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

[PlayerRep]

Even if the Griz get three there they still lose.

Pure speculation. Montana has turned around many games in the past that looked much bleaker than this one at 14-6 still in the first half. When leads are surmountable in college football, anything can happen.

I agree with havgriz on this one. This was not just any game. NAU was playing tough, beating us on both sides of the ball, and on fire. UM needed a TD and needed to change the momentum. Showing little or no confidence in the offense, and giving NAU further confidence by showing that UM was afraid to go for the TD, was not what UM needed to turn things around at that time.

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Kicking FGs is for perpetual losers like Norv Turner, Schottenheimer and Denny Green.

Going for it on 4th down is a winning mindset..........many of you don't have it evidently

 

[PlayerRep]

Most of the same 4th down complainers would also be complaining if UM had take the FG and not won the game, in my view. They would be saying Delaney missed the opportunity to score a TD and build momentum going into halftime, and was too conservative. They are largely Monday morning qb's, at least on this issue.

 

[justanotherfan]

We are down 14-0. Put some points on the board before half. After all the earlier frustration just get some payoff for the drive then go regroup at halftime. At that point we simply needed a little positive momentum not necessarily a touchdown.
:ugeek:

Agree; but to be correct, we were down 14-3 at the time; another field goal makes it 14-6, a one score margin and receiving the opening kickoff of the second half. If (big if) the coaches could make adjustments to the D overloads NAU was presenting, I like our chances, no need to get desperate. In spite of what our expert, PR claims, the game would not be lost at 14-6 with a half to play and the opening 3rd quarter possession.

As I keep pointing out, going for it from the 2, with 2:31 to go and 3 time outs, is not desperation. It's a chance to turn around the momentum. It's a good percentage play. There's a good chance of scoring and a good chance of getting the ball back with another chance at scoring even if you don't score.

You can stick to your guns all you want...but it was a BONEHEAD call. NAU scored on the fumble recovery with 1:41 left in the half. The Griz had stopped NAU the first half after two quick TDs. The Griz were starting to move the ball and were to get the ball back to start the second half. All sports involve momentum. TAKE THE POINTS! THE BONEHEAD CALL SUCKED THE LIFE OUT OF THE TEAM ON THE ROAD...good call coach (NOT)!

...added to a gaggle of bad coaching that cost the Griz a number of games last year...the Griz need a head coach...not a nice guy cheerleader.

 

[PlayerRep]

We are down 14-0. Put some points on the board before half. After all the earlier frustration just get some payoff for the drive then go regroup at halftime. At that point we simply needed a little positive momentum not necessarily a touchdown.
:ugeek:

Agree; but to be correct, we were down 14-3 at the time; another field goal makes it 14-6, a one score margin and receiving the opening kickoff of the second half. If (big if) the coaches could make adjustments to the D overloads NAU was presenting, I like our chances, no need to get desperate. In spite of what our expert, PR claims, the game would not be lost at 14-6 with a half to play and the opening 3rd quarter possession.

As I keep pointing out, going for it from the 2, with 2:31 to go and 3 time outs, is not desperation. It's a chance to turn around the momentum. It's a good percentage play. There's a good chance of scoring and a good chance of getting the ball back with another chance at scoring even if you don't score.

You can stick to your guns all you want...but it was a BONEHEAD call. NAU scored on the fumble recovery with 1:41 left in the half. The Griz had stopped NAU the first half after two quick TDs. The Griz were starting to move the ball and were to get the ball back to start the second half. All sports involve momentum. TAKE THE POINTS! THE BONEHEAD CALL SUCKED THE LIFE OUT OF THE TEAM ON THE ROAD...good call coach (NOT)!

...added to a gaggle of bad coaching that cost the Griz a number of games last year...the Griz need a head coach...not a nice guy cheerleader.

You can call it a bonehead call, but it wasn't. You can't divorce the result, i.e. the fumble return, from the call. Thus, you can't properly analyze the call. The result could never have been predicted from the call. The fumble return hurt UM, not the play call.

I assume you aren't also saying that the play call caused the fumble return at the beginning of the second half. Didn't that play have a big impact on the game? Why aren't you complaining about that call? The chances of it resulting in a (shorter) fumble return for TD were greater than the call at the end of the half.

No, get a TD, or pin NAU in close to the goal line and work to get points that way. Don't undercut the momentum of the drive, and show no confidence in your offense. You must watch too much conservative NFL football.

 

[mtgriz]

I'm not following the logic of taking advantage of the TD scoring opportunity at 4th and goal from the 2 yardline. Are you in support of never kicking a FG when you're in 4th and 2 and in FG range? Because the odds of converting on the 20 or 30 yardline are significantly higher, given the defense has much more territory to defend.

 

[Mousegriz]

Fumble at beginning of second half vs. NAU meant nothing. The game was essentially over at halftime at 21 - 3. Shoulda been 14 - 6, the second half fumble makes it 21 - 6 and we're two possessions behind. 28 - 3 is 4 possessions. So....going for it in the first half turned a two possession deficit into a four possession deficit.

But yeah, it was a great decision and play call.....for NAU!

 

[HighLineGRIZ]

Going for it was a no brainer. I'm really surprised of how many people are critical of that call. I think most coaches, even the most conservative, go for it there.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

NDSU would have taken the three points, and then, after the second-half kickoff, they would have taken about seven minutes off the clock while they marched down the field and scored again, to make the score 14-10.

Oh, but that's right - Alphie thinks they're a bunch of pussies.

 

[ilovethecats]

You can't divorce the result, i.e. the fumble return, from the call. Thus, you can't properly analyze the call. The result could never have been predicted from the call. The fumble return hurt UM, not the play call.

think pr is right on the money with this and often times this is what the casual fan fails to consider. right calls go wrong all the time and shitty calls work sometimes. had you guys kicked a field goal there and missed or had it blocked this same thread would be 4 pages long about how chicken shit it was to kick instead of punching it in. :lol:

 

[PlayerRep]

I'm not following the logic of taking advantage of the TD scoring opportunity at 4th and goal from the 2 yardline. Are you in support of never kicking a FG when you're in 4th and 2 and in FG range? Because the odds of converting on the 20 or 30 yardline are significantly higher, given the defense has much more territory to defend.

I don't undertand what you are saying. From the 2 yard line, unless there is some compelling reason to the take the FG (like late in the game and behind by two as well certain other reasons), the presumption would be to go for it. There's a good chance of scoring a TD. If not, the opponent is in a bad spot near their goal line (and their options are more limited and their risks higher), and, if they are held, your team will get the ball back with time to score.

Then add in the lack of momentum and need to turn things around and get back in game factors.

How often do you see college teams take the FG in similar circumstances?

 

[PlayerRep]

Fumble at beginning of second half vs. NAU meant nothing. The game was essentially over at halftime at 21 - 3. Shoulda been 14 - 6, the second half fumble makes it 21 - 6 and we're two possessions behind. 28 - 3 is 4 possessions. So....going for it in the first half turned a two possession deficit into a four possession deficit.

But yeah, it was a great decision and play call.....for NAU!

As I've been saying, you guys can't separate the fumble return from the play call. To properly evaluate the call, the fumble return shouldn't be considered.

 

[PlayerRep]

Going for it was a no brainer. I'm really surprised of how many people are critical of that call. I think most coaches, even the most conservative, go for it there.

Obviously, I agree, Highline.

 

[Grizzlies1982]

Fumble at beginning of second half vs. NAU meant nothing. The game was essentially over at halftime at 21 - 3. Shoulda been 14 - 6, the second half fumble makes it 21 - 6 and we're two possessions behind. 28 - 3 is 4 possessions. So....going for it in the first half turned a two possession deficit into a four possession deficit.

But yeah, it was a great decision and play call.....for NAU!

As I've been saying, you guys can't separate the fumble return from the play call. To properly evaluate the call, the fumble return shouldn't be considered.

I know it's pointless, you're a dog with a bone, but I can't help but respond.............
OK, I remove the 1-10,000 outcome of a fumble returned for a touchdown. That unlikely event is completely forgotten.

Yet now I consider we've been struggling for essentially the entire first half. We finally put together a nice drive and have a first down on their five yard line. Then we essentially bog down and p*ss away the next three plays! Looking up the score is 14-3 and there is only about two minutes on the clock for the first half. We need to capitalize on this drive with some payoff. Coming away empty handed would be much more dispiriting than settling for a field goal. So we kick the ball. It's now a very manageable one score deficit (14-6). We end this sad half of football on a positive note, and WE TAKE THE MOMENTUM into halftime.

I know you'll never agree but that is what a sensible coach might do. Yes a coach might also go for it, yet considering the circumstances the field goal is the better option. That is unless you doubt your offense will be capable of getting near the goal line again.

 

[Griz2k]

There is no right or wrong answer here, only opinion. No two 4th down calls are the same. Let's all just agree to disagree and move on.

End thread....

 

[cclarkblues]

The real problem was that we weren't in our fumble defense formation on that play...

 

['68griz]

The real problem was that we weren't in our fumble defense formation on that play...

This!!!

 

[PlayerRep]

Fumble at beginning of second half vs. NAU meant nothing. The game was essentially over at halftime at 21 - 3. Shoulda been 14 - 6, the second half fumble makes it 21 - 6 and we're two possessions behind. 28 - 3 is 4 possessions. So....going for it in the first half turned a two possession deficit into a four possession deficit.

But yeah, it was a great decision and play call.....for NAU!

As I've been saying, you guys can't separate the fumble return from the play call. To properly evaluate the call, the fumble return shouldn't be considered.

