Chrystal were asleep goin or entertaining offers elsewhere during ros.
.

Please

FIRE THE COACH!

Frankly...I was disappointed and would give him a D+.

He's accountable for the team, and I think the team underperformed.

White is not a goal line runner, yet we put him and not Ball in there on the crucial 4th and 1?

Why all the runs against a stacked defense?  We were way to predictable and did too many runs on first/second down.  I would bet top dollar Barry instructed Canada to run the ball more from his headset...so this just wasn't our OC.  I was watching the game with people that hardly ever watch football and even they said this was predictable play-calling.

Why can't Gordon run more than just jet-sweeps?  Why not pass to Gordon how of the WR/"jet sweep" spot?  He's one of our best athletes, and Barry didn't take advantage of his strengths.

Why the punts so close to the Standford side of the field?  We had I believe a 28 yard punt and a 31 yard punt on 4th and 1 at Standford's 46.

Barry has A LOT of pride in his conservative playing calling. I think he said once that the kneel down is his favorite play, he loves punting and 'coal miner games'...but he doesn't realize it is a risk not to take a risk.

Then there is Stave...if he is the better passer...then shouldn't he be the QB?  That is what a QB is supposed to do...having a running quarterback is nice but passing is still their primary skill. 

All in all, I felt this team was just too ineffective on offense due to their predictability and that falls on Barry.  Hopefully GA breathes new fire into this program.

B

Tough position to be in...he gave us a chance to win. What more can you ask for from him?

I'd give him at least a "B." I highly doubt that Alvarez made any of the play calls on offense and, even if so, it is difficult to fault the game plan when you do not have reliable QB play (and that is ALL the current QBs)to help with a more effective passing threat. Why do you think the sweeps were being used so liberally in the second half of the season.

I think he was playing it close to the vest so we wouldn't get blown out. Which would reflect poorly on him.

But he didn't let it all hang out as was done in the Championship game when there was nothing to lose.

How did he give uw a chance to win..

Letting Canada run that absurd 4th and one with the wildcat told me all I needed to know, he loved the spotlight but any hc with intimate game plan knowledge says f --k no in a heartbeat to that assinincall

He had no input on the offense or the defense all year so it's hard to judge him based off the last 30 days. He did what I expected him to do and that is to try and manage the staff but leave the X's and O's to the guys that have been calling the shots all year. I can't give him any worse than a B.

Ridiculous!  That B1G championship blow-out of Nebraska had a lot more to do with Nebraska's defense than you realize, as was amply demonstrated today by Stanford!

rekim wrote: I think he was playing it close to the vest so we wouldn't get blown out. Which would reflect poorly on him.

But he didn't let it all hang out as was done in the Championship game when there was nothing to lose.

wibbadger wrote: Frankly...I was disappointed and would give him a D+.

He's accountable for the team, and I think the team underperformed.

White is not a goal line runner, yet we put him and not Ball in there on the crucial 4th and 1?

Why all the runs against a stacked defense?  We were way to predictable and did too many runs on first/second down.  I would bet top dollar Barry instructed Canada to run the ball more from his headset...so this just wasn't our OC.  I was watching the game with people that hardly ever watch football and even they said this was predictable play-calling.

Why can't Gordon run more than just jet-sweeps?  Why not pass to Gordon how of the WR/"jet sweep" spot?  He's one of our best athletes, and Barry didn't take advantage of his strengths.

Why the punts so close to the Standford side of the field?  We had I believe a 28 yard punt and a 31 yard punt on 4th and 1 at Standford's 46.

Barry has A LOT of pride in his conservative playing calling. I think he said once that the kneel down is his favorite play, he loves punting and 'coal miner games'...but he doesn't realize it is a risk not to take a risk.

Then there is Stave...if he is the better passer...then shouldn't he be the QB?  That is what a QB is supposed to do...having a running quarterback is nice but passing is still their primary skill. 

All in all, I felt this team was just too ineffective on offense due to their predictability and that falls on Barry.  Hopefully GA breathes new fire into this program.

I agree. Excited for the Anderson regime.

C

I thought the staff seemed pleased we'd crawled back into the game.  Evidently they thought somewhere we'd make a play.  Given our quarterback and play-calling I assume they expected a defensive score or short-field turnover.

I'm displeased with the refs but we never really gave ourselves a chance because of decisions made by our own staff.

Barry gets a "D".  Like Phillips, nice feel-good story but a marginal performance of preparation and game management.  The Stave debacle truly sticks out like a sore thumb.

TheNewRed wrote: I'd give him at least a "B." I highly doubt that Alvarez made any of the play calls on offense and, even if so, it is difficult to fault the game plan when you do not have reliable QB play (and that is ALL the current QBs)to help with a more effective passing threat. Why do you think the sweeps were being used so liberally in the second half of the season.

Hmmm...I disagree.  I guarantee Barry was mouthing input to Canada over the headset on how to run the offense...and Barry's input was undoubtedly to (as it always was when he was the coach)..."run the ball more".  The problem with that is you become too unpredictable and your offense becomes ineffective. 

