One other option 4th and 8

[The-Hack]

That one was frustrating because we ran the ball the previous play on 3rd and 8. We were totally settling for the field goal.

Easy to question the call to run on second down, but we had averaged as much success on the ground as we had at anything until that point.

 

[zwynn10]

A lot of debate over the decision to punt with 3 minutes left instead of trying to convert 4th and 8 - the debate has been between punting or going for it, but it just occurred to me that there was a 3rd option. The ball was at the UGA 47 YL. That would have been a 64 yard field goal attempt. But Jacob Kauwer kicks them in practice at the distance under rush. Wonder if that was even considered?

Could you image the reaction across the country if that had happened?

I agree it was a decent option, but in my view the least desirable option. A freshman kicker trying his first college kick against the #1 team with the game on the line may have been too much for any freshman.

To me, we battled the whole game and got the game come down to 1 offensive play. Convert and we were in field goal range for Raynor who was red hot and had hit from 55. It would have been 56/57 yard FG at the first down marker. Convert, and we have 3 more plays to get a closer FG and GA has to use timeouts after each down.

On the other hand, by punting we have to make 3 defensive plays to force a punt and even if successful their punter was booming the ball all night. So best case scenario, with us having only 2 timeouts left at that point is we get the ball back on our 35 with a minute and a half left. We have to move the ball 25 yards just to get back to the GA 40 with no timeouts. We then have to make 4 or 5 offensive plays.

Comparing the scenarios, making 1 offensive verses making 3 defensive plays + 4 or 5 offensive plays seems like the percentages would overwhelmingly counsel taking a shot on 4th and 8.

 

[TNTUK]

I'm sure if Stoops knew ahead of time that Smart would complete a 30 yard pass down field he would have made a different choice. Most teams in the spot would run the ball 3 times to burn clock and force TOs and then punt. Good on Smart, he rolled the dice and won.

I’m not arguing with you buddy. Just pointing out that we should have went for it - in my opinion (supported by ESPN analytics).

Stoops gets paid 9million a year to make these decisions and this one clearly bit him in the ass.

 

[TNTUK]

I don’t give a damn about analytics. There are too many variables that analytics can’t account for. Georgia will bring in one of their 5 star RB and just run out the clock.

I don’t give a damn about what you think about analytics. Deeeefense requested a link in regards to the analytics and I gave it to him.

Good lord - take a damn chill pill people.

 

[fredmanthecatfan]

The better option would have used our first 3 downs in a way that doesn’t put us in 4th and 8.

 

[STL_Cat]

The analytics actually gave UK a 34% chance to win the game if they went for it, and only 12% if we punted.

This stat that keeps being quoted is in a vacuum and doesn’t take into account any of the context. Our offense that had hardly any success in the passing game against a great Georgia defense on 4th and 8. There’s not a 34% chance we convert that. There’s just not. And by the way this 34% stat is to win the game, not just convert. So not only do you have to convert that, but there’s more left to be executed to win the game. I would have been totally cool with going for it, but I’d say the chances in reality are less than 10%.

 

[TNTUK]

This stat that keeps being quoted is in a vacuum and doesn’t take into account any of the context. Our offense that had hardly any success in the passing game against a great Georgia defense on 4th and 8. There’s not a 34% chance we convert that. There’s just not. And by the way this 34% stat is to win the game, not just convert. So not only do you have to convert that, but there’s more left to be executed to win the game. I would have been totally cool with going for it, but I’d say the chances in reality are less than 10%.

I mean - I’m just passing along ESPN’s analytics which was tweeted out. It measured punting versus going for it and whether we would win the game.

I’m sure ESPN has a pretty good team of really smart people (or computers) that account for many variables.

Either way - Stoops should have gone for it. We controlled our own destiny with the offense on the field. Grow a pair and go get 8+ yards.

Edit: Punting = 0% chance of getting a first down.

Going for it we at least have a better than 0% chance at getting the first down.

 

[KyCatFan]

That’s one of the more convincing takes I’ve read on the situation. That being said, in the moment, I personally had more confidence in our D making a stop or forcing a turnover than in our O moving the chains on 4th and 8.

I had more confidence in 4th and 8 than I did going 75 yards regardless of the time left. Of course we only had 9 seconds left and no timeout. All it took was one 1st down and the game was over. I knew we wouldn't stop them when it mattered. We should have ran it on 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and then possibly even 4th down. It likely would have been more like 4th and 2 or 3 with how we were running the ball. Might have even got the first down before 4th down. We always try and get cute and change things up when something is working.

Also - punting is technically the same as going for it and not getting the first down. (We only got +30 yards with the punt so it wasnt a huge difference field position wise). So why not at least try going for it?

Kirby had no intention of scoring to. He just wanted to burn clock. So the further away, the more field they had to work with to keep the clock moving. We'd have been better off giving them as short of a field as possible to make it harder to move the ball and maybe forcing them into a scoring opportunity with more time left for us. Kind of like when Mumme let that team score quick to get the offense back out there since he knew they would have burned clock on our pitiful defense.

 

[STL_Cat]

I mean - I’m just passing along ESPN’s analytics which was tweeted out. It measured punting versus going for it and whether we would win the game.

