Why did UM kick last FG?

[PlayerRep]

So.. What do you think would have been the outcome of the game if we would have went for it on 4th down and tied the game up?

I assume UM would have had a good chance of holding NDSU, getting the ball back, and coming down the field for a TD or FG--just like UM did. Had UM not come down the field to get at least a FG to win, UM would have won in OT. UM's offense was playing very well right then, and UM's defense was shutting down NDSU.

Again, the main point is why give up the freebie chance to get a TD right then, when there was uncertainty whether the D could hold quickly and the O could come down the field in time to get a TD? I say the TD chance was over 50%. Another poster said 25%. Brady completed well over 50% of his passes. The momentum was on UM's side. There was virtually no downside to not making a TD. Most likely, the ball would have been on the 11 or inside the 11, and there would have been a few more seconds on the clock (with no kickoff and risk of a big return, which was a big risk with that returner and our kickoff defense). Why not take the freebie chance? Had we been down 6, and a FG would have gotten us with 3, then I would understand the decision.

It's not a big deal. I like Stitt. This is not intended as any criticism of him. It's just an interesting point, at least to me. I was with a bunch of ex-players before, during and after the game. One of them spoke up immediately as the FG crew came in. We talked about it then. It all worked out, so all is good. It just seemed like an odd and unnecessary call to take the FG since UM was down 7.

 

[mondayamqb]

Delaney would have punted.

 

[Potomac Griz]

Taking the FG put UM in almost the exact same position as taking one shot from the 11 at a TD and not making it

Except of course with an extra 3 points which is what we ended up winning by. You can't say that the "UM gained nothing by taking the FG" when the Griz won by 3 points.

Had the Griz not taken the field goal and not gotten the TD (the percentages at 4th and goal from the 11 are likely very bad) we would have been left with just hoping for a tie after a defensive stop.

As odd as the call may have seemed at the time it put us in a position to win the game after a defensive stop rather than just have to play for a tie after likely turning it over on downs.

What do you think has a better percentage of success? Getting a TD on 4th and goal from the 11, getting a defensive stop and then scoring again to win? Or getting a FG from the 11th on 4th and goal, getting a defensive stop and scoring again?

I'm guessing the 2nd option is more likely to occur though since getting a TD from the 11 on 4th and goal doesn't seem too likely.

I think OleGriz did a good job above explaining why it makes sense.

Stitt's decision (like it or not) and the D stepping up put us in a position to beat the #1 ranked, 4 time defending NC team in regulation.

Again, I say our chance of getting a TD there was over 50%.

What are you basing that on? Over 50% chance to get a TD on 4th and goal from the 11?

 

[PlayerRep]

What an idiot.

We won by three points.

Clearly kicking the field goal was the right call.

You can hypothetical all you want, lawyer boy, but you're just wrong.

Actually, you're the idiot and wrong.

 

[mcg]

Well, either way, the D would have still had to hold NDSU. We score a TD, and kick the extra point, all NDSU needs to do is get to field goal range with plenty of time to win it.

And when we kicked the FG, all NDSU had to do was get a first down or maybe 2, and then they win the game. They don't even need a FG.

I actually had the same thought, Griz need a touchdown, the best chance to get one is 4th and goal. But I was wrong. And all NDSU had to do to win the game is not throw two incomplete passes on the last series.

 

[Blgs Griz Fan]

As the game was going on, I thought it was a strange decision, but after thinking about it, it makes a certain logical sense given the relatively low odds of getting a TD on 4th and Goal from the 11 and how much time was left for NDSU to get a winning drive if the game was tied. Consider these scenarios:

1. Griz go for and get the touchdown and extra point (I'd say there was at best a 25% chance of success, probably less). NDSU now has a little less than 3 minutes to get into field goal range (or get a touchdown), plenty of time for their offense especially with 2 time outs. Montana needs a defensive stop (not necessarily a three and out, but can't give up too much yardage) to force overtime, in which they will have to stop NDSU again at least once more to win. (There is also the chance that the Griz stop NDSU and drive for the game winner themselves, much like what actually happened)

2. Griz go for and fail on 4th and Goal from the 11, probably an incomplete pass. NDSU now has the ball at the 11. Montana needs a quick defensive stop, probably a three and out, to have a chance of putting together a game-tying TD drive to force overtime. Then another defensive stop is needed for the win.

3. Griz make field goal, need a quick defensive stop, probably a three and out, to have a chance to put together a game-winning TD drive.

4. In an offshoot of scenario 1, Griz get the touchdown and attempt and make a two point conversion. Montana still needs a defensive stop to preserve the victory. If the conversion fails, a quick stop and scoring drive is still needed.

No matter what, the defense had to stop NDSU at least once and likely couldn't afford to give up more than one first down. Kicking the field goal put the Griz in position to win the game after they made the stop.

