Langsdorf and Cav to be in booth
- Thread starter Pennsyhusker
- Start date
So...you would rather be down by 11 without the ball and have to score 2 TDs in 6 1/2 minutes rather than down by 8 without the ball and have to score a TD and 2-point conversion? Uhhh yeah, we disagree.
if you make the correct read and hit Carter you are down 3 or 5 (miss the 2pt conversion) without the ball with 6 and a half minutes left.
If you kick the field goal and if Brown makes it you are down 8 with 6 and a half minutes left.
Lots of woulda coulda shoulda in all of the scenarios.
If you kick the field goal and if Brown makes it you are down 8 with 6 and a half minutes left.
Lots of woulda coulda shoulda in all of the scenarios.
No, you're misstating the choice by assuming the worst if you go for it and the best if you kick it. The options are:
1) X (you could take Brown's 77% success rate) chance of making a field goal and thus being down by 8, without the ball, with 6:30 to go.
vs
2) Y (what, 50%?) chance of picking up a yard and thus being down 11, with the ball inside the 20, with 6:30 to go.
Unless you can say that one of those situations is demonstrably worse than the other, criticizing the choice to go for it is unfounded. If you make the choice "kick the field goal" vs "throw a bad pass to the end zone" then the probabilities change drastically.
Here's what I am saying.. One of these scenarios is much more difficult to ultimately complete to be within one possession. Our chances of being down by 1 possession if we kick the FG is at worst 77% (given that Brown had made 10 in a row), and we would potentially be saving time on the clock.
If we choose to get the first down, we don't really know what the odds are. If we say the odds are 50% that we get the first down, that doesn't necessarily mean that we score the TD too, which means we will burn more clock. How much clock, no one knows. We still have to score the TD, which isn't a done deal. Then on top of that, we need to be successful on the 2-point attempt, which is a 44-percent proposition. So, at best, to get the first down and 2-point conversion, the probability is 22% (.50 x .44). How much less the probability would be to score the TD too, we don't know.
So, at that point, if we are at a 50% chance of getting the first down, (which you agreed with) it would also place us at a 50% chance that we don't get the first down, correct? If we don't get any points, we will still have to score 2 TDs in 6 1/2 minutes. We aren't guaranteed of even getting 2 possessions in the remainder of the game, let alone 1. The game is essentially over.
We HAVE to come away with points on that series, or our chances of winning the game drop dramatically. Our chances are already low to begin with. That's why you take the 3 points, and have 1 or maybe 2 more series to score the TD and 2-point conversion. But you have to get the nearly sure 3 points to keep your chances alive to begin with.
It's not about keeping your chances alive as long as possible, it's about giving yourself the best chance of winning with each decision. You're right that going for it carries a much higher risk of losing outright, but I think it's fair to consider that going for it also gives you the best chance to win.
Baseball analogy: I have a runner on first with 2 outs in the 9th, down by one. If I ask him to steal 2nd, I'm risking the end of the game if he's caught. But if he succeeds, my chances of getting a run on a base hit jump dramatically. It's risky, but that doesn't mean it's a bad percentage play.
Also, recall that kicking the field goal to get within a score depends on a successful 2 point try. So really you're looking at a (.77x.44) ~34% chance of actually being within one possession. Getting the touchdown first shields you from the 2-point risk to some degree, because you don't waste a possession on a field goal if you fail. Again, the objective is not to get and keep the game within one possession - the objective is to get as many or more points as the opponent in the next 6 and a half minutes. There's no functional difference between losing now or in 6:30.
It was another puzzling call in a season with several play calls you say WTF - They did not take the high percentage route they decided to go high risk and high reward. Based on the entirety of the season and other calls that went bad - ie Illinois - the pass play where TA was told to run. I do not think this call was correct at the time - with a different QB yes but not based on past performance of TA
3+ pages of pissing about whether we should have kicked the field goal or went for it on fourth down. In these type of arguments the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
Lets compromise and just agree that we should have lined up for the field goal and then run a fake.
Lets compromise and just agree that we should have lined up for the field goal and then run a fake.
To be clear, I'm not sure that kicking the field goal wouldn't have been the right call- at the time I was shocked and furious. If I were the coach, I might have taken the safe approach and kicked.
