Where are all the don't go for it on 4th down haters?

[PlayerRep]

Making the FG was not a no brainer.

As always you are really stretching facts to support your agenda, which is to protect admin and coaches at all costs, since you have your nose up their as&es. No brainer? It would have been a PAT kick. How many PATs has Worst missed? Please answer that one. Cut your losses for an overmatched half and use halftime and the opening series to change the momentum for another 30 min. of football. The benefit (14-10 vs. 14-6) did not justify the risk. Their defense had stuffed us on the first 3 downs; so keep doing the same thing on 4th and expect different results? You're the one posting stupid stuff.

Nope, I've talked to multiple coaches on this. UM did not do the same thing on 4th down, as it did in the 3 prior plays. A FG is not the same as an extra point, as defenders sometimes come harder at a FG than at an extra point. Also, short FG's sometimes have bad or odd angles. Extra points don't. You obviously never played the game in the modern age, and probably never got on the field when you did.

If I ever need a lawyer I will definitely look you up because you can spin anything to meet your own agenda

I don't have an agenda, and don't spin to support my "agenda". I understand football, I talk to alot of people, I know what I think is right, I know how to make arguments and do research to support my arguments, and I don't give up easily--particularly when I know I'm right. As for Kem, we have some history. I've stung him multiple times, so he has trouble being nice in responding to my posts. Sometimes, I give him a bit in return.

 

[PlayerRep]

PR is right and every single one of the posters would have called it a gutsy call if JJ wouldn't have fumbled and would have got in. I also agree with AG1. Even if the Griz get three there they still lose. They just didn't have it in Flagstaff. Field goal wouldn't have meant Jack. Good call Kefense. I'm over it. That was already four weeks ago.

Delaney has said he made the call. I took that to mean he either made the called or blessed it.

 

[rimrockgriz]

Nice job PR...You throw out a controversial "4th down hate" comment in the early a.m. and argue ALL day that black is white. :lol: Then you bounce back with an arguement that white is black... :lol: Why don't take a shower and change your stained boxers ?? It was a shitty call and we got "crushed"(NAU). I'm going back to the pro game. :lol: :egriz: adios paco :silly:

 

[George Ferguson]

Still would of gotten crushed, and also no telling if Worst would have made the chippy anyway. The Griz will go for it again in that same exact scenario later in the season. BOOK IT.

 

[PlayerRep]

Nice job PR...You throw out a controversial "4th down hate" comment in the early a.m. and argue ALL day that black is white. :lol: Then you bounce back with an arguement that white is black... :lol: Why don't take a shower and change your stained boxers ?? It was a shitty call and we got "crushed"(NAU). I'm going back to the pro game. :lol: :egriz: adios paco :silly:

9:42 is early in the am? I agree with B2BGriz' assessment of your limited football knowledge. Feel free to go back under your rock.

 

[Griz2k]

+1 Different circumstances all together. You can't boil this down to just going for it on 4th. That's too simplistic.

It was more important to go for it at NAU, because we were down 14 and struggling. We had to find a way to get back in the game. Trying a FG isn't the way to get back in a game or show confidence in your offense. Why can't some of you just admit that the call was at least fine, or better yet, that the call was the right call.

I respectively disagree with you on this. When you need points take the FG and chances are Worst would have made the short field goal. The game would have been different with the Griz down by 8 instead of 18. The outcome may have been the same but we will never know if cutting the lead to 8 would have sparked the offense and/or defense to change that. I understand the coaches thinking on that but better to play it conservative rather than go aggressive when the offense was struggling to move the ball consistently at the time.

It all just comes down to a matter of opinion so why can't you just admit that there is no right or wrong call on this one. You say a FG isn't the way to get back in the game, why? And how does what happened help the confidence in the offense? How does going for it help the confidence in the kicking game? If the former kicker were there, then going for it is a no brainer but let Worst chip away at the lead and gain more experience kicking.

There are always opportunities to go for it on 4th down but IMHO that was not the time under the circumstances.

