ADVERTISEMENT

Kicking the FG instead of going for the TD

bluejohnson said:
Ok. I see your point! However I've never once questioned your ability to "think"! But since you have questioned mine. Tell me mr genius why do you think they had to go 98 yards? They didn't, nor would've, to have forced ot! And chances are better than average at that point we lose if it goes to overtime! But carry on with your mental napoleonic complex! Have a nice day!
Click to expand...

Mr. Genius here Mr. Johnson. Yes, I have questioned many on this thread about their ability to "think". Most of those are now manning the Homer Defense Battalion, and don't appear here for me anymore, and that is a very good thing. That Ignore List is the best thing since sliced bread. Whittling this forum down to people who understand the game makes the conversation here much better IMO. Everyone should try it....and by all means ignore me if you don't like my opinions.

Anyway, let's address your comments:
  • "why do you think they had to go 98 yards?" I am Old School, and thus, play football by the rules, and the rule states that the winner is declared by who is ahead at the end of regulation play. Period. Read closely now; If we go for it, and we score. GAME OVER.....If we go and miss, we leave them with 98+or- to go for a touchdown to win. NOT concerned about a tie, as we are playing to win....so you go for the win, NOT to "Eliminate the Tie, while still allowing them a final shot at beating us!!!!....albeit 23 yards closer to the endzone via this ignorant decision. Major flaw in the decision making process here. It really is basic football for those that can "think". Truly amazing how many canNOT.
  • "chances are better than average at that point we lose if it goes to overtime!" Totally bogus hyperbole. No fact, not one iota........Did you hear that? That was your credibility slamming the door as it left the building.
Let me know Mr. Johnson, if you want to go join the HDB. There ranks are filling fast, but there's still plenty of room for another mindless soldier.

.........and you too. Have a nice day.
 
KatFootballFan said:

  • "why do you think they had to go 98 yards?" I am Old School, and thus, play football by the rules, and the rule states that the winner is declared by who is ahead at the end of regulation play. Period. Read closely now; If we go for it, and we score. GAME OVER.....If we go and miss, we leave them with 98+or- to go for a touchdown to win. NOT concerned about a tie, as we are playing to win....so you go for the win, NOT to "Eliminate the Tie, while still allowing them a final shot at beating us!!!!....albeit 23 yards closer to the endzone via this ignorant decision. Major flaw in the decision making process here. It really is basic football for those that can "think". Truly amazing how many canNOT.
Click to expand...
That is about as good of an explanation as I have seen. How do you not go for the knock-out punch when you have a solid back-up plan if you fail to score? I keep hearing that we won the game so Stoops made the right choice. That is thoughtless. We should have won the game either way but by punching it in, we would have had a better chance. You can go against the odds and still win sometimes but in the long run, the odds will bear out and you will win more games by putting the team in the best position to win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KatFootballFan
I can't argue with that call.

What concerned me was with about three minutes to go in the first half we went conservative and tried to run unsuccessfully when they had nine in the box just daring us to run and we should have played to win and not to lose. Our receivers would have been wide open.
Of course we punted. they got the ball and scored which would not have happened if we had opened up the offense.
 
Well I created this account just to say IMO Stoops showed a lot of trust in his team by kicking the field goal. He trusted his defense to get the stop even though they had not previously had much success in that. We can second guess his decision for days, but what if is what my kids rely on. I have been a Kentucky Football fan for my entire life and this fan base heavily relies on what if. Lets start relying on reality and enjoy the success. We are getting better and I am enjoying the ride. Yes the losses sting a little bit more now, but the victories are glorious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lost In FL, The-Hack and fabcat
KatFootballFan said:
Mr. Genius here Mr. Johnson. Yes, I have questioned many on this thread about their ability to "think". Most of those are now manning the Homer Defense Battalion, and don't appear here for me anymore, and that is a very good thing. That Ignore List is the best thing since sliced bread. Whittling this forum down to people who understand the game makes the conversation here much better IMO. Everyone should try it....and by all means ignore me if you don't like my opinions.

