THE 4th and goal

[kemajic]

When asked about this call, Delaney said he wouldn't do it differently. Again, I believe many of you are just judging it in retrospect with the benefit of knowing the disastrous result. Delaney's view was, using my words, that it was a tough game and it was necessary to be aggressive towards winning the game at that time.

Possibly one of the reasons he has been in such demand for HC jobs throughout his long career. The downside of his "We're going to let you know where we're coming and we're going right over you" attitude. More respect for the NAU D was due.

 

[jodcon]

My problem with going for it on 4th down is that you have to ask yourself two questions at that point:

If we don't convert...
1) Are we going to be 20 points better than NAU at their place in the second half, because we're down 11 and they're going to get another score somewhere before it's over?
2) Have we shown that we can stop Bauman 3 times and get the ball back before halftime?

At that point the answer to 1 was a definite no, the answer to 2 was a probable no. Kicking the chip shot FG and being down one score was the only play, getting the ball after halftime we had a good chance of scoring first making it a new game and change the momentum which was our only hope because NAU worked us the whole first half. Going for it put all our eggs in one basket, if we would have scored we would have looked like geniuses, if not, even without the mess that ensued, we would have went into halftime on a down note with no momentum and down two scores on the road.

But whatever, there's a lot of theories about it so...enough. :dead:

 

[spsyk]

When asked about this call, Delaney said he wouldn't do it differently. Again, I believe many of you are just judging it in retrospect with the benefit of knowing the disastrous result. Delaney's view was, using my words, that it was a tough game and it was necessary to be aggressive towards winning the game at that time.

Just maybe, that is why it took till the twilight of his career to become HC, with the mind set to call a go on, 4th and goal in the first half of a game that his team is being dominated, and getting the ball back at the start of the 2nd half.

I'll remind you again, with his next bonehead call, because there are more to come, competition is keen in the Big Sky, and the nice guy from Butte is over his head.

What is amazing is that it took two OC to come up with that decision and play call, maybe that is the failure, the final decision was coach Delaney's.

 

[grizfromhel]

Kind of encapsulates our coaching problem-----he says he'd do the same thing in the same circumstance again. Sheeeesh. I believe it was Einstein who said that stupidity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.

 

[poorgriz]

Take the points. It's then a 1 score game with the Griz getting the ball to start the 2nd half. Whole new ballgame.

They could have blocked the FG... in fact that probably had a nigher percentage chance of happening than JJ fumbling and having the ball go 98 yards the other way. All that being said, nobody is accusing of Delaney and co of making brilliant decisions. In a game like that, though, momentum is HUGE and they were trying to take it back. I agree with the aggressive call.

 

[putter]

The thing that made DD so good is he could check out of a play. Would love to see JJ do the same.

 

[84GRIZ]

The thing that made DD so good is he could check out of a play. Would love to see JJ do the same.

I think he did that on the first down play. That was the one when JJ got out on the edge he probably should have ran it in.

 

[GrizPony]

Kind of encapsulates our coaching problem-----he says he'd do the same thing in the same circumstance again. Sheeeesh. I believe it was Einstein who said that stupidity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.

That is his definition of "insanity". Stupidity is having internet and not looking the quote up before you post. haha

 

[PlayerRep]

yeah, there really is no debate here. If you have confidence in your team, you take the points, especially knowing you get the ball after the half.

Actually, it's the opposite. If you have confidence in your team, you go for the TD. If you don't make it, your defense holds them, you use your timeouts, you get the ball back in good field position, and you try to score before the half.

 

[PlayerRep]

My problem with going for it on 4th down is that you have to ask yourself two questions at that point:

If we don't convert...
1) Are we going to be 20 points better than NAU at their place in the second half, because we're down 11 and they're going to get another score somewhere before it's over?
2) Have we shown that we can stop Bauman 3 times and get the ball back before halftime?

At that point the answer to 1 was a definite no, the answer to 2 was a probable no. Kicking the chip shot FG and being down one score was the only play, getting the ball after halftime we had a good chance of scoring first making it a new game and change the momentum which was our only hope because NAU worked us the whole first half. Going for it put all our eggs in one basket, if we would have scored we would have looked like geniuses, if not, even without the mess that ensued, we would have went into halftime on a down note with no momentum and down two scores on the road.