I’m sure ESPN has a pretty good team of really smart people (or computers) that account for many variables.

Either way - Stoops should have gone for it. We controlled our own destiny with the offense on the field. Grow a pair and go get 8+ yards.

Edit: Punting = 0% chance of getting a first down.

Going for it we at least have a better than 0% chance at getting the first down.

What this is saying is, UK goes for it on 4th and 8 they have a better than 1 in 3 shot at winning the game. Not just converting the 4th down (which believe me is much less than a 1 in 3 shot), but going on to make more plays to win the game as well. Just use some common sense and you’ll recognize that these “analytics” are nonsense. I’ve also only seen a tweet from a UK fan page citing ESPNs analytics on this but no source material where that came from at all. I’d like to see it if it exists. I’d also like to see what’s being factored in.

Going for it there would have been five with me. Play to win the game. But these analytics I assure you are nonsense.

 

[Creed Bratton]

I have my own third option. Or, fourth, I guess. Line up and try to bait the defense into an offsides. If you get it the 4th down is manageable. If they don’t take the bait you take the penalty yards and punt from the 50, ie essentially no different from what we did.

Or line up with the QB under center like you are trying to draw them off sides, try several hard counts and with 2 seconds left let the QB stand up and start walking down the line toward the UK sideline like it didn't work. While he is in "motion" snap the ball to the RB and hopefully you have caught the defense off guard thinking we are just going to take a delay of game penalty. I mean there are lots of options besides punt.

My bigger issue is we had been running the ball down their throats the whole game and then with the game on the line we go 2 straight passes in 4 down territory when we were 14-27 for 114 yards passing the ball. Just line it up and keep doing what had been working. Too many times Bush has tried to get too cute with some of the play calls.

 

[HeismaNole]

I'm not a coach that is paid top 10 money but I knew exactly what was going to happen as did pretty much everyone on this forum and in the stands. On the game thread, someone said "They're going to run play action for a first down" and boom, that's exactly what happened.

I knew they weren't going to get the ball back with enough time to do anything. Certainly hadnt moved the ball enough to trust that the offense was going to go 60-70 yards to win the game. Going for it was the best chance and not a single fan on here would've been upset if they had gone for it and failed. It was the only chance at winning and Stoops gave it away.

 

[jeffky]

No excuse to not go for it not only points to stoops ineptness but shows his true approach to the game play not to lose you have the greatest chance to do something nobody has done in 4 years and you punt the damn ball no nuts stoops man the craziness that's going over there is absolutely mind boggling

 

[Dead Cat Bounce]

Stoops likes your idea, Deeeefense, but only out to about 60-62 yards:

Long Field Goals

 

[Kats meow]

0%? 🤣

He makes them in practice from that distance under rush so why would he not have a chance? Raynor made one earlier just 9 yards less in that same direction. Given the fact that the other two options were not exactly optimal, that might have made sense.

Is it more likely to pick up a 4th and 8, or kick from what would have been the 4th longest FG distance in college football history?

 

[Deeeefense]

Is it more likely to pick up a 4th and 8, or kick what would have been the 4th longest FG in college football history?

"I've still got Kauwe "ready in the bullpen" for a special situation of 60+ Have faith in him" Marc Stoops stated in his call in show yesterday Sep 16th. Just sayin

 

[Kats meow]

"I've still got Kauwe "ready in the bullpen" for a special situation of 60+ Have faith in him" Marc Stoops stated in his call in show yesterday Sep 16th. Just sayin

What’s your answer? Which is most likely to be successful?

 

[Deeeefense]

What’s your answer? Which is most likely to be successful?

Folks will debate that until the end of time and there are arguments on all of them. For my money, if what they say about Kauwe is true if I were coach I would give him a shot. If he misses you still have a chance to stop UGA and get the ball back, obviusely a difference in field position from the punt but that would be my first choice. Between punting and converting a 4th and 8 I would have punting, not saying going is worse but when I think of going for it all I see is a sea of red swarming over BV.

The reason I prefer the FG attempt is it's just one event, with the other choices you have multiple events any one of which could fail. Admittedly the downside of the FG attempt is UGA gets the ball back with at least 2.5 minutes left. In any event the D would be called on to finish the game.

 

[Eagles_Ball]

I don't know if this has been talked about much...but why not go for it?

Don't get it...

• Worst case scenario, UGA runs out the clock getting a few 1st downs
• Best case scenario, UGA scores quickly and UK gets ball back and it's still a one score game.
• Middle ground scenario, UGA gets a 1st down or two, kicks a FG and it's still a one score game with a minute or so left.

Get it...

• Worst case, long FG attempt
• Best case, score a freaking TD
• Middle ground scenario, miss a FG attempt or make with a couple mins left

Not going for it...

• Best case, you pin deep, they don't gain any yards, and you've got the ball probably 10-20 yards FURTHER from a FG with NO TIMEOUTS left, and the inability to drop back and throw a pass, not to mention their defense will be TEEING OFF on the QB now that they don't have to worry about the run (remember, no TOs left).

It's just such an awful decision.