I'm just disputing the idea that going for it was some terrible, brain dead decision. I think this thread shows you can argue it either way, so crucifying the coaches for it seems out of line.
This thread definitely meandered off of Langsdorf and Cavanaugh in the booth.
The Iowa play. This is what I saw. TE and 2 receivers on one side. One receiver on the other side. Iowa defensive backfield playing up. One-on-one coverage and an open side of the field for one receiver. The play looks to be designed for only one single course of action. TA takes the snap, no progressions, just one step back and throw it. Unfortunately, it didn't work.
Thats fair but it was a curious call given everything that went on last year. Langsdorf I think can be a good play caller but I think last year his feel for it was just a bit off especially in pressure situations - like the Illinois game or the bubble screen on 2 yard line at MSU - this was just another example - he needs to keep it simple and conservative this year in my opinion
I would imagine Armstrong is a nightmare for an OC to call plays for.
He is widely inconsistent - can either be great or gawd awful from quarter to quarter or play to play. He has a very good skill set but his decision making is terrible.
Take the BYU game last year -- 10-12 for 156 yards in the 1st quarter. 3-15 in the second quarter. How the heck do you call plays with those Jekyll and Hyde type of performances?
If you neuter him you take away his ability to be great. If you give him the opportunity to be great he will kill you at inopportune times.
TA is what he is at this point - what you do with a kid like this is not throw the ball 27 times in one half -
Most of the criticisms of the play calling are in a vacuum. I am not saying it was perfect but the coaches have a game plan. They cannot predict when TA is going to go schizo.
In the first half of the Northwestern game as an example.
First 3 drives
TA was 7-10 for 141 yards on first or second down. But 1-3 for 7 yards on 3rd down.
Team ran the ball 9 times for 28 net yards
Scored a FG and punted 2 times, illegal block penalty killed the third drive
Next 3 drives
TA was 0-2 on first and second down and 1-4 for 5 yards on 3rd down.
Team Ran the ball 5 times for 28 net yards.
2 three and outs and a pick six
Last drive of the half
TA was 3-5 for 36 yards and TD on first or second down
2-2 for 37 yards on 3rd down
Team Ran the ball 6 times for 2 net yards
Drive 1 47 yards FG
Drive 2 33 yards
Drive 3 45 yards
Total 104 yards on drive
Drive 4 7 yards
Drive 5 8 yards
Drive 6 16 yards pick 6
Total 31 yards on drive
Drive 7 69 yards and TD
For the half 13-25 for 148 yards 1 TD 1 INT
Team rushing 20 rushes for 58 yards.
In the first half of the Northwestern game as an example.
First 3 drives
TA was 7-10 for 141 yards on first or second down. But 1-3 for 7 yards on 3rd down.
Team ran the ball 9 times for 28 net yards
Scored a FG and punted 2 times, illegal block penalty killed the third drive
Next 3 drives
TA was 0-2 on first and second down and 1-4 for 5 yards on 3rd down.
Team Ran the ball 5 times for 28 net yards.
2 three and outs and a pick six
Last drive of the half
TA was 3-5 for 36 yards and TD on first or second down
2-2 for 37 yards on 3rd down
Team Ran the ball 6 times for 2 net yards
Drive 1 47 yards FG
Drive 2 33 yards
Drive 3 45 yards
Total 104 yards on drive
Drive 4 7 yards
Drive 5 8 yards
Drive 6 16 yards pick 6
Total 31 yards on drive
Drive 7 69 yards and TD
For the half 13-25 for 148 yards 1 TD 1 INT
Team rushing 20 rushes for 58 yards.
I'm not sure where you are getting the additional risk of a successful 2-point try putting us within a possession. That's simply not the case. The field goal itself puts us within one possession, so you are at a 77% probability of being within one possession, with 6:45 left on the clock.
Your analogy of having a guy on first doesn't apply either, because we are down by 11 with 6:45 left. A baseball analogy that says we are down 6-3 in the 8th is more inline with the score against Iowa, so no one is stealing 2nd to put themselves in position to get 1 run with 2 outs. You play it conservative and keep yourself in the game. Stealing bases risks ending the inning with nothing, essentially the same easy as risking everything in getting the 1st down did. They are trying to chip away at the lead to put themselves in a position to steal the win.