I respectively disagree with you. In the NAU at that point of the game, UM needed a TD or bigger play, to bring the team back to life. UM did not need points, particularly points that would indicate a lack of confidence in the offense. My god, we were on the 2 yard line in a big game. The prior kicker got beat out. Making the FG was not a no brainer.

Ummmm.....what? And here I thought scoring points was what a team was supposed to do! Who knew? Consider my mind blown.

 

[PlayerRep]

It was more important to go for it at NAU, because we were down 14 and struggling. We had to find a way to get back in the game. Trying a FG isn't the way to get back in a game or show confidence in your offense. Why can't some of you just admit that the call was at least fine, or better yet, that the call was the right call.

I respectively disagree with you on this. When you need points take the FG and chances are Worst would have made the short field goal. The game would have been different with the Griz down by 8 instead of 18. The outcome may have been the same but we will never know if cutting the lead to 8 would have sparked the offense and/or defense to change that. I understand the coaches thinking on that but better to play it conservative rather than go aggressive when the offense was struggling to move the ball consistently at the time.

It all just comes down to a matter of opinion so why can't you just admit that there is no right or wrong call on this one. You say a FG isn't the way to get back in the game, why? And how does what happened help the confidence in the offense? How does going for it help the confidence in the kicking game? If the former kicker were there, then going for it is a no brainer but let Worst chip away at the lead and gain more experience kicking.

There are always opportunities to go for it on 4th down but IMHO that was not the time under the circumstances.

I respectively disagree with you. In the NAU at that point of the game, UM needed a TD or bigger play, to bring the team back to life. UM did not need points, particularly points that would indicate a lack of confidence in the offense. My god, we were on the 2 yard line in a big game. The prior kicker got beat out. Making the FG was not a no brainer.

Ummmm.....what? And here I thought scoring points was what a team was supposed to do! Who knew? Consider my mind blown.

When you are getting beat soundly by a good team, and your offensive isn't doing much, and you eventually lose by 18 points, you don't need 3 points. You need a momentum changer, and a confidence builder for your offense, and 7 points with 2.5 minutes to go in the half would have been a nice big step in the right direction. You don't want to drive all the way to the 2, and then show no confidence in your offense by taking 3 points. You need to take some chances. Given how NAU was playing, and how poorly the game was going, I doubt that a FG at that point would have done much. Even a TD might not have been enough, given how the second half went. The coaches knew the Griz were in trouble and in a major battle, and made a decision to try to turn things around. I am truly surprised that some of you don't seem to understand all of the factors and reasons in support of going for it.

 

[CFallsGriz]

Was this thread started purely to instigate arguments, or are you just trying to educate the ignorant masses?

Honest question.

 

[Fahque]

Was this thread started purely to instigate arguments, or are you just trying to educate the ignorant masses?

Honest question.

He just thinks everyone should agree with his opinion because he's always right

 

[PlayerRep]

Was this thread started purely to instigate arguments, or are you just trying to educate the ignorant masses?

Honest question.

It was started to point out that no one was questioning the 4th down calls when they were successful, but many had questioned the one last week when it was both unsuccessful and turned in long fumble return for TD. Wondered what was up. Once some discussion started, then I just cranked up my views of the situation again.

 

[PlayerRep]

Was this thread started purely to instigate arguments, or are you just trying to educate the ignorant masses?

Honest question.

He just thinks everyone should agree with his opinion because he's always right

I don't care if people agree with my opinion, but if they're going to say things I don't agree with or tell me I'm wrong, I'm going to respond sometimes. Isn't this a free country? Isn't this the internet. Isn't this a board to discuss and debate football on? If you think I'm going to back down when someone disagrees with me, that you will likely be disappointed.

 

[Ursa Major]

Was this thread started purely to instigate arguments, or are you just trying to educate the ignorant masses?

Honest question.

It was started to point out that no one was questioning the 4th down calls when they were successful, but many had questioned the one last week when it was both unsuccessful and turned in long fumble return for TD. Wondered what was up. Once some discussion started, then I just cranked up my views of the situation again.