Stave is not perfect...be he's not a bad passer.  We CAN pass the ball...we just never make the effort because we want to "play Wisconsin football"   Fine...our WR depth isn't that...so be creative.  Pass to your TE's and running backs.  Ball/White/Gordon are all great athletes and can do a lot of what the receivers do.  Didn't we punt like 8 times in a row or something?   The point is we DON'T EVEN TRY to pass.  I also suspect, our WR coach spent more time coaching the receivers how to run block then how to get open and that has hurt us. 

I like the sweeps...but you need to be more than a one trick pony.  Standford spent a lot of time preparing for that and we needed diversity.  Why did we get away from the pre-snap shuffles?  They worked great at the end of the season to confuse the defense...and we only really tinkered with this a bit during the Rose Bowl :(

Game grade C.
For the whole situation B. Things could have been much worse.

I don't dispute the significance of the Stanford defense. But when pounding your head against a wall is getting you no where in the second half why not have something else to try?

Because it might back-fire. And Barry had control of overall game management.

Was Mussberger wrong when he said early in the telecast that Barry had some say over the play calling?

I still feel Barry kept pounding or had Canada keep pounding so that we didn'y have more turnovers.

It kept the game close and respectable, but did not put us in position to make enough plays on offense.

For holding things together under some very difficult circumstances (see some of the results of other teams that have lost HC's heading in to bowl games) and providing a platform that allowed the Badgers to remain in the game against one of the best teams in the country I give him an A

For the performance of the team on the field today I give him a C.  I would love for someone to point out to me one thing that BA did today as the head coach that was somehow better than what BB had done in the past two Rose Bowls.

BA today = BB last 2.  True.  Though I do think that BA got more out of the talent at hand today than BB did.

D3Badger wrote: For holding things together under some very difficult circumstances (see some of the results of other teams that have lost HC's heading in to bowl games) and providing a platform that allowed the Badgers to remain in the game against one of the best teams in the country I give him an A

For the performance of the team on the field today I give him a C.  I would love for someone to point out to me one thing that BA did today as the head coach that was somehow better than what BB had done in the past two Rose Bowls.

Did a good job considering the position he was in. Everyone is forgetting that we were a five loss team playing the number six team in the country. While we could have easily won the game, but losing by six was no an embarassment by any means.

A minus because we lost. It was a field position game and we had many chances to win and we did not. But these were extremely difficult conditions and to have a chance and be on the 50 yard line with two minutes. I felt he did his part to get us in that position. GA say a lot today.

D

Again, anyone seeing the wildcat on a very tough and fresh cardinal d and not saying bs? Is not in tune with the game plan IMO

That was as bad as the infamous uw double reverse against Iowa in mid 80,s,

Awful

At best I say d-

I thought he was fine but when it gets close to the end of a half or end of game I cringe at his clock management. Bielema was bad at it and Barry was no better. Held things together when they fell behind early.

I'm guessing Barry saw a lot of mike Samuel in curt Phillips and he did make some nice plays with his feet. Barry was used to winning by getting a big play from defense or special teams and unfortunately that never materialized.

B

I am assuming there were good reasons for using Stave as little as he did and so am not judging that (I have been in solid agreement with 8843 on Stave's potential though). Also felt pretty strongly that the in-game coaching was superior to BB - for once I wasn't wincing at the clock management.

If you look at the total circumstances (almost total staff turnover, QB situation, new coach) the team regrouped and was in position to pull this off against a very strong and well-prepared team.

Am really excited about next year!

C

It would be nice if someday the badgers get a coach that understands going for it on 4th and 1 from the opponents 40 with the best running back in the nation gives you a higher % chance of winning then punting and getting 25 yards in field position.  Every stat says this is an absolutely terrible move, although almost all coaches do it.

Can someone send Barry and Gary a copy of Moneyball?  Or at least an email with an article on it?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/04/football- statistics-show-teams_n_1254352.html

I've said this already a few times, the wildcat stuff at the one really didn't change a whole lot, we got the ball back within 120 seconds and scored very quickly. It was essentially the same damn thing. You're crazy to say that if we scored that Stanford couldn't have done the same damn thing. We had momentum in each situation. To keep reverting back to the wildcat stuff as the most horrible thing that happened this game is ridiculous.

This was obviously not a game where each team was one-upping each other with score after score once things settled down. The we lost the second half 3-0 which if that score was flipped we'd be in overtime possibly. We played an extremely conservative second half (and first half but with more fire it seemed) in many battles for field position, multiple times in which we got screwed. It happens. We lost and now we move on and improve for next year, which we most certainly will defensively and we can't be much worse offensively than we were this year if we've got two guys who could run the offense well in Houston or Stave.

D. Looked like a guy who hasnt coached a game in many years. Handled the whole situation very well though, but as far as todays game he was very bad.

God, the idiocy in this thread.  They had the ball in Stanford territory with a chance to win against the #5 team in the country in the final 2 minutes, and that was after falling behind 14-0. Barry did his job.  Players failed to execute enough.

This is one of the most idiotic threads I have ever read.

I wonder what the statistical benefit is from punting from the opponents 30.