You put yourself in the position to be within one possession by completing the easier task of kicking a 77% probable FG, and then work on completing the more difficult task of getting a TD and 2-point conversion. If you don't get the 3 points, you don't even get the chance to win the game, because you're pretty much done at that point.
The field goal only puts you within one possession if you can convert the two point try on said possession. If you biff it then your field goal is wasted entirely.
There's no inherent value in keeping your chance of winning alive longer if you're throwing away your best chance to win now.
Since you didn't like my baseball analogy, let's try another situation in football: going for 2 to win in regulation rather than kicking the extra point to tie and force overtime. The "safe" play is to extend the game and go to OT. But if you think your team is overmatched in OT, the smart choice is to take your 44% chance of victory on one play.
Similarly, it might be (and there's a billion variables, of course, so I don't think we can definitively say one way or the other) that while kicking the field goal "extends the game", it also throws away your best chance of winning (by finishing the drive with a touchdown, and thus knowing exactly how many points you need the next drive).
And no matter what is said in this thread Hoosker Du will always have the last say. Argue for argument sake facts are irrelevant. The only good play call is one that works. I would challenge anyone to spend an afternoon with a coach to see what they go through in a game, even in HS.
Hoosker Du reminds me of Bo Pelini against Wisconsin in Indianapolis.
No. No no no. This is the mindset of the guy in row Z yelling "call plays that work" uselessly into the air. There are a ton of things that impact whether a play "works" or not, and you can't isolate a play call into a binary "good" or "bad" classification. Sometimes you have your best guy (Rex Burkhead, anyone?) wide open and he just inexplicably drops a touchdown pass. Does that make it a bad play call? Sometimes there are three defenders waiting in the hole and your guy just makes all of them miss. Does that make it a good play call?
No. Play calling is successful based on a thousand different factors. Reducing it to "worked/didn't work" does a disservice to this sport that we all love because it's so strategically deep and it's just so. damn. complicated. That's why we can still argue about a play call years and years later.
You do realize I was being sarcastic. I have coached and had plays go the distance and look back at the film and not see a single block that had anything to do with the success of the play. Either the D was awful or one player had a great effort. My point is the average person judges a good play verses a bad one by its success. Coaches run plays they know won't work but are part of a series to set up something else. If they do work, it is a bonus.
And you remind me of a complete dunce. Nice article you linked.
And then you have headcard, who took a terrible article and didn't even know how to figure out how bad it was.
And you remind me of a complete dunce. Nice article you linked.
Dunce? Says the guy that skipped over what NFL coaches actually "do most often" on 4th and 1. Inside their 45. Hard data. Facts. Verifiable proof you're wrong.
There's more articles I can link, that supports everyone's stance. Shockingly, except yours. Although it may seem impossible, they'll further embarrass you.
Page 3, no data from you. Just name calling, and a Bo Pelini defense in Indianapolis. Bend. Break. Bent over. Trucked. Time and time again, for everyone to see.
You do kinda sound like a jackass in this thread... Others are posting why the play call, if run correctly, could have been a successful call. That maybe even it was the right call.And you remind me of a complete dunce. Nice article you linked.
And all you have done throughout this thread is proclaim louder than anyone else, "I'm right!!! Don't be stupid and just admit it!!!"
Have an open mind and admit that the field goal kick was not absolutely the only right call. Even if we kick it we still most likely lose the game. Football is a game with multiple good calls. There is no book that says this is the only right call. Unless I'm mistaken... Why don't you link the book or website that states this?
OK, I'm going to respond and then let this topic go, because we are clearly looking at this from two completely different perspectives. Coaches don't base decisions solely on down and distance. Apparently you looked at the article and thought, "Well, all that matters is that coaches go for it 40% of the time on 4th and 1. I think I'll link this article for support from NFL coaches." That is the precise moment that you looked like a trike rider.
The amount of lead or deficit, plus the amount of time left in the half or game, completely changes those ridiculously simplistic percentages you provided. Honestly, if you feel the need to link remedial articles, save your time and simply post "I'm a trike rider and lack the critical thinking skills to provide better data" and we'll understand.
When you find articles that provide percentages for those that go for it on 4th and 1 at the 20 yard line, when down by 11 with roughly 6 1/2 minutes to go (or something remotely similar)...then I'll start paying attention to your articles. Until then, stop wasting everyone's time with articles that are meaningless to the scenario we are discussing. OK?
