Why did UM kick last FG?

[CV Griz Fan]

UM had 15 pass completions over 11 yards. UM converted 3d and long 4 of 10 times. UM converted 4th and long 2 of 4 times. UM had momentum. I still say the odds of getting a TD from 11 at that point of the game, with our receivers, was over 50%. Most of you guys apparently would just throw away that freebie chance, which, if successfully, would have eliminated the risk of having to stop NDSU and score a TD within a few minutes.

4th and 6 from the NDSU 36 and 4th and 10 from the NDSU 44 are a hell of a lot different than 4th and goal from the 11. Much more room for our WRs and offense to do something in the other two situation.

I still don't understand how you think a 4th and goal from the 11 is a "freebie"...

Yep, it certainly wasn't a given or likely even 50%. 4th and goal from the 11 with the defense not having to worry about getting beat deep & just having to keep the Griz out of the endzone is going to be VERY difficult to convert. Hell, we were marching backwards which led to that 4th and 11... Sure we converted 4th and long (6yds and 10yds) earlier in the game, but those were done at the NDSU 36 and NDSU 44.

1. I don't necessarily agree that 4th and 6 or 10 from midfield is easier to convert than 4th 11/goal. In the midfield situations, while there is much more room on the field, the vast majority of the time the pass is going to be shorter and with 20 yards of the line of scrimmage.

2. The 4th and 11 was a freebie chance to score a TD, whether the chance of success was 50%, 25% or whatever. If successful, UM has tied the game, converted for 2 and gone ahead, or gone for 2 and been down 1. If unsuccessful, UM is in essentially the same situation that it was in after the FG. It had to hold NDSU and drive the length of the field in little time for a TD. In the unsuccessful TD attempt situation, the ball would have been on the 11 or closer to the goal line. Time would not have run off the clock for a kickoff, and there would have been no risk of a long kickoff. Stopping NDSU quickly and driving (80) for a TD with 1:39 on the clock, was a very unlikely scenario. I still think that the chances of scoring a TD on 4th and 11 were greater than stopping NDSU and scoring a TD in the remaining minutes. But that really wasn't the choice. UM could have chosen to do both. The only positive of the FG was that with the unlikely holding NDSU quickly and going 80 yards for a TD scenario, UM didn't have to go for the tie and try to win on OT, or go for 2 to win. I don't know why anyone would trade a 25%-50% chance of getting a TD now against not having to win in OT or win with a 2-pt conversion. And it seems it would be a big positive to just score a TD now rather than betting that the team could hold NDSU right away and come all the way down the field for a TD. Why not take both of those chances to get a TD? It wasn't an either-or situation, we could have done both.

If UM hadn't gotten the ball back and scored a TD, wouldn't most everyone been saying that taking the FG was wrong?

I do get your point PR. And maybe you're saying that Stitt's "gut feelings" are not as solid as going with a probability type analysis like the one in your proposal. Maybe Stitt did lose confidence in the Griz O during that Red Zone possession and you're saying he shouldn't have. Either way, this guy goes with his gut. Get used to it because that is who this coach is......

 

[horribilisfan8184]

Just be thankful it's a new year. Delaney would have punted.

I heard the Delaney had an instinct that the Griz would be better off kicking in both halves and having the D on the field to start both halves. UM won that game. His instincts must have been right.

Nice. A 7ft Cabelas tournament rod with a deep diving shad rap plug. Go get em.

 

[dupuyer griz]

Over 115 posts and no one said it... Here goes, if my aunt had nuts she'd be my uncle.

 

[PlayerRep]

You all can say what you want about PR but if the GRIZ hadn't have won yesterday there'd be a bunch of you on here agreeing with him. I personally think he's right but no ones paying me to coach.

Thanks. I made a mental note to be good to you in the future. Feud over.

 

[b_f_c_99]

Jesus Bobby, I mean PlayerRep, there is a reason you or Marty Schottenheimer, never got it done. Keep playing them odds, keep doing what you should do, stay predictable.

