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

[PlayerRep]

We weren't down 14-0 this time.

+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.

Given the circumstances of being in the lead and clearly outplaying your opponent to that point in the game, I say go for it on 4th and less than 1 to break the will of the other team.

Given the circumstances of being down and clearly being outplayed by your opponent to that point in the game, being 2 yards out to an opponent with a talented defense, I say kick the FG. Take the points, get the momentum and live to fight again with the 3rd quarter kick-off.

PR, these are all opinions. You seem to want to seek some objective truth. You're not going to find it.

What gets me about the NAU play is the play calling. I hate rolling the qb to the short side. We did this a lot last year on third down plays and near the goal line. We are NOT fooling anyone. I would rather see us run up the gut with Wilson plowing a path for Counts.

Yes, they are opinions. But opinions can be right or wrong, or more right or more wrong. In this situation, I say that the bulk of football coaches would have gone for it on 4th, and virtually none of them would criticized the decision. Most of you guys are judging the play by the 98 yard fumble return and/or by NFL standards, not college football standards, in my view.

 

[krammer]

Stop comparing apples to oranges..

I agree, you guys need to knock it off and as tough as it is just admit Playa ra*pe is right......

I believe he is right also and his argument is sound....what gives,,, just because p/r makes a point, why is it automatically wrong in so many peoples eyes???

 

[Buttegrizzle]

Statistically one should always go for it when you are past midfield and you have 5 yards or less to go. I don't mind the call, just the fumble return.

 

[jodcon]

There is no right or wrong in this deal, it's a question of coaching philosophy, half the NFL coaches would have went for it thinking they needed the points now, the other half would have kicked the FG on the road to bring them within one score. There is no definitive answer.

Now can we drop this no-win deal and enjoy the ass-kicking we put on Davis and get ready for Poly?

 

[PlayerRep]

Stop comparing apples to oranges..

I agree, you guys need to knock it off and as tough as it is just admit Playa ra*pe is right......

I believe he is right also and his argument is sound....what gives,,, just because p/r makes a point, why is it automatically wrong in so many peoples eyes???

I can almost predict the posters who will disagree. I keep the master list in my head. My theory is that they are so blinded by dislike that there brain shuts off and they make dumb posts.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Here come the excuses......... :roll:

Totally different circumstances.
Against NAU we were down two scores and struggling to put points on the board.
Against UCD, we're leading by 14, not giving up anything defensively, and was following two missed FG attempts by our True Freshman kicker.
Not even a close comparison.
Go Griz!

I would argue that it is more important to go for it when you're down 14 and struggling. You have to show confidence in your team. You have to find a way to get back in the game. You have to take chances, not be conservative. College football isn't the NFL. Also, even if you don't make it from the 2, you've got the opponent near their goal line, with 2.5 minutes to go, and 3 timeouts. The true frosh kickers is our starting kicker; he beat out the other guy.

For the record I supported both calls.

 

[Ursa Major]

+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.

Given the circumstances of being in the lead and clearly outplaying your opponent to that point in the game, I say go for it on 4th and less than 1 to break the will of the other team.

Given the circumstances of being down and clearly being outplayed by your opponent to that point in the game, being 2 yards out to an opponent with a talented defense, I say kick the FG. Take the points, get the momentum and live to fight again with the 3rd quarter kick-off.

PR, these are all opinions. You seem to want to seek some objective truth. You're not going to find it.

What gets me about the NAU play is the play calling. I hate rolling the qb to the short side. We did this a lot last year on third down plays and near the goal line. We are NOT fooling anyone. I would rather see us run up the gut with Wilson plowing a path for Counts.

Yes, they are opinions. But opinions can be right or wrong, or more right or more wrong. In this situation, I say that the bulk of football coaches would have gone for it on 4th, and virtually none of them would criticized the decision. Most of you guys are judging the play by the 98 yard fumble return and/or by NFL standards, not college football standards, in my view.

Without a doubt the result of the fumble return has amplified the criticism of the decision to go for it. It was a strange night and the ball obviously bounced in NAUs favor. Take the fumble return out of the equation and I still think taking the points and trusting our d was the right call. College football is a passionate game and we could have changed the momentum and cooled down their sell-out crowd with the 3 pts. Being stopped on 4th and goal would have inspired NAU and the crowd.

 

[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.