My apologies for insulting you, but when you provide data that offers nothing of value to the conversation, you should expect that people will question your judgement.
I've seen coaches from both college and the NFL on numerous occasions that choose to kick the field goal, because they know if they don't get the 1st down, the game is over. They kick the FG because they want to extend the game without burning any more of the clock, because they are cutting into the time that will be required in their remaining possession(s). It happens nearly every week when a team is down a couple of possessions with a limited amount of time left. Nearly every week.
You are correct, we had very little chance to win the game at the time of that critical 4th down play, and by not kicking the FG and not getting within one possession, we essentially handed the game to Iowa with 6 1/2 minutes left.
You are arguing for the sake of arguing. You want the exact same variables from all games that mirror those of this game. Wont happen, too may variables to plug into the formula. So I guess since these stats do not exist in the way you want them, you can be right in your assumption. Obviously, you have to admit you also could be wrong and it could have worked as the coaches planned. You cannot have it both ways. There are no absolutes given all of the variables - lets see, add weather, injuries on both sides, who was in the game, wind, conditioning, it goes on and on.
By your own standard, you want hard empiracle evidence. Yet, you continually were challenged to provide evidence on a stance some time back on here you took about certain persons being born with a predisposition. You referred the massive amount of it out there which should make it easy for you. You then revert to name calling to bolster your position.
Facts, we lost the game. Rarely does one play makes the entire gsme but it is the one everyone remembers. You have to admit, film does not lie, that the play was open. To debat anything after that brings in dozens of variables. Field goals get blocked, how many more in that situation? Got stats on that, weather, time on clock, westher, etc?
By your own standard, you want hard empiracle evidence. Yet, you continually were challenged to provide evidence on a stance some time back on here you took about certain persons being born with a predisposition. You referred the massive amount of it out there which should make it easy for you. You then revert to name calling to bolster your position.
Facts, we lost the game. Rarely does one play makes the entire gsme but it is the one everyone remembers. You have to admit, film does not lie, that the play was open. To debat anything after that brings in dozens of variables. Field goals get blocked, how many more in that situation? Got stats on that, weather, time on clock, westher, etc?
Articles or no articles, your ENTIRE argument is premised on the idea that making a 35 yard field goal, on a cold and blustery day, and in a make-it-or-break-it tense moment, is far more likely than making one yard. You continue to speak as if that field goal was a gimme. Suppose we do decide to kick it and it is no good, or worse, blocked. You can also have botched snaps.
Look... very few people on here would have ANY issue with you if you simply said "in my opinion, the field goal was the better option, but I also accept that going for it had good reasons too." But to come on here blasting the coaches as idiots, and calling anyone who disagrees with you a dunce, is just silly.
This thread is still happening? In that case, they should have run a fake FG both on 4th down AND for the 2 point conversion. Guaranteed victory.
And it looks like Melvin Gordon is still running wild over here.
I could be wrong, but I don't think he is saying that kicking a 35 yard fg is more likely than picking up a yard on forth down, I think he is saying that the fg is more likely than picking up a yard, then scoring a td, then scoring a 2 pt conversion (with a QB prone to turnovers who nearly cost them the MSU game with a questionable throw to the back of the endzone in their last possession of that game). Personally I would have went for the yard on 4th (although I probably would have ran a run/pass option) but I hate field goals and punts. But those of you that are advocates for going for the first down, are you saying that you are committing to a touchdown or bust on that possession? I only ask, because they very easily would have been in the same situation 3 plays later if they had picked up the 1st down, only with less time on the clock. Do you kick the field goal then? I know that is a lot of "ifs" but in the heat of the moment in that situation, I would think a coach would ask himself what are the chances that they will end up settling for a field goal anyway, and at least take that into consideration.
Someone used a baseball analogy earlier, I'd propose a hunting analogy. Don't pass on a buck the first day that you would be happy to take on the last day.
Again, I probably would have taken a chance on going for it as well, but there certainly wouldn't have been anything wrong with attempting a fg either.
I'm pretty sure the point is taking the field goal was not the only good choice to make, which Hoosker is absolutely saying. Anybody who disagrees with that is a dunce or worse, right Hoosker?