PR,

I was all for taking the FG at NAU and all for going for it on the 4th downs this past Saturday. My girl can attest to the temper tantrum I threw during the NAU play. I posted my opinions for going for it in the UCD game thread before the plays were run. Check if you don't believe me. I would have been delighted to have been wrong in the NAU game. At the end of the day, I don't think it would have mattered, we take the 3 or get the 7 and they still beat us. Their defense was playing lights out that night and we were not.

 

[PlayerRep]

Was this thread started purely to instigate arguments, or are you just trying to educate the ignorant masses?

Honest question.

It was started to point out that no one was questioning the 4th down calls when they were successful, but many had questioned the one last week when it was both unsuccessful and turned in long fumble return for TD. Wondered what was up. Once some discussion started, then I just cranked up my views of the situation again.

PR,

I was all for taking the FG at NAU and all for going for it on the 4th downs this past Saturday. My girl can attest to the temper tantrum I threw during the NAU play. I posted my opinions for going for it in the UCD game thread before the plays were run. Check if you don't believe me. I would have been delighted to have been wrong in the NAU game. At the end of the day, I don't think it would have mattered, we take the 3 or get the 7 and they still beat us. Their defense was playing lights out that night and we were not.

Yes, I recall what you were saying last week. If we had gotten the 7, we probably would have won. If we had gotten the 3, we would have lost. Just joking.

 

[1Griz_Fan]

+1 Different circumstances all together. You can't boil this down to just going for it on 4th. That's too simplistic.

It was more important to go for it at NAU, because we were down 14 and struggling. We had to find a way to get back in the game. Trying a FG isn't the way to get back in a game or show confidence in your offense. Why can't some of you just admit that the call was at least fine, or better yet, that the call was the right call.

I respectively disagree with you on this. When you need points take the FG and chances are Worst would have made the short field goal. The game would have been different with the Griz down by 8 instead of 18. The outcome may have been the same but we will never know if cutting the lead to 8 would have sparked the offense and/or defense to change that. I understand the coaches thinking on that but better to play it conservative rather than go aggressive when the offense was struggling to move the ball consistently at the time.

It all just comes down to a matter of opinion so why can't you just admit that there is no right or wrong call on this one. You say a FG isn't the way to get back in the game, why? And how does what happened help the confidence in the offense? How does going for it help the confidence in the kicking game? If the former kicker were there, then going for it is a no brainer but let Worst chip away at the lead and gain more experience kicking.

There are always opportunities to go for it on 4th down but IMHO that was not the time under the circumstances.

I respectively disagree with you. In the NAU at that point of the game, UM needed a TD or bigger play, to bring the team back to life. UM did not need points, particularly points that would indicate a lack of confidence in the offense. My god, we were on the 2 yard line in a big game. The prior kicker got beat out. Making the FG was not a no brainer.

LOL Yes, UM needed ANY points at that point of the game and after that drive too. My God, take a look at the drive and aside from three big plays the Griz were struggling to move the ball. Out of an 11 play drive there were three runs for 1 yard each, one run for 2 yds, one run for 4 yds, and the two biggest run plays that drive were by Johnson of 5 and 12 yds. Since I included all 11 plays Johnson's 4th down attempt went in the stat book as a rush for no gain.

The biggest play of the drive was a 3rd down pass to Jones for 39 yds while Van had a 14 yd completion. Johnson was 2-4 passing that drive and the line was getting dominated in the trenches as evident by the RB's with 5 carries for 9 yds, equaling an average of 1.8 yds a carry. Johnson was not getting much time to get the ball away that drive or the entire game for that matter.

Bad decision to go for it on 4th and bad play call on top of that. With your philosophy the Griz may as well just go for 2 every time they score a TD, so they do not indicate a lack of confidence in the offense. Plus the prior kicker got beat out. Making an extra point is not a no brainer. :thumb:

 

[George Ferguson]

Griz would have lost to NAU anyway

 

[1Griz_Fan]

Griz would have lost to NAU anyway

I do not doubt that because the O and D lines were dominated most, if not all game.