Given the circumstances of being in the lead and clearly outplaying your opponent to that point in the game, I say go for it on 4th and less than 1 to break the will of the other team.

Given the circumstances of being down and clearly being outplayed by your opponent to that point in the game, being 2 yards out to an opponent with a talented defense, I say kick the FG. Take the points, get the momentum and live to fight again with the 3rd quarter kick-off.

PR, these are all opinions. You seem to want to seek some objective truth. You're not going to find it.

What gets me about the NAU play is the play calling. I hate rolling the qb to the short side. We did this a lot last year on third down plays and near the goal line. We are NOT fooling anyone. I would rather see us run up the gut with Wilson plowing a path for Counts.

Yes, they are opinions. But opinions can be right or wrong, or more right or more wrong. In this situation, I say that the bulk of football coaches would have gone for it on 4th, and virtually none of them would criticized the decision. Most of you guys are judging the play by the 98 yard fumble return and/or by NFL standards, not college football standards, in my view.

Without a doubt the result of the fumble return has amplified the criticism of the decision to go for it. It was a strange night and the ball obviously bounced in NAUs favor. Take the fumble return out of the equation and I still think taking the points and trusting our d was the right call. College football is a passionate game and we could have changed the momentum and cooled down their sell-out crowd with the 3 pts. Being stopped on 4th and goal would have inspired NAU and the crowd.

Perhaps, but with NAU having the ball on the 2, having to be careful, hopefully getting stopped, kicking out of their end zone, possibly getting the kick blocked, possibly have a turnover, and UM having 3 timeouts with just under 2.5 minutes to go (the play started with 2:31 to go); a number of good things could have happened even if UM had been stopped. Also, Delaney has said that he believe UM needed to make some plays to get back in the game, and this was a factor in his decision to go for it. In addition, short FG's are not automatic this year.

 

[EverettGriz]

We weren't down 14-0 this time.

+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.

Given the circumstances of being in the lead and clearly outplaying your opponent to that point in the game, I say go for it on 4th and less than 1 to break the will of the other team.

Given the circumstances of being down and clearly being outplayed by your opponent to that point in the game, being 2 yards out to an opponent with a talented defense, I say kick the FG. Take the points, get the momentum and live to fight again with the 3rd quarter kick-off.

PR, these are all opinions. You seem to want to seek some objective truth. You're not going to find it.

What gets me about the NAU play is the play calling. I hate rolling the qb to the short side. We did this a lot last year on third down plays and near the goal line. We are NOT fooling anyone. I would rather see us run up the gut with Wilson plowing a path for Counts.

Excellent post.

 

[GottaluvGriz]

Here come the excuses......... :roll:

Totally different circumstances.
Against NAU we were down two scores and struggling to put points on the board.
Against UCD, we're leading by 14, not giving up anything defensively, and was following two missed FG attempts by our True Freshman kicker.
Not even a close comparison.
Go Griz!

I would argue that it is more important to go for it when you're down 14 and struggling. You have to show confidence in your team. You have to find a way to get back in the game. You have to take chances, not be conservative. College football isn't the NFL. Also, even if you don't make it from the 2, you've got the opponent near their goal line, with 2.5 minutes to go, and 3 timeouts. The true frosh kickers is our starting kicker; he beat out the other guy.

The post is questioning where all the "doubters" are from yesterday's decision to go for it on 4th down. My post is clear. There are not that many doubters on going for it on 4th yesterday as the situations were clearly not the same as against NAU. Even Delaney said that since Worst missed the prior two FG attempts then what the heck lets go for it.
We were playing with house money yesterday going for it. Against NAU, we were down on our luck and short stacked. Completely different situations and that is why not too many doubters this week.
Go Griz!

 

[justanotherfan]

As others have already noted, the critics of going for it on 4th down, especially near the goal line, seem to have disappeared. It's amazing what a difference converting on a play, and not fumbling it for a 98 yard fumble return, makes. Does anyone think that short FG kicks are automatic this year?

Here I am...I have not disappeared. The same guy who hates the punt team backing off the line of scrimmage. The same guy who hates putting tackles deep on kickoffs so the ball can be fumbled...twice. I am not a critic of going for it on 4th down...depending on the circumstances. There is not another college football coach in the country who would go for it on 4th down given the circumstances at NAU. The offense would have been rewarded with some points for a fine offensive drive, the lead would have been reduced to a TD and 2 point conversion. The offense would have received the football to start the second half. Instead, the bonehead call sucked the life out of the team on the road. That was the worst of a number of horrible coaching decisions the last two seasons...given the circumstances.