You make some good points. However, I think making a TD on 4th and goal in that game was better than 50-50. Also, if you're going to trust/need your D to get a quick 3 and out, what's wrong with trusting/needing them to stop NDSU from driving down the field. UM's D had been dominating the 2d half. No, another defensive stop is needed for the win. UM needs to convert a 2-pt conversion for the win, or go into OT. Agree with your other points/scenarios. But what's missing is that UM gave up a freebie chance from the 11 to score a TD. You say 25%, and I say over 50%. But who cares? It's a freebie chance for a TD. I think the chance of scoring a TD was better on 4th and 11, than it was on holding NDSU and driving 80 yards, in such a short period of time. And again it was a freebie. UM lost virtually nothing by taking that freebie shot.

What were the stats for the Griz Red Zone Offense? They seemed to struggle in the Red Zone.

 

[PlayerRep]

Taking the FG put UM in almost the exact same position as taking one shot from the 11 at a TD and not making it

Except of course with an extra 3 points which is what we ended up winning by. You can't say that the "UM gained nothing by taking the FG" when the Griz won by 3 points.

Had the Griz not taken the field goal and not gotten the TD (the percentages at 4th and goal from the 11 are likely very bad) we would have been left with just hoping for a tie after a defensive stop.

As odd as the call may have seemed at the time it put us in a position to win the game after a defensive stop rather than just have to play for a tie after likely turning it over on downs.

What do you think has a better percentage of success? Getting a TD on 4th and goal from the 11, getting a defensive stop and then scoring again to win? Or getting a FG from the 11th on 4th and goal, getting a defensive stop and scoring again?

I'm guessing the 2nd option (the one Stitt chose) is more likely to occur though since getting a TD from the 11 on 4th and goal doesn't seem too likely.

I think OleGriz did a good job above explaining why it makes sense.

Stitt's decision (like it or not) and the D stepping up put us in a position to beat the #1 ranked 4 time defending NC team who had only lost 3 games total in the past 4 years.

Again, I say our chance of getting a TD there was over 50%.

What are you basing that on? Over 50% chance to get a TD on 4th and goal from the 11?

The chances of success of scoring a TD in this type of game and with momentum on UM's side at the time are better than UM's D stopping NDSU quickly, getting the ball back, and driving at 80 yards with 1:39 left for a TD. It's not even a close call. Stopping NDSU fast is hard enough, but driving 80 yards in 1:39 for a TD is very difficult. Note that UM converted on 4 of 6 4th downs on Saturday. That's 67%. Our receivers were making big plays as the game went on, and catching every thing.

 

[PlayerRep]

As the game was going on, I thought it was a strange decision, but after thinking about it, it makes a certain logical sense given the relatively low odds of getting a TD on 4th and Goal from the 11 and how much time was left for NDSU to get a winning drive if the game was tied. Consider these scenarios:

1. Griz go for and get the touchdown and extra point (I'd say there was at best a 25% chance of success, probably less). NDSU now has a little less than 3 minutes to get into field goal range (or get a touchdown), plenty of time for their offense especially with 2 time outs. Montana needs a defensive stop (not necessarily a three and out, but can't give up too much yardage) to force overtime, in which they will have to stop NDSU again at least once more to win. (There is also the chance that the Griz stop NDSU and drive for the game winner themselves, much like what actually happened)

2. Griz go for and fail on 4th and Goal from the 11, probably an incomplete pass. NDSU now has the ball at the 11. Montana needs a quick defensive stop, probably a three and out, to have a chance of putting together a game-tying TD drive to force overtime. Then another defensive stop is needed for the win.

3. Griz make field goal, need a quick defensive stop, probably a three and out, to have a chance to put together a game-winning TD drive.

4. In an offshoot of scenario 1, Griz get the touchdown and attempt and make a two point conversion. Montana still needs a defensive stop to preserve the victory. If the conversion fails, a quick stop and scoring drive is still needed.

No matter what, the defense had to stop NDSU at least once and likely couldn't afford to give up more than one first down. Kicking the field goal put the Griz in position to win the game after they made the stop.

You make some good points. However, I think making a TD on 4th and goal in that game was better than 50-50. Also, if you're going to trust/need your D to get a quick 3 and out, what's wrong with trusting/needing them to stop NDSU from driving down the field. UM's D had been dominating the 2d half. No, another defensive stop is needed for the win. UM needs to convert a 2-pt conversion for the win, or go into OT. Agree with your other points/scenarios. But what's missing is that UM gave up a freebie chance from the 11 to score a TD. You say 25%, and I say over 50%. But who cares? It's a freebie chance for a TD. I think the chance of scoring a TD was better on 4th and 11, than it was on holding NDSU and driving 80 yards, in such a short period of time. And again it was a freebie. UM lost virtually nothing by taking that freebie shot.