Also, the drive in question consisted of 12 plays (GoGriz.com states 11 for 86 yds) including 2 penalties on NAU. Just saying, before someone says I was wrong in my prior response to PlayerRep.

 

[Mr. Greenjeans]

Was this thread started purely to instigate arguments, or are you just trying to educate the ignorant masses?

Honest question.

It was started to point out that no one was questioning the 4th down calls when they were successful, but many had questioned the one last week when it was both unsuccessful and turned in long fumble return for TD. Wondered what was up. Once some discussion started, then I just cranked up my views of the situation again.

PR,

I was all for taking the FG at NAU and all for going for it on the 4th downs this past Saturday. My girl can attest to the temper tantrum I threw during the NAU play. I posted my opinions for going for it in the UCD game thread before the plays were run. Check if you don't believe me. I would have been delighted to have been wrong in the NAU game. At the end of the day, I don't think it would have mattered, we take the 3 or get the 7 and they still beat us. Their defense was playing lights out that night and we were not.

Yes, I recall what you were saying last week. If we had gotten the 7, we probably would have won. If we had gotten the 3, we would have lost. Just joking.

You can argue about either way, I was ok with it, the fumble bounced into the defenders mitts like it was snapped to him, that's purely rotten luck, 999 times out 1000 that doesn't get returned for 6. The probability that we cover the fumble for 6 is far higher than what happened.

I'm an old school guy but have really gotten interested in advanced metrics and stats...you guys should check out Bill Barnwell and his writing on Grantland.com. He does a column on Tuesday called "Thank You for Not Coaching'' that is an eye opener, dissects how Ron Rivera has gone for the FG to take a 6 point lead when given a 4th and short (1-2) yards and lost the game when being conservative allowed the opponent to drive the field and get a game winning score. He's got Cam Newton, I'd take my chances with Cam Newton making a couple yards 75% of the time given non-stupid play calls. Riveras record in games decided by less than a TD is like 2-15 with Cam freaking Newton and is why he will be done as a head coach this year (if not before).

It's pretty logical when you think about it, 4th and one in the red zone, the chance to go up by 2 scores and basically end the contest. Versus going up by 6 and being vulnerable to a long TD drive. Given the conservative nature of most NFL coaches particularly at home most will play for a tying FG and OT vs attacking and going for a TD to win. Up by 6 there is no doubt which way they go. I've been watching the NFL since Fran Tarkenton played for the Vikings in the 60's, met Alan Page when he was a rookie.

It all depends how you evaluate your personnel and the chances of success against the opponents personnel in a given place in time. The Griz had a bad half and 3 points vs being agressive really didn't matter much as we weren't good in the 2nd half. I have the back of the staff in going for it, the resulting fumble TD was a fluke, any objective observer would know that. It's football, weird things happen, but that result was HIGHLY improbable. 3 points there meant squat.

 

[rimrockgriz]

Nice job PR...you sucked em' in until 1:58 a.m. :lol: Now watch Cranium pull the same shit during the Poly game. Bad mouth "Joe Blow" and the sh!t storm is off and running. :roll: :roll: :roll: :egriz:

 

[kemajic]

I respectively disagree with you. In the NAU at that point of the game, UM needed a TD or bigger play, to bring the team back to life. UM did not need points, particularly points that would indicate a lack of confidence in the offense. My god, we were on the 2 yard line in a big game. The prior kicker got beat out. Making the FG was not a no brainer.

With your philosophy the Griz may as well just go for 2 every time they score a TD, so they do not indicate a lack of confidence in the offense. Plus the prior kicker got beat out. Making an extra point is not a no brainer. :thumb:

++++++

 

[Grizzlies1982]

We weren't down 14-0 this time. They weren't moving the ball at will on us.

THIS.
Having a lead opens up your options. Plus the fact we weren't facing going into halftime scoreless at Davis.
:ugeek: