This is my last post to you, as you'll be joining the Homer Defense Battalion, at Ignore HQ after this one.............You play to win! NOT to stop a tie, lol. Someday you may learn...........but then again..............you may not.
POOR CALL.
Kicking the FG instead of going for the TD
- Thread starter 2koolpa
- Start date
This is my last post to you, as you'll be joining the Homer Defense Battalion, at Ignore HQ after this one.............You play to win! NOT to stop a tie, lol. Someday you may learn...........but then again..............you may not.
POOR CALL.
I think our offense is designed to be low scoring and setting up field goals. We do a good job of that and Coach Stoops was probably correct in going for a field goal to give us a six point lead. I doubt coaches for Top 10 teams would have done that but we don't have Top 10 personnel on our team so we do what we do good. Kick it through the uprights and pray we can hold the opponent in the last minute of the game. It worked against Missouri. Probably wouldn't work against Georgia or other solid teams. It didn't work against Florida. We are 5-1 and have a chance to have one of the best seasons in many years. That is a blessing we can count today.
We hear the expression 50/50 ball, this was a 50/50 call. There wasn't a right or wrong call in this circumstance.
This survive, advance, and squeeze out a victory late in the game with a FG strategy may be cutting it just barely vs the directional OOC schools and lesser conference opponents.
However, against the likes of UGA, UT, and UL we are going to need a bit more than a conservative game plan in which we barely hang on and hope that we have a few more points when the clock runs out.
We have too many play makers who have proven that when called upon and given a chance, they can come through.
If you can't find a way to get the ball across the plane from a few yards out with SJ, Benny, Conrad, Johnson, and or 2 6'5+ WRs in Bone and Ross, then that leaves room for discussion about play calling, preparation during the week, game planning, and even job security.
However, against the likes of UGA, UT, and UL we are going to need a bit more than a conservative game plan in which we barely hang on and hope that we have a few more points when the clock runs out.
We have too many play makers who have proven that when called upon and given a chance, they can come through.
If you can't find a way to get the ball across the plane from a few yards out with SJ, Benny, Conrad, Johnson, and or 2 6'5+ WRs in Bone and Ross, then that leaves room for discussion about play calling, preparation during the week, game planning, and even job security.
Man, you're obviously confused with what a "fact" is. You're opinion is not fact. That is a fact.
Since there are no ties in college football allowing a team to tie you at the end of regulation simply extends the game. A team that is tied and in OT has a better chance to win than a team that is behind and must score a TD within a finite amount of time. There are statistics that back up that claim.
Claiming that the FG is a non-factor is simply ignorant.
He just completed his 12th straight undefeated season on NCAA 2010: He even leveled up to play it on varsity mode!
Let's take a long look at your swiss cheese:
- "if they force overtime your chances of losing go up." Let's see, they are 1 for 3 of field goals in the game, with one being blocked, and you're worried about them tying it up with a FG? Sounds like the voice of the Homer Defense Battalion to me, as that worry is bereft of any fact. If they had the best FG kicker in the country, you may have a point, but the fact of the matter is they were HORRIBLE at FG's on this night, and thus, so was your idea.
- "The chances of the kicker getting lucky from 50 yards is much greater then the chances of them scoring a touchdown." LMAO! Who are you? They had THREE LOOOOOONNNNNGGGG scores for TDs, and were 1 of 3 on field goals, and they have greater chances at a FG....is that you Coach Stoops?
- "At most you are looking at a 2-3 second difference." You asked me to explain the less time argument, and you answered it yourself?? Do you have some kind of internal battle simmering? Less time is less time. Period. Do you need a graphic to grasp the concept? 2 to 3 seconds equates to an additional play. Questions?
- "I guess the university should pay you to make all the decisions during a football game." You may be onto something. If you could spearhead a grass roots effort, I'll see what I can do on my end. Afterall, it is just football. I can guarantee only one thing, we'll play to win!...not to prevent a tie. Period.
- "Never mind the thought that kicking the fg allowed us to play a much safer prevent defense that can give up yards but protect you more from getting beat. If we didn't achieve the goialine play, you can't play that prevent because the yards are much more important." Who said anything about the prevent defense? Why would I go conservative and not pressure a guy who has been lighting it up all night?? We've got some great pass rushers, why would I not apply pressure and make him throw short and more quickly, keeping guys underneath me as the clock runs out?? He'd already burned us for 3 long plays, and now you go prevent and give him time to do it a 4th?? I say again, is that you Coach Stoops?..........or maybe Butch Jones, master of the prevent.
Off to the Homer Defense Battalion you go.............poof.
As I heard in the stands, "this is a tough call and why Stoops gets paid the big bucks."
Good call IMO. We are 5 - 1 right now going into the Bye Week.
We got points on the board that is about as successful a drive as any other. The end of the game was a lot like playing poker. You already know what we have can you beat it or not?
Turns out they showed their hand and our was better.
I'm not really a fan of playing conservative like we have been, I mean we can play the What If game all night and day long, what if we fumbled it on the next play they scoop it up and score, in that situation I think you gotta play it safe as we do have the lead.
I don't think anyone wanted to go to OT with Mizzou.
I'm still wanting to see a game where we completely dominate someone, but it doesn't look like its going to happen.
We got points on the board that is about as successful a drive as any other. The end of the game was a lot like playing poker. You already know what we have can you beat it or not?
Turns out they showed their hand and our was better.
I'm not really a fan of playing conservative like we have been, I mean we can play the What If game all night and day long, what if we fumbled it on the next play they scoop it up and score, in that situation I think you gotta play it safe as we do have the lead.
I don't think anyone wanted to go to OT with Mizzou.
I'm still wanting to see a game where we completely dominate someone, but it doesn't look like its going to happen.
To your last point about prevent. We lined up three safety deep. The scoring plays they beat us deep, the prevent defense we was allowed to play knowing they needed a touchdown was exactly to prevent what they had work for their Tds. We gave up 5-15 yard plays based on time situation onnlast drive and tackled inbounds. If we didn't convert on fourth and goal, you can't play those three safety that deep. (We had 7 dbs in game btw). Giving up those smaller chunks of yards would allow them to get to fg range pretty easy. And that's what they needed to tie. Their offense was probably a little better than ours and I wouldn't want to take our chances in overtime. Plus theybwouldnof had momentium should it went to OT.
If you can't play the prevent and have to limit yards you have a high percentage of getting beat with a homerun ball (no extra safeties back there). You can't let them run plays and get small chunks of yards as the endzone isn't the only way they can beat you.
We played end of game very well as the ball never even crossed the goaline. Yes going for it could of worked also, and they could of missed the fg, or we converted. But preventing a touchdown is much easier than preventing a fg in late game situation.
Believe it or not most coaches (90 percent or greater) would have done the exact thing every single time.
Pete Carroll made the exact same call yesterday with just over a min to play in the game, don't think anyone would call him conservative.
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 know the hindsight crowd likes the call, I get it. It's hard to argue against a win....but this is more about potenials, rather than the outcome. He factually put us in more harm of losing the game, by putting Mizzou 23 yards closer to the TD, that would have beaten us. That's an irrefutable fact................ 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) for making the wrong call, as this one truly was. Again, you play to win, not to avoid the tie and overtime, lol.
Last edited:
Can't understand your logic at all. Why is moving the ball 75 yards for the FG easier than moving it 75 yards for the TD? 75 yards is 75 yards however I think you'll find it much more difficult starting that 75 yard drive from the 2 as opposed to starting on the 25 yard line.
Reasons this was a bad decision:
* If we went for it there's a chance this discussion is moot
* Playing it safe typically doesn't work out well for us
* Mizzu needed to move the ball 75 yards either way. It's not the case they would have gotten a shorter field if we went for it.
* Going for it meant they had to move it 75 for the tie as opposed to 75 yards for the win
* Who would you rather decide the game the best QB in the league or that FG unit. They were shaky even kicking extra points
* We picked the field direction correctly meaning Mizzu was going to have to kick into the wind
He ultimately made the right decision because it resulted in a victory. It worked out exactly how he intended it to. OP and others acting like it was some obvious call are just wrong. You can make a good argument for either strategy.
I wanted us to go for it and hammer in that final nail but I was ok with getting the for sure points and forcing them to score the TD. I disagreed with the call at the time but it was not something to get outraged over. Certainly not egregious enough to specifically create an account just so you can trash the coach. As others have said it was a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. I’m pretty damn happy with the way it turned out.
I wanted us to go for it and hammer in that final nail but I was ok with getting the for sure points and forcing them to score the TD. I disagreed with the call at the time but it was not something to get outraged over. Certainly not egregious enough to specifically create an account just so you can trash the coach. As others have said it was a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. I’m pretty damn happy with the way it turned out.
Maybe because as you get close to the endzone the field shrinks. Less space to work with and same amount of players out there. The last 25 are much harder to get when it has to cross the Goaline for six. 1-g from the ten is the hardest series to convert for this exact reason.
It's much easier to kick a fg on any possession than getting a touchdown. Thus why it is worth 3 points not 7.
To say we went for it and this discussion don't happen is crazy. What kind of heat would stoops have got should he not converted fourth and goal, they kick the fg and then beat us in OT? Then those same people segueing it was wrong desicion to kick it wouldnof been saying we should of took three. That part of the fan base thinks everything he does is wrong. It worked out exactly like it was planned. Songood descion.
Mizzu offense is made to work fast, they moved ball at will inside the twenties. We did hold them to fg tries when field got condensed. Allowing them a chance to tie with just a fg was really increased your odds of getting beat. The best offense wins in ot. Ore than not, and they were a better offense than we are.
Yes we could of converted and sealed game, but we also could of done that on 2nd and 3rd down and didn't punch it in.
If your team is down would you rather need a fg or a td to win? Honest answer....
And why would that answer be that you choose. (Probably because it is much easier to kick the three than get six correct?) Same logic
Last edited:
* If we went for it there's a chance this discussion is moot
No more than it is moot now. It would have been a decision that resulted in a win.
* Playing it safe typically doesn't work out well for us
This cannot be a serious reason.
* Mizzu needed to move the ball 75 yards either way. It's not the case they would have gotten a shorter field if we went for it.
if you go for it and don't make it, the defense is not just defending those 75 yards. It has to still defend the game winning TD. I think that makes it far easier to travel the 75 needed for a good FG attempt.
* Going for it meant they had to move it 75 for the tie as opposed to 75 yards for the win
This is fact. But, why would they still not take strikes at the end zone? The potential for losing is by TD is just farther, but not eliminated if you can't punch it in.
* Who would you rather decide the game the best QB in the league or that FG unit. They were shaky even kicking extra points
The ""best" QB tried and failed. And, again, he would have tried either way.
* We picked the field direction correctly meaning Mizzu was going to have to kick into the wind
Definitely a factor.
Play calling expert that I and giving the fact we got stuffed in two prior run attempts. I'd called a play action pass!
Damn good call coach Stoops!
Damn good call coach Stoops!
The run options were correct two. You have to be able to get two yards that close to the endzone. Although we didn't get it, those two runs made mizzu burn their two final timeouts. If you throw and stop clock that pretty much gave them three more plays at end of game. (If you don't score of course)
But that killer instinct the people complaining about stoops should use. Getting those two yards on second or third down is what that is. You have to be able to run and finish teams late. Last years team was super good at that.
But that killer instinct the people complaining about stoops should use. Getting those two yards on second or third down is what that is. You have to be able to run and finish teams late. Last years team was super good at that.
Just because it worked out doesn't mean it was the correct call. Sometimes things workout in spite of the decisions you make. If the ref doesn't waste all that time getting the ball or if they called a delay of game for us knocking the ball out of the player's hand, then Missouri gets two good shots at the end zone and the chance to win. They could have had less time (probably waste 10+ seconds to get from the 2 yard line to the 25 yard line where they got it after the kickoff) and more yards to go (the added 23 yards from starting at the 2).
To many people are worried about the tie. A tie isn't a loss. They only scored 4 touchdowns and all were the result of long pass plays. One was like 48 yards to the 1 with 3 chances to score. The other 3 were 50+ yard touchdown bombs. So without a long pass they couldn't score touchdowns on us. With the ball at the 25 and no chances to get the long play in overtime, I like our chances of winning even if they tied it.
When they kicked field goals they missed one from the 21 yard line (38 yard attempt) and another from the 28 yard line (45 yard attempt). Both were into the wind. The only ones they made were from the 8 (25 yard attempt) and the 10 (27 yard attempt) with the wind at their back I believe. So with the way they were kicking it, they needed to get more like 88 yards (from our 2) to have a pretty safe field goal attempt they likely could make. Especially going against that wind.
Regardless you aren't going to change anyone's opinion on this matter so we probably should just drop it.
In their defense, this was his sixth game, missed practically one whole game for targeting, missed 8 days of spring practice, plus there have been so many other problems that’s it’s easy to see that they are are just recently getting him more involved. I agree with you that he would be my choice inside the 10, to attack the corners when they are filling the box for Snell.
If you've ever played football then you know exactly why it's harder to move it 75 yards for a td! Defenses change, everything changes! Now quite possibly we go for it and they drive 98 yards to beat us! Wouldn't have surprised me, nothing does with UK football! But imo it was the correct call! Doesn't make me right! Just makes me see it from the other side of "why didn't we go for it"
I disagree. When a call is made that is difficult to make and people can disagree about which way the call should be made and the coach makes a call that leads to a victory, it is by definition, and not debatable, the correct call. Pretending there is only one correct call given all of the many factors is just wrong.
I will agree that there were other options but it is a correct call if it works and you win no matter what other conditions occur to help. If you guys want to say he didn’t play the odds or another play had a better chance to succeed, great I don’t disagree but when you win, the decision for that time in the game was a correct call.
: ) I have played football, so I'm going to try to follow the logic here. You say it is "harder to move it 75 yards for a td". OK, if that is true, why not go for it, and even if you don't score, they have to go 98, which is greater than 75, so it is harder, as in quite a bit harder given the amount of time remaining.........98 > 75, so why are you not on board with going for it?............you were afraid of the tie, from their fabulous FG unit??
It seems the problem with this thread, is many cannot wrap their mind around approach versus outcome......"we won, right call", lol. No, that's NOT the case at all, a win does NOT mean the call was correct, especially here. Mizzous calls, our D calls, all factor in on the final outcome. This is a strategy folks, and this choice crystal clearly shows a lack of understanding in strategy. By going for the FG, CMS eliminated the chance of a tie (GREAT!!!), yet gave Mizzou the ball on the 25 with plenty of time to score and go for the win. That's all any team can ask for, the perfect set up. Especially, KNOWING that they had already scored on THREE long plays in this game, and you give them a free 23 yards and a few extra seconds to boot?????!!!! Really??? Let's get this out there one more time, the game of football is about winning. If you want to win a game, and you have a choice: Do you give them the ball on the 25 yard line, or on the 2 yard line?? You know they are going to try to score a touchdown. As a matter of fact, you have forced them to score a touchdown to win!! Those that are awake, and have the ability to "think" choose the 2 yard line. The tie is NOT a factor, because that is not the goal of the game of football. If Mizzou drove from the 2 and did get a shot at a field goal, it is still just a tie if they hit it, and it goes to OT, and we are still in it! LOL!! All is NOT lost!!
The really telling story here is CMS gave both the offense and the defense a vote of NO-CONFIDENCE with his actions....and if you think the players missed that point, you are wrong. Not a great team building moment and a very poor decision in more ways than one.
Last edited:
But your first logic makes no sense. They don't have to go 98 yards to beat you. There is no ties in college football. They could only go 70 kick a fg and beat you in overtime. So they don't have to go the entire 98 for you to possibly lose correct?
Kicking made it more difficult should you not convert for them to win. A td won either way, but you are making them have the hardest result to beat you. The fg doesn't end the game, and everyone goes home. It extends it where you could still possibly lose correct?
I just now watched the game and browsed this thread. IMO, not really a "wrong" answer here. It somewhat depends on who you are as a coach. Personally I would have gone for the TD but that's just me.
I've seen a number of posts pointing out either decision would have left Mizzou with about the same amount of yardage to gain to either tie or win (~70-75 yards). Two factors I have not seen mentioned that might have some bearing on the decision are:
1. How good is Mizzou's kicker? This would/should have been a consideration noted in the overall game plan.
2. Starting on your own 1 or 2 yard line is more difficult than starting at the 25. They playbook is open on the 25, not so much on the 1. And there is this thing called a safety. FWIW I would have defended plays (at least the first one) from the goal line with dime package in Cover 2 Man and a 5 man rush. D-line would be all DE types.
Peace
I've seen a number of posts pointing out either decision would have left Mizzou with about the same amount of yardage to gain to either tie or win (~70-75 yards). Two factors I have not seen mentioned that might have some bearing on the decision are:
1. How good is Mizzou's kicker? This would/should have been a consideration noted in the overall game plan.
2. Starting on your own 1 or 2 yard line is more difficult than starting at the 25. They playbook is open on the 25, not so much on the 1. And there is this thing called a safety. FWIW I would have defended plays (at least the first one) from the goal line with dime package in Cover 2 Man and a 5 man rush. D-line would be all DE types.
Peace
There was no wrong call, I liked the fg call. But we had two chances to put out boot on the throats and couldn't punch it in on second and third down.
I've seen people say kicking it doesn't develops the killer instinct. But not getting it on the second and third down shows we haven't developed it yet.
Online has tj knock people off ball and get two yards in that situation. (Same on third and short in first half)
I totally understand what you are saying although I disagree
. Do you sit next to me in 206?
Their fg kicker was shit, you go for the score and win the game or leave them 98 yards to score at all and I don't like their chances to make any kick. Our kick gave them the only chance they had IMO. A kickoff return or kick out of bounds on the kickoff, or competent SEC officials who can spot a ball may have done us in.
We escaped a bad situation we caused ourselves. Stoops needs to grow a pair. 3 pointers are great on the hardwood, but we have to score 6 to win on the road or against the better teams than Mizzu ahead of us.
We escaped a bad situation we caused ourselves. Stoops needs to grow a pair. 3 pointers are great on the hardwood, but we have to score 6 to win on the road or against the better teams than Mizzu ahead of us.
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!
Similar threads