Good coaching can overcome a lack of talent. Good talent cannot overcome bad coaching.

 

[Mr. Greenjeans]

As others have already noted, the critics of going for it on 4th down, especially near the goal line, seem to have disappeared. It's amazing what a difference converting on a play, and not fumbling it for a 98 yard fumble return, makes. Does anyone think that short FG kicks are automatic this year?

Here I am...I have not disappeared. The same guy who hates the punt team backing off the line of scrimmage. The same guy who hates putting tackles deep on kickoffs so the ball can be fumbled...twice. I am not a critic of going for it on 4th down...depending on the circumstances. There is not another college football coach in the country who would go for it on 4th down given the circumstances at NAU. The offense would have been rewarded with some points for a fine offensive drive, the lead would have been reduced to a TD and 2 point conversion. The offense would have received the football to start the second half. Instead, the bonehead call sucked the life out of the team on the road. That was the worst of a number of horrible coaching decisions the last two seasons...given the circumstances.

Good coaching can overcome a lack of talent. Good talent cannot overcome bad coaching.

Now if you had said no other NFL coach would go in that situation I would agree. There are more than a few college coachs that go there. That said I also agree with you on the WTF special teams line ups and agree with the previous poster who questioned the short side rollout as it didn't appear to have enough options for success. :thumb:

 

[1Griz_Fan]

We weren't down 14-0 this time.

+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.

 

[PlayerRep]

We weren't down 14-0 this time.

+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.

 

[PlayerRep]

As others have already noted, the critics of going for it on 4th down, especially near the goal line, seem to have disappeared. It's amazing what a difference converting on a play, and not fumbling it for a 98 yard fumble return, makes. Does anyone think that short FG kicks are automatic this year?

Here I am...I have not disappeared. The same guy who hates the punt team backing off the line of scrimmage. The same guy who hates putting tackles deep on kickoffs so the ball can be fumbled...twice. I am not a critic of going for it on 4th down...depending on the circumstances. There is not another college football coach in the country who would go for it on 4th down given the circumstances at NAU. The offense would have been rewarded with some points for a fine offensive drive, the lead would have been reduced to a TD and 2 point conversion. The offense would have received the football to start the second half. Instead, the bonehead call sucked the life out of the team on the road. That was the worst of a number of horrible coaching decisions the last two seasons...given the circumstances.

Good coaching can overcome a lack of talent. Good talent cannot overcome bad coaching.

Nope, the bulk of college coaches would have gone for it in that situation. It was not a bonehead call. It was the right call. And what "sucked the life out" was an incredibly unlikely and completely unpredictable turn of events. I would guess that UM football has never had a 98 yard fumble return against it in its history. Most of you can't separate the 98 yard fumble return from the play call.

 

[PlayerRep]

Here come the excuses......... :roll:

Totally different circumstances.
Against NAU we were down two scores and struggling to put points on the board.
Against UCD, we're leading by 14, not giving up anything defensively, and was following two missed FG attempts by our True Freshman kicker.
Not even a close comparison.
Go Griz!

I would argue that it is more important to go for it when you're down 14 and struggling. You have to show confidence in your team. You have to find a way to get back in the game. You have to take chances, not be conservative. College football isn't the NFL. Also, even if you don't make it from the 2, you've got the opponent near their goal line, with 2.5 minutes to go, and 3 timeouts. The true frosh kickers is our starting kicker; he beat out the other guy.

The post is questioning where all the "doubters" are from yesterday's decision to go for it on 4th down. My post is clear. There are not that many doubters on going for it on 4th yesterday as the situations were clearly not the same as against NAU. Even Delaney said that since Worst missed the prior two FG attempts then what the heck lets go for it.
We were playing with house money yesterday going for it. Against NAU, we were down on our luck and short stacked. Completely different situations and that is why not too many doubters this week.
Go Griz!

No one is questioning yesterday's calls, because they were successful. If they had not been successful, there would be people questioning the calls. If there'd been a fumble returned for a TD yesterday, the level of criticism would have been approaching the level after NAU.

 

[kemajic]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Fahque]

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

 

[George Ferguson]

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.