But whatever, there's a lot of theories about it so...enough. :dead:

20 points? What are you talking about? It was an 11-point game going into that play. The fumble and 98 yard return was a fluke. Going for it was not putting all eggs in one basket.

 

[jodcon]

My problem with going for it on 4th down is that you have to ask yourself two questions at that point:

If we don't convert...
1) Are we going to be 20 points better than NAU at their place in the second half, because we're down 11 and they're going to get another score somewhere before it's over?
2) Have we shown that we can stop Bauman 3 times and get the ball back before halftime?

At that point the answer to 1 was a definite no, the answer to 2 was a probable no. Kicking the chip shot FG and being down one score was the only play, getting the ball after halftime we had a good chance of scoring first making it a new game and change the momentum which was our only hope because NAU worked us the whole first half. Going for it put all our eggs in one basket, if we would have scored we would have looked like geniuses, if not, even without the mess that ensued, we would have went into halftime on a down note with no momentum and down two scores on the road.

But whatever, there's a lot of theories about it so...enough. :dead:

20 points? What are you talking about? It was an 11-point game going into that play. The fumble and 98 yard return was a fluke. Going for it was not putting all eggs in one basket.

I'm assuming NAU would score at least once more in the second half which would mean we would have to score 19 to be ahead, I don't think it's realistic to think we could have shut them out the second half the way they were moving the ball. I didn't word that very well in the post, what I was getting at is we would have to score 2 more touchdowns than they did the second half, and the way they were playing that seemed very unlikely.

 

[PlayerRep]

My problem with going for it on 4th down is that you have to ask yourself two questions at that point:

If we don't convert...
1) Are we going to be 20 points better than NAU at their place in the second half, because we're down 11 and they're going to get another score somewhere before it's over?
2) Have we shown that we can stop Bauman 3 times and get the ball back before halftime?

At that point the answer to 1 was a definite no, the answer to 2 was a probable no. Kicking the chip shot FG and being down one score was the only play, getting the ball after halftime we had a good chance of scoring first making it a new game and change the momentum which was our only hope because NAU worked us the whole first half. Going for it put all our eggs in one basket, if we would have scored we would have looked like geniuses, if not, even without the mess that ensued, we would have went into halftime on a down note with no momentum and down two scores on the road.

But whatever, there's a lot of theories about it so...enough. :dead:

20 points? What are you talking about? It was an 11-point game going into that play. The fumble and 98 yard return was a fluke. Going for it was not putting all eggs in one basket.

I'm assuming NAU would score at least once more in the second half which would mean we would have to score 19 to be ahead, I don't think it's realistic to think we could have shut them out the second half the way they were moving the ball. I didn't word that very well in the post, what I was getting at is we would have to score 2 more touchdowns than they did the second half, and the way they were playing that seemed very unlikely.

I guess you don't realize that the UM defense didn't give up a TD after NAU's first two drives of the game, and gave up only 2 FG's in the second half, one of which came after a turnover, I believe. You need to work on your math.

 

[jodcon]

My problem with going for it on 4th down is that you have to ask yourself two questions at that point:

If we don't convert...
1) Are we going to be 20 points better than NAU at their place in the second half, because we're down 11 and they're going to get another score somewhere before it's over?
2) Have we shown that we can stop Bauman 3 times and get the ball back before halftime?

At that point the answer to 1 was a definite no, the answer to 2 was a probable no. Kicking the chip shot FG and being down one score was the only play, getting the ball after halftime we had a good chance of scoring first making it a new game and change the momentum which was our only hope because NAU worked us the whole first half. Going for it put all our eggs in one basket, if we would have scored we would have looked like geniuses, if not, even without the mess that ensued, we would have went into halftime on a down note with no momentum and down two scores on the road.

But whatever, there's a lot of theories about it so...enough. :dead:

20 points? What are you talking about? It was an 11-point game going into that play. The fumble and 98 yard return was a fluke. Going for it was not putting all eggs in one basket.

I'm assuming NAU would score at least once more in the second half which would mean we would have to score 19 to be ahead, I don't think it's realistic to think we could have shut them out the second half the way they were moving the ball. I didn't word that very well in the post, what I was getting at is we would have to score 2 more touchdowns than they did the second half, and the way they were playing that seemed very unlikely.

I guess you don't realize that the UM defense didn't give up a TD after NAU's first two drives of the game, and gave up only 2 FG's in the second half, one of which came after a turnover, I believe. You need to work on your math.

I'm not arguing that, I'm just saying it forces us to outscore them by quite a bit in the second half because they are going to get some points somewhere. The defense played great and held them to 6 points, that's probably the best we could have hoped for, but even then it forces us to score 3 times to win the game, and the way their defense was playing that was very much in doubt.

 

[kemajic]

Take the points. It's then a 1 score game with the Griz getting the ball to start the 2nd half. Whole new ballgame.

They could have blocked the FG... in fact that probably had a nigher percentage chance of happening than JJ fumbling and having the ball go 98 yards the other way. All that being said, nobody is accusing of Delaney and co of making brilliant decisions. In a game like that, though, momentum is HUGE and they were trying to take it back. I agree with the aggressive call.

The momentum did not need to be regained in the second quarter; there was a lot of football left to play. Down one score, the momentum could have been regained with the first possession of the second half, since we were getting the ball. It was a very impatient call.

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Kind of encapsulates our coaching problem-----he says he'd do the same thing in the same circumstance again. Sheeeesh. I believe it was Einstein who said that stupidity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.

Run that play 99 more times and we never fumble and probably 60 of them are scores............so.........it was still a great call and it still is a great call. That 3 points wasnt going to matter anyway........

 

[Ursa Major]

Kind of encapsulates our coaching problem-----he says he'd do the same thing in the same circumstance again. Sheeeesh. I believe it was Einstein who said that stupidity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.

Run that play 99 more times and we never fumble and probably 60 of them are scores............so.........it was still a great call and it still is a great call. That 3 points wasnt going to matter anyway........

Going on 4th is one thing, running THAT play (to the short side) is another. The correct play for that circumstance is take the 3 and trust your D.

 

[PlayerRep]

Kind of encapsulates our coaching problem-----he says he'd do the same thing in the same circumstance again. Sheeeesh. I believe it was Einstein who said that stupidity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.

Run that play 99 more times and we never fumble and probably 60 of them are scores............so.........it was still a great call and it still is a great call. That 3 points wasnt going to matter anyway........

Going on 4th is one thing, running THAT play (to the short side) is another. The correct play for that circumstance is take the 3 and trust your D.

Nope, I don't agree. Alpha's post is right on. The play was set up so that the first option was that the back would be able to slip out alone into the end zone. There was also the option of JJ running or making something else happen. The play has been successful several times this season. Criticizing the play is fine, but saying the "correct" call was to kick the FG is not "correct".

 

[PlayerRep]

Take the points. It's then a 1 score game with the Griz getting the ball to start the 2nd half. Whole new ballgame.

They could have blocked the FG... in fact that probably had a nigher percentage chance of happening than JJ fumbling and having the ball go 98 yards the other way. All that being said, nobody is accusing of Delaney and co of making brilliant decisions. In a game like that, though, momentum is HUGE and they were trying to take it back. I agree with the aggressive call.

The momentum did not need to be regained in the second quarter; there was a lot of football left to play. Down one score, the momentum could have been regained with the first possession of the second half, since we were getting the ball. It was a very impatient call.

Perhaps the momentum did not have to be regained then, but Delaney and the coaches realized that it was a very tough game and NAU was playing well, and felt that this was a good opportunity to try to get a TD (or have NAU pinned near their own end zone, which may have allowed UM to get the ball back and still score before the half). No one could have anticipated what happened with the long fumble return for the TD.

 

[rimrockgriz]

Kind of encapsulates our coaching problem-----he says he'd do the same thing in the same circumstance again. Sheeeesh. I believe it was Einstein who said that stupidity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.

Run that play 99 more times and we never fumble and probably 60 of them are scores............so.........it was still a great call and it still is a great call. That 3 points wasnt going to matter anyway........

Going on 4th is one thing, running THAT play (to the short side) is another. The correct play for that circumstance is take the 3 and trust your D.

Nope, I don't agree. Alpha's post is right on. The play was set up so that the first option was that the back would be able to slip out alone into the end zone. There was also the option of JJ running or making something else happen. The play has been successful several times this season. Criticizing the play is fine, but saying the "correct" call was to kick the FG is not "correct".

Alpha and PR...I'm not one of your sheep...It was a HORRIBLE call...a game LOSER. I was 10 ft from the bench...THE TEAM was completely DECIMATED. Now S.T.F.U. because you don't know what your F.....G talking about... :stfu: ... :egriz:

 

[MrTitleist]

lol...