Anyway, let's address your comments:
  • "why do you think they had to go 98 yards?" I am Old School, and thus, play football by the rules, and the rule states that the winner is declared by who is ahead at the end of regulation play. Period. Read closely now; If we go for it, and we score. GAME OVER.....If we go and miss, we leave them with 98+or- to go for a touchdown to win. NOT concerned about a tie, as we are playing to win....so you go for the win, NOT to "Eliminate the Tie, while still allowing them a final shot at beating us!!!!....albeit 23 yards closer to the endzone via this ignorant decision. Major flaw in the decision making process here. It really is basic football for those that can "think". Truly amazing how many canNOT.
  • "chances are better than average at that point we lose if it goes to overtime!" Totally bogus hyperbole. No fact, not one iota........Did you hear that? That was your credibility slamming the door as it left the building.
Let me know Mr. Johnson, if you want to go join the HDB. There ranks are filling fast, but there's still plenty of room for another mindless soldier.

.........and you too. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
Just because you think that about the end of the game, don't mean that's the way they play the game. NCAA says if it's tied you keep playing. So they didn't have to go 98 yards to continue playing. Either team can win in overtime with way it is setup. With Austin I like our chances, but that don't mean we couldn't lose.

There was no wrong call. Making them score a touchdown was the safest bet and and give you the best chance of winning. (Which is what you want correct). And therefore why I believe that was best bet and it worked so it was correct call. . Not saying it couldn't of worked had we went for it. But this gave you the best chance of winning. Also we had shown we struggled in goal to go situations all night. (I'll get to that in a minute).


During the game mizzu had 12 full drives (not counting final drive) that resulted in 4 tds. So they converted those at about a 25percent clip that resulted in seven points. Kicking the fg required them to do that (on time restraints). On the drives they attempted or gained enough yards to attempt (td drives would of been in fg range) fg on eight of those. That's a 75 percent ratio. (Not counting last one which they made it). There offense moved the ball at will yards wide, but couldn't punch it in the endzone unless on an explosive play (they did score on a one yard run, but that was set up the play before with a 50yard pass).

No one knows the outcome had we went for it, but what we did worked. (Plus the ball never got to the endzone either to threaten a score) Therefore it was a good call.

Statistics show it was better to take the fg based on the game situation (we struggled and settled for a lot of fg and might of had to in ot). It was the choice that gave you the best chances to win had we not scored the td. (We had nine offensive plays inside the ten on offense. We converted one of those. Four plays inside the three and we never got a td on any of them). So what was our chances of getting the fourth down?

If we use there fg kicker had struggled (he did make 3/5 (6 on the re kick), as a reason to go for it, then we have to say we struggled getting ball in endzone and wouldn't of made it either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freetaxreturn
loucatfan said:
I can't argue with that call.

What concerned me was with about three minutes to go in the first half we went conservative and tried to run unsuccessfully when they had nine in the box just daring us to run and we should have played to win and not to lose. Our receivers would have been wide open.
Of course we punted. they got the ball and scored which would not have happened if we had opened up the offense.
Click to expand...

We didn't get conservative. We took the ball over inside our five yard line. We moved it to the 47 and had a first and ten. Problem was we held on that play. That put us way behind the sticks 2/20ish, Inside our own twenty. How often do teams convert that situation. We wasnplaying to score, but the holding call changed the complexion of the drive.

The safety couldn't get beat there!

Then we through a screen play (not a fan of call but wasn't a run up middle so wasn't a super safe call as you are tring to catch the lineman in a ears pinned back rush passer play) that should of been a pick six, After that why not go to half with a lead and less then 18 seconds needing 50 yards to set up a 53 yard fg attempt. .

But the last full drive didn't start bein conservative The penelty changed the entire thing when we got way behind the sticks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fabcat
I'm still the camp that going 75 yards for a TD is way harder than going 65-70 for a 50/50 FG. I.e., gaining 75 yards on a drive w/o a TD is way simpler than 75 yards with a TD. Those last 1,5,10, 20 yards for TD are the toughest with the more limited field length.
 
vhcat70 said:
I'm still the camp that going 75 yards for a TD is way harder than going 65-70 for a 50/50 FG. I.e., gaining 75 yards on a drive w/o a TD is way simpler than 75 yards with a TD. Those last 1,5,10, 20 yards for TD are the toughest with the more limited field length.
Click to expand...

One more time:

If we go for it on 4th and miss, we leave them with 98+or- to go for a touchdown to win. NOT concerned about a tie, as we are playing to win....so you go for the win, NOT to "Eliminate the Tie, while still allowing them a final shot at beating us!!!!....albeit 23 yards closer to the endzone....Stopping them from beating us is GREATER THAN (>) the threat of tying us, thus you put them as far away from said "win" or "beating us" as possible, and in this case it was the 2. The tie is NOT as important as the possibility of LOSING the game IN REGULATION, lol. The, as in THE worst case scenario here was going into overtime, versus the loss. I'll take a second chance in OT versus a loss all day long. Giving them the ball on the 25 INCREASED their chances of beating us.....by 23 yards and few extra seconds. Why would anybody do this??????...................You can still switch camps. Seeing the light is much better than being blind to the facts.
 
You keep saying this about preventing a tie.... that you play to win. When was the last tie in college football. If they do tie, it you can still lose... nearly everyone but you says both calls could be right and not one over the other. You keep putting this false thing about how they HAVE to go 98 yards to beat you instead of 75. That is factually not true. Yes in regulation, but that wasn't the only way you could lose the game correct?

They could go 65 yards, make a fg and beat you in overtime. Then they would of had to go less than the 75 they did to beat you. The How crucified would stoops of been on here and how every coach would of took the points. It worked out and gave us a statistical best chance to win. That's all you can ask for correct. Not only did it worked it's what 95 percent of coaches would have done in the same situation.
 
USMCWILDCAT said:
Well I created this account just to say IMO Stoops showed a lot of trust in his team by kicking the field goal. He trusted his defense to get the stop even though they had not previously had much success in that. We can second guess his decision for days, but what if is what my kids rely on. I have been a Kentucky Football fan for my entire life and this fan base heavily relies on what if. Lets start relying on reality and enjoy the success. We are getting better and I am enjoying the ride. Yes the losses sting a little bit more now, but the victories are glorious.
Click to expand...
Will never happen, some fans live in misery, win or lose!
 
  • Like
Reactions: USMCWILDCAT
KatFootballFan said:
One more time:

If we go for it on 4th and miss, we leave them with 98+or- to go for a touchdown to win. NOT concerned about a tie, as we are playing to win....so you go for the win, NOT to "Eliminate the Tie, while still allowing them a final shot at beating us!!!!....albeit 23 yards closer to the endzone....Stopping them from beating us is GREATER THAN (>) the threat of tying us, thus you put them as far away from said "win" or "beating us" as possible, and in this case it was the 2. The tie is NOT as important as the possibility of LOSING the game IN REGULATION, lol. The, as in THE worst case scenario here was going into overtime, versus the loss. I'll take a second chance in OT versus a loss all day long. Giving them the ball on the 25 INCREASED their chances of beating us.....by 23 yards and few extra seconds. Why would anybody do this??????...................You can still switch camps. Seeing the light is much better than being blind to the facts.
Click to expand...
Pete Carroll made the same call last Sun, I guess he doesn't shiz either. :flush:
 
2koolpa said:
I created this account after years of lurking on this forum simply because of that ABSURD decision to kick the fg at the end of tonights game instead of going for the 2 yard TD.

This is not a post to discuss the season, the game, Mark Stoops, his coaching ability, etc....

I am not here to introduce myself or explain my fandom.

I simply need someone out there to know that making the choice to kick the FG in that situation was one of the worst calls I have ever seen.

Missouri scoring a touchdown BEATS YOU EITHER WAY. There really is no argument here. You go for the touchdown to put the game away. If you don't make it, they need to drive 98+ yards to beat you anyway.

You have to have confidence that you can make those 2 yards to seal it. If you don't make it you have to have confidence that you can prevent them from driving 98+ yards with no timeouts to beat you. You have to at the very least have confidence that you can hold them to a FG that simply ties you and then you go beat them in OT.

That call was a complete lack of confidence in the team. It was a pathetic, worthless, gutless and above all else stupid decision. Happy for the win, but again, this post is not about anything else. Mark Stoops, Eddie Gran, Mitch Barnhart, Eli Capilouto... John Calipari... whoever, I don't care...... I need SOMEBODY out there to know how livid I was when our field goal unit trotted out onto the field. That is all.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with you.
 
uofkFTW18 said:
I have no problem with either decision, honestly. There are valid arguments for and against both IMO.
Click to expand...

This. ^^

And that is why Stoops made the correct call, because UK won the game and all other variations amount to only conjecture. As someone here said previously, the worst you can say about Stoops is that he is a risk taker going against the odds (if such odds can actually be calculated based upon the various factors).
 
reflaine said:
You keep saying this about preventing a tie.... that you play to win. When was the last tie in college football. If they do tie, it you can still lose... nearly everyone but you says both calls could be right and not one over the other. You keep putting this false thing about how they HAVE to go 98 yards to beat you instead of 75. That is factually not true. Yes in regulation, but that wasn't the only way you could lose the game correct?

They could go 65 yards, make a fg and beat you in overtime. Then they would of had to go less than the 75 they did to beat you. The How crucified would stoops of been on here and how every coach would of took the points. It worked out and gave us a statistical best chance to win. That's all you can ask for correct. Not only did it worked it's what 95 percent of coaches would have done in the same situation.
Click to expand...
The guy is an idiot, don't even try to explain it to him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: reflaine
KatFootballFan said:
I'll put this one away in my vast memory bank until such time when we do get beat (and it's going to happen)
Click to expand...

Stop and think about that sentence fragment, for just a moment . . . . tell me our culture hasn't changed dramatically . . . . yes, we will get beat[en], and so will Bama . . . . but it's happening to each of us in historically low percentages, of late.

Caveman Catfan said:
* Playing it safe typically doesn't work out well for us
Click to expand...

It didn't used to, but now . . . .
 
The-Hack said:
Stop and think about that sentence fragment, for just a moment . . . . tell me our culture hasn't changed dramatically . . . . yes, we will get beat[en], and so will Bama . . . . but it's happening to each of us in historically low percentages, of late.



It didn't used to, but now . . . .
Click to expand...

Got nothing to do with dramatic cultural change, lol. All teams will lose in football and generally it happens fairly frequently. That was NOT the point being made herein.

If you watched the Florida game (multiple errors), and the other games where we let the air out of the ball, you see a reoccurring strategy of playing it safe, and tranferring momentum to our opponent. Furthermore, we've seen repeated flaws in clock management since CMS has been here. Leaving a timeout on the board while running the clock down to 2 or 3 seconds last year versus MSU is not good strategy. But here again, we reach the jist of my point. "We won, and thus, it must have been the right call." ..and here we are today. CMS made a very poor call this past weekend kicking the field goal, and thus he gave Mizzou a BETTER chance (less field to cover) and more time in which to beat us. Yes, we won the game, so it was the right call....right? No, it wasn't. Thus, I'm storing this really poor call away, until such time that CMS's decision yet again costs us a game......and it is not a question of "if", rather "when", given his repeated mistakes from the sideline. Nobodies perfect, but multi-million dollar coaches should NOT be making repeated questionable calls. He's had a good run of dodging the bullet, and it is bound to bite him again sometime soon. ESPECIALLY given his penchant of keeping teams within two scores, as he milks the clock, shifting from winning football (scoring) to playing not to lose (stalling)..........Hard to argue with the facts. Kicking the FG gave Mizzou its best chance to beat us, by shortening the field AND saving them some clock. Simple stuff.....for some.
 
The-Hack said:
Stop and think about that sentence fragment, for just a moment . . . . tell me our culture hasn't changed dramatically . . . . yes, we will get beat[en], and so will Bama . . . . but it's happening to each of us in historically low percentages, of late.



It didn't used to, but now . . . .
Click to expand...

For the record, the "playing it safe" quote should not be attributed to me. I was quoting TBCat.
 
The-Hack said:
The way I read this thread is the HDB are battlin' the SGG (Second Guessin' Guru's).
Click to expand...

It's really not a second guess, it's a measurable, factual premise.....for those that can "think"...........but hey, you can't fight your destiny. You may be an officer in the HDB. Sgt. Schultz is retiring, so there may be an opening. We'll see soon.
 
The-Hack said:
So noted, Sir, . . . . Madam Clerk, please have the record reflect . . . .
Click to expand...

"Kicking the FG gave Mizzou its best chance to beat us, by shortening the field AND saving them some clock."

Come on man, you got more than that. You're smart. Refute the point...........or capitulate.
 
KatFootballFan said:
It's really not a second guess, it's a measurable, factual premise.....for those that can "think"...........but hey, you can't fight your destiny. You may be an officer in the HDB. Sgt. Schultz is retiring, so there may be an opening. We'll see soon.
Click to expand...

I think, therefore I am a Second Guessin' Guru.
 
KatFootballFan said:
All teams will lose in football and generally it happens fairly frequently.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm. I like pulling these kernels, selectively . . . . like my chickens do in the hog lot.

Actually, Katfootballfan, I agree with your most generalistic, and potentially damning complaint . . . . giving up two TD's to uncovered receivers is a pretty unusual accomplishment, and I always have questions about time management, it seems, but I can tolerate lots of crap if: (1) We continue progress in the win/loss column, and (2) we keep recruiting well.

I can see both sides of the argument, here, and given all circumstances feel it was a 50/50 call. And when Stoops has a 50/50 chance, the odds are 80% in his favor, as he is the Most Interesting Coach in college football.
 
KatFootballFan said:
The Homer Defense Battalion needs guys like you. Deep thinkers, and potato peelers.....................poof.
Click to expand...
Continued use of stupid little monikers like "Homer Defense Battalion" just go to cement the depths of your idiocy.
I hear your momma calling, you better run along home.
 
KatFootballFan said:
"Kicking the FG gave Mizzou its best chance to beat us, by shortening the field AND saving them some clock."

Come on man, you got more than that. You're smart. Refute the point...........or capitulate.
Click to expand...
Pete Carroll made the exact same decision last Sun; Seattle leading 13-10, time left 1min 10sec, 4th down, ball on the other teams 8 yd line and needed 2 yds for first down. He kicks the field goal to go up 16-10. Seattle wins. I guess Pete doesn't know shitz about FB either! :flush:
 
  • Like
Reactions: ekywildcat
GoBigBlue37 said:
Pete Carroll made the exact same decision last Sun; Seattle leading 13-10, time left 1min 10sec, 4th down, ball on the other teams 8 yd line and needed 2 yds for first down. He kicks the field goal to go up 16-10. Seattle wins. I guess Pete doesn't know shitz about FB either! :flush:
Click to expand...
Literally 95 percent of coaches would of done the same thing. It was the smartest and safest play to preserve a victory.

Now fourth and less than a yard might get more to go for it. But not fourth and two.
 
USMCWILDCAT said:
Lets start relying on reality and enjoy the success. We are getting better and I am enjoying the ride. Yes the losses sting a little bit more now, but the victories are glorious.
Click to expand...

Be careful, USMCWILDCAT, and thanks for your service. With that kind of attitude, you'll get branded an HDB

KatFootballFan said:
You may be an officer in the HDB. Sgt. Schultz is retiring, so there may be an opening. We'll see soon.
Click to expand...

If so, I'll make you salute my arse!
 
  • Like
Reactions: USMCWILDCAT
Stretched out in my recliner Saturday night eating popcorn and Skittles, I was ready to go for the TD. But I knew CMS was smarter than me and would kick the FG.

Either call could be correct I guess, but if you run Snell up the middle, I'm confident he would have been stuffed. Either way no rants like after the UF game. 5-1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USMCWILDCAT
The-Hack said:
Hmmmmm. I like pulling these kernels, selectively . . . . like my chickens do in the hog lot.

Actually, Katfootballfan, I agree with your most generalistic, and potentially damning complaint . . . . giving up two TD's to uncovered receivers is a pretty unusual accomplishment, and I always have questions about time management, it seems, but I can tolerate lots of crap if: (1) We continue progress in the win/loss column, and (2) we keep recruiting well.

I can see both sides of the argument, here, and given all circumstances feel it was a 50/50 call. And when Stoops has a 50/50 chance, the odds are 80% in his favor, as he is the Most Interesting Coach in college football.
Click to expand...

This 50/50 stuff is funny as hell. Pulled from thin air, its ONLY saving grace is the game was a win.

Going for the win was 100% the correct call, as we don't scheme to BLOCK THE TIE, LMAO! You go for the win, and IF you miss, you eat clock and make your opponent go 98 yards to beat you.....The tie is the worst case scenario at that point. That doesn't even factor in that they would be dropping back into their own endzone, which is universally considered = BAD FIELD POSITION, lol.....except maybe on this board.

Glaring error, and we are paying waaaayyyy to much for that to be happening. Will the next strategy error cost us a win? We shall see.

 
What is this eat clock argument in going for it?

The extra 22 yards they would have to get to get to the same starting position? Is that the eat clock argument? Even though they'd have to go many fewer yards to get to FG range as opposed to TD? The yardage cancels out bc FG vs TD...probably needed 65-68 to get into FG range from the 2...would've needed a full 75 after a FG and touchback...

Obviously much harder on offense backed into EZ - but also much harder on offense to score a td vs get into FG range.
 
CatsFanGG24 said:
Obviously much harder on offense backed into EZ - but also much harder on offense to score a td vs get into FG range.
Click to expand...
The guy is incapable of understanding that Missouri could kick a FG and win in overtime, let alone that that was their best chance of winning.

I think another thing being overlooked about kicking the FG is it gave us a chance to still win with a FG if Missouri happened to score a TD with some time left on the clock. If we had tried and failed to score a TD, we would have been looking at a hail mary scenario for ourselves if Missouri took a 4 point lead.

I was leaning towards wanting to go for it during the game myself, but kicking the field goal obviously left Missouri in a much more difficult situation than had we gone for the TD and failed.
 
KatFootballFan said:
We had 4 field goals against Mizzou. That's not going to cut it against better teams, like a MSU, UGA, UF........and given our history, maybe against UT and University 6.





I think you’re basing your argument more on the future games then you are on this one. I don’t think anyone would disagree with you that we can not play like that against the better teams and expect to wins
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Uncle Adolph

Do you blame Stoops at all for letting Coen hold the program hostage like he has ?

Replies
42
Views
2K
Wildcat Lair - Football Forum
mrschwump
M
Lempface

2 Things for Today

Replies
0
Views
326
Rupp Rafters - Basketball Forum
Lempface
Lempface
G

OT: Broncos bench Russell Wilson for remainder of the season

Replies
19
Views
1K
Wildcat Lair - Football Forum
Tubbyfan78
T
G

End of Broncos v Jets

Replies
6
Views
655
Wildcat Lair - Football Forum
gamecockcat
G
JRowland

Basketball INSTANT ANALYSIS: Kentucky dominates in Nashville

Replies
32
Views
1K
The House of Blue
Comebakatz3
Comebakatz3
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back