What were the stats for the Griz Red Zone Offense? They seemed to struggle in the Red Zone.

UM converted every time in the red zone on Saturday. I think 3 TD's and 2 FG's.

 

[first11]

I thought it was 4th and goal from the 11 when we kicked the last FG. Not inside the 5

We needed a TD (no matter what) and a conversion or FG to win. Like always, he took what he was given

Obviously it was the right call

Excellent call.....Stitts job to play his hand and not all of we uncompensated consultants here on the always reliable egriz thought line!

 

[Paytonlives]

I was scratching my head also about the FG...

But Coach Stitt was right. That's why he gets paid the big bucks.

 

[Potomac Griz]

The chances of success of scoring a TD in this type of game and with momentum on UM's side at the time are better than UM's D stopping NDSU quickly, getting the ball back, and driving at 80 yards with 1:39 left for a TD. It's not even a close call. Stopping NDSU fast is hard enough, but driving 80 yards in 1:39 for a TD is very difficult.

The chances of the Griz getting a TD on 4th and 11 were not good, which would have left NDSU with all the momentum and us needing a decent drive after stopping them still and a TD to just tie the game.

Note that UM converted on 4 of 6 4th downs on Saturday. That's 67%. Our receivers were making big plays as the game went on, and catching every thing.

Big difference between going for it on 4th down and shorter distance from midfield where there's a lot more room to work for our WRs and going for it on 4th a goal from the 11 yard line and much less room for our WRs to work with.

UM converted every time in the red zone on Saturday. I think 3 TD's and 2 FG's.

It was 2TDs and 3FGs. First TD while in the red zone came on our first TD of the game in the 1st quarter. 2nd TD from inside the red zone came on the last TD of the game.

 

[OleGriz]

You make some good points. However, I think making a TD on 4th and goal in that game was better than 50-50. Also, if you're going to trust/need your D to get a quick 3 and out, what's wrong with trusting/needing them to stop NDSU from driving down the field. UM's D had been dominating the 2d half. No, another defensive stop is needed for the win. UM needs to convert a 2-pt conversion for the win, or go into OT. Agree with your other points/scenarios. But what's missing is that UM gave up a freebie chance from the 11 to score a TD. You say 25%, and I say over 50%. But who cares? It's a freebie chance for a TD. I think the chance of scoring a TD was better on 4th and 11, than it was on holding NDSU and driving 80 yards, in such a short period of time. And again it was a freebie. UM lost virtually nothing by taking that freebie shot.

At that point in the game, there were several strategic paths that could have led to a Griz victory. All of these paths would have required the Griz to make several difficult, lower percentage plays or drives occur in their favor (4th and 11, two point conversion, defensive three and out, 80 yard TD drive in 1:37, driving for winning field goal if the two point conversion failed, etc.). By taking the field goal when he did, Stitt made it so that we didn't need to attempt a two point conversion to have the lead at the end.

 

[IdaGriz01]

Statistical food for thought.

Now, obviously, the Griz did not score on every possession. But when they did score, their average drive took 2 min and 12 sec (2:12). Three of those scores were field goals, and those drives took by far the most time (2:05, 3:33 and 3:52). Not counting that last game-winner, the Griz TD scoring drives averaged 1:14 (that includes the one that took just 38 sec).

When the Griz kicked that last FG, there were about 3 min left on the clock. Yes, Stitt took a big chance. He had to count on the Griz D to send the Bison 3-and-out. The Griz did have all their timeouts ... but the D then stuffed the run and forced NDSU to pass. Obviously, the Bison were hoping to get the one or two first downs they needed to run out the clock. Then pressure on the QB saved the Griz two timeouts by forcing incomplete passes -- he'd have done better to take a knee.

The Griz then scored with a drive of 1:37 clock time. Without those timeouts, the Griz would have had to play it differently -- but they did have the TOs, and made very good use of them.

 

[Fahque]

Delaney would have punted.

I LOL'd

This thread:

 

[signedbewildered]

Is there a chance that Stitt knows more about football than any of us here? Maybe you should ask him PR. Pretty sure that was your Chevrolet Geo I saw this morning with the "WHAT WOULD BOBBY DO?" bumper sticker. I honestly don't know the answer to your question. Obviously I've never played the game. Seriously, Coach has the answer and if might be just because he had a feeling. I trust him. Go ahead, ask him and report back.

 

[grizfnz]

It's not a big deal. I like Stitt. This is not intended as any criticism of him. It's just an interesting point, at least to me. I was with a bunch of ex-players before, during and after the game. One of them spoke up immediately as the FG crew came in. We talked about it then. It all worked out, so all is good. It just seemed like an odd and unnecessary call to take the FG since UM was down 7.

What is the relevance of pre-game discussion with a bunch of ex-players? Are they/you clairvoyant? Also out of the bunch of ex-players you were with during the game, by your account only one spoke up when the FG unit took the field. One out of a "bunch" hardly seems to support the position that Stitt should have gone for the td unless the sample size of the bunch was 1 or 2.

 

[PlayerRep]

You make some good points. However, I think making a TD on 4th and goal in that game was better than 50-50. Also, if you're going to trust/need your D to get a quick 3 and out, what's wrong with trusting/needing them to stop NDSU from driving down the field. UM's D had been dominating the 2d half. No, another defensive stop is needed for the win. UM needs to convert a 2-pt conversion for the win, or go into OT. Agree with your other points/scenarios. But what's missing is that UM gave up a freebie chance from the 11 to score a TD. You say 25%, and I say over 50%. But who cares? It's a freebie chance for a TD. I think the chance of scoring a TD was better on 4th and 11, than it was on holding NDSU and driving 80 yards, in such a short period of time. And again it was a freebie. UM lost virtually nothing by taking that freebie shot.

At that point in the game, there were several strategic paths that could have led to a Griz victory. All of these paths would have required the Griz to make several difficult, lower percentage plays or drives occur in their favor (4th and 11, two point conversion, defensive three and out, 80 yard TD drive in 1:37, driving for winning field goal if the two point conversion failed, etc.). By taking the field goal when he did, Stitt made it so that we didn't need to attempt a two point conversion to have the lead at the end.

True, but the call gave up a freebie shot at a TD and put UM at risk of not getting the ball back and scoring. By taking a shot at scoring the TD, UM would significantly increased its chances of tying or winning the game. Whatever the chances of scoring a TD from the 11 were, they were better than zero, which is what they became when the FG was taken. Why throw away a chance to score a TD then? Taking the FG gave away a TD chance and gained almost nothing, in comparison to the alternative.

 

[Griz Man]

Stitt has said in past interviews that red zone plays keep him up at night, and everyone agrees and knows that it gets congested down there (look how the Grizz D stonewalled a very talented NDSU team in the red zone last year). Stitt believes that his offense has long-strike capability from anywhere on the field, and we have reason to believe him.

So I think his gut told him to take the field goal (a pretty sure thing), rely on a defensive stop (pretty good odds since the D was playing very well), and then let his quick tempo offense run in the open field. In the end it came down to a goal line situation, and we thankfully prevailed, but Gustafson and Henderson did get the ball all the way down to the 1, so it almost worked out the way that Stitt had probably envisioned (moving down the field rapidly without allowing the D time to set up).

 

[PlayerRep]

Statistical food for thought.

Now, obviously, the Griz did not score on every possession. But when they did score, their average drive took 2 min and 12 sec (2:12). Three of those scores were field goals, and those drives took by far the most time (2:05, 3:33 and 3:52). Not counting that last game-winner, the Griz TD scoring drives averaged 1:14 (that includes the one that took just 38 sec).

When the Griz kicked that last FG, there were about 3 min left on the clock. Yes, Stitt took a big chance. He had to count on the Griz D to send the Bison 3-and-out. The Griz did have all their timeouts ... but the D then stuffed the run and forced NDSU to pass. Obviously, the Bison were hoping to get the one or two first downs they needed to run out the clock. Then pressure on the QB saved the Griz two timeouts by forcing incomplete passes -- he'd have done better to take a knee.

The Griz then scored with a drive of 1:37 clock time. Without those timeouts, the Griz would have had to play it differently -- but they did have the TOs, and made very good use of them.

The proper time comparison would be to compare or compare how long it would take for UM to score a TD from a long distance, in this case 80 yards and what the chances are of getting the ball back in time. I'll bet you a lot of money that UM rarely scores from 80 or over this year in less than 1:39. Plus, you really need to throw the risk that UM can't stop NDSU in time to get the ball back with 1:39. Trying for the TD increases UM's chance of winning fairly significantly.

 

[PlayerRep]

It's not a big deal. I like Stitt. This is not intended as any criticism of him. It's just an interesting point, at least to me. I was with a bunch of ex-players before, during and after the game. One of them spoke up immediately as the FG crew came in. We talked about it then. It all worked out, so all is good. It just seemed like an odd and unnecessary call to take the FG since UM was down 7.

What is the relevance of pre-game discussion with a bunch of ex-players? Are they/you clairvoyant? Also out of the bunch of ex-players you were with during the game, by your account only one spoke up when the FG unit took the field. One out of a "bunch" hardly seems to support the position that Stitt should have gone for the td unless the sample size of the bunch was 1 or 2.

The relevance is that I was with people who have a strong knowledge of the game, and first one, and then others, said the exact same thing. Are you saying that all of them should have said the same thing at exact the same moment?