 

[IdaGriz01]

You all can say what you want about PR but if the GRIZ hadn't have won yesterday there'd be a bunch of you on here agreeing with him. I personally think he's right but no ones paying me to coach.

No ones paying any of us to coach -- at least to coach Griz football. (As I understand it, some of you are paid to coach somewhere, at some level.)

It is Stitt's job on the line, and he's been at it for a quarter century. If he wants to go with his gut ... well, I'm not going to quibble.

 

[RobGriz]

You all can say what you want about PR but if the GRIZ hadn't have won yesterday there'd be a bunch of you on here agreeing with him. I personally think he's right but no ones paying me to coach.

No ones paying any of us to coach -- at least to coach Griz football. (As I understand it, some of you are paid to coach somewhere, at some level.)

It is Stitt's job on the line, and he's been at it for a quarter century. If he wants to go with his gut ... well, I'm not going to quibble.

Yep, it's his call to make which is why he makes the big $$$

 

[GrizSteve]

PR you are correct to question the decision. I believe Stitt didn't think we could convert the TD and took a huge risk that worked out.

 

[garizzalies]

If unsuccessful, UM is in essentially the same situation that it was in after the FG.

Wrong again. It's not the same. At all. Now a TD wins it.
Stitt took a sure conversion. Didn't you already admit the FG would have been easier to convert then a 2pt conversion (or win in OT)?
What is your estimate for 2 pt conv? Based on how it played out, I think 25% (it took 4 chances to get in)
So now you're really not talking about a true 50/50 play.
Your way is: 50% x 25% = 12.5% chance to win at best.

 

[cameo]

I think his strategy was to maintain momentum. By kicking the FG we kept our momentum. If we had gone for the TD and made it, that's great, but if we failed we would give all the momentum back to NDSU, and we would still need to score a TD. A calculated risk, for sure, but that's what I'm liking about Stitt. I'm tired of three years of conservative football. At least Stitt came to play.

 

[CV Griz Fan]

I think his strategy was to maintain momentum. By kicking the FG we kept our momentum. If we had gone for the TD and made it, that's great, but if we failed we would give all the momentum back to NDSU, and we would still need to score a TD. A calculated risk, for sure, but that's what I'm liking about Stitt. I'm tired of three years of conservative football. At least Stitt came to play.

Good post. Some egrizer made a similar point in another thread. Don't you feel better about a coach that says "this is what we do, it's your job to stop us?" Make no mistake. Stitt is unconventional. Maybe he won't win them all. But I like a coach that wants to dictate the action. He just beat NDSU. I know it's early, but the key to the city should be polished and ready for the transfer.....

 

[LakGriz]

Stitt did NOT want togo to OT.

TWO things were needed to WIN with a TD. First,you got to score from the 11... thenyou have to convert the 2.

Why wouldn't he have confidence in the D? First, they save his butt after his 4th-down gamble on the first possession. second, they owned the bison in the 2nd half except for one possession, and the Griz just kept moving the ball -- and they were facing getting gassed w/the number of plays they'd defended.

stitt's plan worked. get used to the coach making what you think is unconventional choices.

 

[LakGriz]

Rep, you're as bad in your ways as atlanta griz ass-scratcher is in his.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

I wasn't sure why he kicked the field goal, but I decided to suspend judgment and see what happened. I like what happened.

 

[PlayerRep]

If unsuccessful, UM is in essentially the same situation that it was in after the FG.

Wrong again. It's not the same. At all. Now a TD wins it.
Stitt took a sure conversion. Didn't you already admit the FG would have been easier to convert then a 2pt conversion (or win in OT)?
What is your estimate for 2 pt conv? Based on how it played out, I think 25% (it took 4 chances to get in)
So now you're really not talking about a true 50/50 play.
Your way is: 50% x 25% = 12.5% chance to win at best.

From Wiki: "Various sources estimate the success rate of a two-point conversion to be between 40% and 55%"

And I think UM had a 75% chance of winning in OT.

A question for you. Realistically, what do you think the chances of stopping NDSU quickly and marching down the field (80 yards) to score a TD in the remaining minutes is. I say well under 25%.

Which is better: relying on that 25% chance OR starting with a 25%-50% chance of getting an immediate TD and then also having the 25% chance to hold and march down the field? Shouldn't that be a no-brainer? There was virtually no risk or reason not to do both.

Remember that on 3d and long and 4th and long, passes, in the NDSU game, UM was a combined 6 for 14, or 43%. I say with the momentum of the game and our great outside receivers and other big receivers, UM's chances were at least 50% at that point of the game.

Even relying on instinct, which is fine with me, why wouldn't the freebie chance (of 50% I say) of an immediate TD be used? Don't know why instinct would have anything to do with that situation. Can't imagine that the instinct was that we'd be better off having 1 hard chance of a TD rather than having 1 decent chance and 1 hard chance.

 

[Triwest]

If unsuccessful, UM is in essentially the same situation that it was in after the FG.

Wrong again. It's not the same. At all. Now a TD wins it.
Stitt took a sure conversion. Didn't you already admit the FG would have been easier to convert then a 2pt conversion (or win in OT)?
What is your estimate for 2 pt conv? Based on how it played out, I think 25% (it took 4 chances to get in)
So now you're really not talking about a true 50/50 play.
Your way is: 50% x 25% = 12.5% chance to win at best.

From Wiki: "Various sources estimate the success rate of a two-point conversion to be between 40% and 55%"

And I think UM had a 75% chance of winning in OT.

A question for you. Realistically, what do you think the chances of stopping NDSU quickly and marching down the field (80 yards) to score a TD in the remaining minutes is. I say well under 25%.

Which is better: relying on that 25% chance OR starting with a 25%-50% chance of getting an immediate TD and then also having the 25% chance to hold and march down the field? Shouldn't that be a no-brainer? There was virtually no risk or reason not to do both.

Remember that on 3d and long and 4th and long, passes, in the NDSU game, UM was a combined 6 for 14, or 43%. I say with the momentum of the game and our great outside receivers and other big receivers, UM's chances were at least 50% at that point of the game.

Even relying on instinct, which is fine with me, why wouldn't the freebie chance (of 50% I say) of an immediate TD be used? Don't know why instinct would have anything to do with that situation. Can't imagine that the instinct was that we'd be better off having 1 hard chance of a TD rather than having 1 decent chance and 1 hard chance.

Coach Stitt went with his gut feeling like mentioned above and like he has done for years he does not follow the text book coaching decisions. This grizzly team has not been consistent in the red zone in scrimmages all fall camp and again that showed in this scrimmage even struggling right up to the last play. He has said his decisions are made based on what is happening and what the flow of the game is and that played into his decision. He stated that in this game the defense was playing well in the second half and he had his time outs to use. Was it a gamble? Yes. Is it how I would have played it? No. He wants to win and he wants his decisions to be hard for the other team (and fans) to anticipate. He plays mind games during the game with the other team and apparently with the fans also. Would he follow the odds that you stated above in another game. Maybe, again based on what the flow of that game is at the time.

 

[garizzalies]

PR, I'm starting to think you, VA, and Ron Ash all flunked the same "math" class (twice!)
Let me give you a hint: when you multiply two fractions,the result is smaller than either of the original numbers. So after each play, the odds get smaller and smaller.
Although you can't admit you're wrong (even tho we all witnessed the end result), you just admitted Stitt's way is 25%
I showed that your way is 12.5%.
25% > 12.5%.
I don't know why you need to cite wiki. We all witnessed it--it took the Griz 4 tries to score from the same basic distance as your cite. = 25%.

I can't imagine how bad we would have gotten thumped if we played your way, conservatively, conventionally, or other boobyball wisdom

 

[mtgriz]

I think we're going to see a lot more 17 page threads during the Stitt Era.

 

[PlayerRep]

PR, I'm starting to think you, VA, and Ron Ash all flunked the same "math" class (twice!)
Let me give you a hint: when you multiply two fractions,the result is smaller than either of the original numbers. So after each play, the odds get smaller and smaller.
Although you can't admit you're wrong (even tho we all witnessed the end result), you just admitted Stitt's way is 25%
I showed that your way is 12.5%.
25% > 12.5%.
I don't know why you need to cite wiki. We all witnessed it--it took the Griz 4 tries to score from the same basic distance as your cite. = 25%.

I can't imagine how bad we would have gotten thumped if we played your way, conservatively, conventionally, or other boobyball wisdom

G, you are having the math problem. In this situation, you don't multiple the odds, you add then together. Which is better in terms of scoring a TD to tie? One try at 25%, two tries at 50% and 25%.

You don't take one series near a goal line to come up with the odds of making a two-point conversion. You look at two-point conversions by many teams over many years, and, according to Wiki, come up with 45%-50%.

My way isn't conservative or liberal or instinct. It is merely: would you rather have one bite at the apple or two? Seems pretty easy and simple to me. If ducks are flying by, are your odds better at shooting a duck if you have 2 shots at 2 ducks, or 1 shot at 1 duck? Again, seems simple to me that you increase your odds if you have 2 shots at 2 ducks. Even better odds if 1 shot is better than the other, and you opt for 2 shots, as opposed to taking the shot that is worse than the other.

 

[PlayerRep]

If unsuccessful, UM is in essentially the same situation that it was in after the FG.

Wrong again. It's not the same. At all. Now a TD wins it.
Stitt took a sure conversion. Didn't you already admit the FG would have been easier to convert then a 2pt conversion (or win in OT)?
What is your estimate for 2 pt conv? Based on how it played out, I think 25% (it took 4 chances to get in)
So now you're really not talking about a true 50/50 play.
Your way is: 50% x 25% = 12.5% chance to win at best.

From Wiki: "Various sources estimate the success rate of a two-point conversion to be between 40% and 55%"

And I think UM had a 75% chance of winning in OT.

A question for you. Realistically, what do you think the chances of stopping NDSU quickly and marching down the field (80 yards) to score a TD in the remaining minutes is. I say well under 25%.

Which is better: relying on that 25% chance OR starting with a 25%-50% chance of getting an immediate TD and then also having the 25% chance to hold and march down the field? Shouldn't that be a no-brainer? There was virtually no risk or reason not to do both.

Remember that on 3d and long and 4th and long, passes, in the NDSU game, UM was a combined 6 for 14, or 43%. I say with the momentum of the game and our great outside receivers and other big receivers, UM's chances were at least 50% at that point of the game.

Even relying on instinct, which is fine with me, why wouldn't the freebie chance (of 50% I say) of an immediate TD be used? Don't know why instinct would have anything to do with that situation. Can't imagine that the instinct was that we'd be better off having 1 hard chance of a TD rather than having 1 decent chance and 1 hard chance.

Coach Stitt went with his gut feeling like mentioned above and like he has done for years he does not follow the text book coaching decisions. This grizzly team has not been consistent in the red zone in scrimmages all fall camp and again that showed in this scrimmage even struggling right up to the last play. He has said his decisions are made based on what is happening and what the flow of the game is and that played into his decision. He stated that in this game the defense was playing well in the second half and he had his time outs to use. Was it a gamble? Yes. Is it how I would have played it? No. He wants to win and he wants his decisions to be hard for the other team (and fans) to anticipate. He plays mind games during the game with the other team and apparently with the fans also. Would he follow the odds that you stated above in another game. Maybe, again based on what the flow of that game is at the time.

What gamble are you talking about? He had a chance to have 2 bites at an apple. He chose to take 1 bite, and in fact, the more difficult bite. He could have taken 2 bites. How can fans miss the obvious so much? Actually, I know if Brint were saying what I'm saying, most of you would agree with him. Some of you just want to disagree with me so much, that you make yourself look stupid in the meantime. This may not apply to you, but it applies to a number in this thread.