I know it's pointless, you're a dog with a bone, but I can't help but respond.............
OK, I remove the 1-10,000 outcome of a fumble returned for a touchdown. That unlikely event is completely forgotten.

Yet now I consider we've been struggling for essentially the entire first half. We finally put together a nice drive and have a first down on their five yard line. Then we essentially bog down and p*ss away the next three plays! Looking up the score is 14-3 and there is only about two minutes on the clock for the first half. We need to capitalize on this drive with some payoff. Coming away empty handed would be much more dispiriting than settling for a field goal. So we kick the ball. It's now a very manageable one score deficit (14-6). We end this sad half of football on a positive note, and WE TAKE THE MOMENTUM into halftime.

I know you'll never agree but that is what a sensible coach might do. Yes a coach might also go for it, yet considering the circumstances the field goal is the better option. That is unless you doubt your offense will be capable of getting near the goal line again.

Okay, we're getting closer. I have come to strongly believe the right call was to go for it. Part of my reason comes from having information about what the coaches thought about the game and prospects at that point. Had we taken the FG, I would not have complained. I think some people would have, though, had we still lost, which I think we probably would have. There was 2:31 on the clock when the play started, not 2 minutes. Again, UM had 3 TO's. We had thrown an incomplete pass and then had two 1-yard runs. You might characterize that as bogging down; I would say we were 2 yards from a TD. You seem to think not making the TD would end the half; I don't. There would have been plenty of time to hold and get a chance to score before the half. Unless the momentum and game turned around, I think there were some concerns about many chances UM would have to score in the second half. The team/coaches were looking for something to change the momentum.

 

[jodcon]

Fumble at beginning of second half vs. NAU meant nothing. The game was essentially over at halftime at 21 - 3. Shoulda been 14 - 6, the second half fumble makes it 21 - 6 and we're two possessions behind. 28 - 3 is 4 possessions. So....going for it in the first half turned a two possession deficit into a four possession deficit.

But yeah, it was a great decision and play call.....for NAU!

As I've been saying, you guys can't separate the fumble return from the play call. To properly evaluate the call, the fumble return shouldn't be considered.

I know it's pointless, you're a dog with a bone, but I can't help but respond.............
OK, I remove the 1-10,000 outcome of a fumble returned for a touchdown. That unlikely event is completely forgotten.

Yet now I consider we've been struggling for essentially the entire first half. We finally put together a nice drive and have a first down on their five yard line. Then we essentially bog down and p*ss away the next three plays! Looking up the score is 14-3 and there is only about two minutes on the clock for the first half. We need to capitalize on this drive with some payoff. Coming away empty handed would be much more dispiriting than settling for a field goal. So we kick the ball. It's now a very manageable one score deficit (14-6). We end this sad half of football on a positive note, and WE TAKE THE MOMENTUM into halftime.

I know you'll never agree but that is what a sensible coach might do. Yes a coach might also go for it, yet considering the circumstances the field goal is the better option. That is unless you doubt your offense will be capable of getting near the goal line again.

Okay, we're getting closer. I have come to strongly believe the right call was to go for it. Part of my reason comes from having information about what the coaches thought about the game and prospects at that point. Had we taken the FG, I would not have complained. I think some people would have, though, had we still lost, which I think we probably would have. There was 2:31 on the clock when the play started, not 2 minutes. Again, UM had 3 TO's. We had thrown an incomplete pass and then had two 1-yard runs. You might characterize that as bogging down; I would say we were 2 yards from a TD. You seem to think not making the TD would end the half; I don't. There would have been plenty of time to hold and get a chance to score before the half. Unless the momentum and game turned around, I think there were some concerns about many chances UM would have to score in the second half. The team/coaches were looking for something to change the momentum.

The time and TO's left made the decision to go for it easier but really doesn't help the case that much. The thinking that if the play doesn't work we can hold them on the goal line and get the ball back with 2:00 left isn't really any better than thinking we'll kick the field goal, hold them at the 20 with our TO's and get the ball back with 2:00 left in decent field position and a chance for a second score. You can make the case either way.

Wouldn't it have been a lot easier just to score on that possession? :lol:

 

[EverettGriz]

You can't divorce the result, i.e. the fumble return, from the call. Thus, you can't properly analyze the call. The result could never have been predicted from the call. The fumble return hurt UM, not the play call.

think pr is right on the money with this and often times this is what the casual fan fails to consider. right calls go wrong all the time and shitty calls work sometimes. had you guys kicked a field goal there and missed or had it blocked this same thread would be 4 pages long about how chicken shit it was to kick instead of punching it in. :lol:

This is too simplistic for those of us screaming to kick it well BEFORE the shitstorm that ensued. Of a table of 8 at Sluggers, 7 would've kicked it.

That doesn't make it the "right" decision, just the one we would have made. And to compare that situation to the one in the UCD game is meaningless.

No matter what, the decision is an opinion. Neither right, neither wrong. Not sure why PR has difficulties with that concept.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk