Why did UM kick last FG?

[statler & waldorf]

Doesn't the post game disecting and analyzing happen after a LOSS? Whatever happened, the Griz are undefeated. Unless y'all just want to argue....

 

[PlayerRep]

Doesn't the post game disecting and analyzing happen after a LOSS? Whatever happened, the Griz are undefeated. Unless y'all just want to argue....

Sorry about all this, but AtlG1 asked me to try to educate some of the masses in his absence.

 

[grizbrokebacker1]

PlayaRape... why not ask coach yourself? Or have you not made it into Stitt's inner circle yet?

 

[CV Griz Fan]

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.

You just answered your own question. Stitt took a huge risk and it worked out. That's why his decision should be celebrated.....

 

[Triwest]

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.[/quote]

It was a gamble that the defense would stop the Bison and get the ball back after the field goal. Would have been the same if they had gone for the touchdown and failed. With the inconsistency in the red zone, a message was maybe being established that points need to be made in the red zone however the team can get them. The kicking game did better in this game (Sullivan) and was given and opportunity to kick the field goal. The field goal seems to have maintained momentum (and has the defense was holding the people around me were saying this is our moment). Did it determine the game? As it turns out it did play a role in the points needed to win. A confidence message was also sent to the defense that they would stop the Bison and get the ball back. Yes it would have been the same without kicking the field goal but it was a more urgent message sent. We needed the ball back and they had to perform and did. With the field goal and then holding and getting the ball back, a touchdown probably wins it even without a two point conversion which it did. Coach Stitt said if they had scored the TD he would have gone for two. He was playing for the win not overtime. The points added up his way. I believe I would have gone for the touchdown.

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

It was a gamble that the defense would stop the Bison and get the ball back after the field goal. Would have been the same if they had gone for the touchdown and failed. With the inconsistency in the red zone, a message was maybe being established that points need to be made in the red zone however the team can get them. The kicking game did better in this game (Sullivan) and was given and opportunity to kick the field goal. The field goal seems to have maintained momentum (and has the defense was holding the people around me were saying this is our moment). Did it determine the game? As it turns out it did play a role in the points needed to win. A confidence message was also sent to the defense that they would stop the Bison and get the ball back. Yes it would have been the same without kicking the field goal but it was a more urgent message sent. We needed the ball back and they had to perform and did. With the field goal and then holding and getting the ball back, a touchdown probably wins it even without a two point conversion which it did. Coach Stitt said if they had scored the TD he would have gone for two. He was playing for the win not overtime. The points added up his way. I believe I would have gone for the touchdown.[/quote]

I agree with much of what you said. However, why wouldn't you also go for the TD from the 11? Seems like a no-brainer to me. It wasn't like we were down 6, and the 3 points would have done us good. We gave up a 50% or 25% or whatever opportunity to get an immediate TD. Why give that up to be still down 4 points and need a TD?

 

[Yukon]

Doesn't the post game disecting and analyzing happen after a LOSS? Whatever happened, the Griz are undefeated. Unless y'all just want to argue....

Sorry about all this, but AtlG1 asked me to try to educate some of the masses in his absence.

Well, that just explains everything.

 

[garizzalies]

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%.

So you're saying your way was about a 75% chance of winning in regulation time (50% chance of converting 4-n-11 + 25% chance of converting a 2pt conversion)?
And Stitt's way, which actually occurred, was a 25% of winning in regulation time?
So your way (75%) is better (>) than Stitt's way (25%)?

I'm not talking about "a TD to tie." I don't know how many times I have to say it: The TD was for the win. Stitt only had to punch it in once to win in regulation--Not twice as is the case with your way (4th/11 and 2pointer). Not sure why you can't see that. In fact, you keep calling it a freebie or two bites at the apple or two ducks or whatever but you got it all backwards. Your way has to punch it in twice, including a near miracle 4th and goal from the 11 (which I think is more like a 10%, not 50)

As it happened, Stitt's way only had to punch it in once, and once was hard as fuck!

Look at how spread teams struggle in the redzone, especially the griz trying to punch it in from close range vs bison. How many times did we have to settle for close FGs? Stitt played the right odds. He's all about # of plays and he did that by extending the game.

 

[PlayerRep]

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%.

So you're saying your way was about a 75% chance of winning in regulation time (50% chance of converting 4-n-11 + 25% chance of converting a 2pt conversion)?
And Stitt's way, which actually occurred, was a 25% of winning in regulation time?
So your way (75%) is better (>) than Stitt's way (25%)?

I'm not talking about "a TD to tie." I don't know how many times I have to say it: The TD was for the win. Stitt only had to punch it in once to win in regulation--Not twice as is the case with your way (4th/11 and 2pointer). Not sure why you can't see that. In fact, you keep calling it a freebie or two bites at the apple or two ducks or whatever but you got it all backwards. Your way has to punch it in twice, including a near miracle 4th and goal from the 11 (which I think is more like a 10%, not 50)

As it happened, Stitt's way only had to punch it in once, and once was hard as f***!

Look at how spread teams struggle in the redzone, especially the griz trying to punch it in from close range vs bison. How many times did we have to settle for close FGs? Stitt played the right odds. He's all about # of plays and he did that by extending the game.

You're not making any sense now. I must admit that I am truly amazed that Stitt knew that NDSU would throw incompletions on 2 of their 3 plays to stop the clock (and preserve Griz timeouts). If NDSU completes either of those passes, or runs on either of those plays, or the quarterback just slides on either of those plays (especially the first one where he threw it away), UM doesn't have enough time to come downfield for the winning TD. Thanks god for the total bonehead calls by the Bison coach. What was the guy thinking? UM needed a TD. All the Bison had to do was run some time off the clock.

 

['68griz]

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.....

This works for me.

 

[catsack]

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.

So far they are 50% on TD drives at less then 1:39 . Kicking FG was best play call of the game!! Obviously you've never coached before!!
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.

 

[grizindabox]

PR has such a hard-on for Hauck that he is still bitter over Stitt getting the job. Dude is still so heart broken that he still wants to trash on Stitt...even after defeating the #1 ranked team....

I guess PR just has a loser's mentality....

 

[grizindabox]

Jesus PR. Griz win and your pissed they didn't win it your way? For F*** sake.

I'm not pissed in any respect. Couldn't be happier. Don't have a complaint in the world. Just trying to discuss the finer points of football on a football message board.

No your not...you are trying to make everyone believe that what you wanted the Griz to do, go for the TD instead of kicking the FG is 100% what they should have done and if people don't agree then they are all wrong and know nothing about football. Thing is, you are also saying Stitt was wrong....but he is the guy that coached the team to a victory while you sat with all your ex-player rent-a-buddies criticizing his decisions.

 

[PlayerRep]

Comments from a MWC poster from the thread Navy Blue just started:

"Decision to kick the FG pretty boneheaded. Still leaves them down by 4. Smarter to go for it and have NDSU pinned on the 9 you fail.

Posted Saturday at 4:58 PM hickaggie

My last point Validated by the fact that Montana gets ball back on 20 instead of 40 or 50 needing a TD anyway."

Obviously, that poster understands the game. Ha.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

Comments from a MWC poster from the thread Navy Blue just started:

"Decision to kick the FG pretty boneheaded. Still leaves them down by 4. Smarter to go for it and have NDSU pinned on the 9 you fail.

Posted Saturday at 4:58 PM hickaggie

My last point Validated by the fact that Montana gets ball back on 20 instead of 40 or 50 needing a TD anyway."

Obviously, that poster understands the game. Ha.

The poster, Hickaggie's post after the touchdown : "And I was wrong" .
Admitting one was wrong can be the class thing to do.

 

[PlayerRep]

Comments from a MWC poster from the thread Navy Blue just started:

"Decision to kick the FG pretty boneheaded. Still leaves them down by 4. Smarter to go for it and have NDSU pinned on the 9 you fail.

Posted Saturday at 4:58 PM hickaggie

My last point Validated by the fact that Montana gets ball back on 20 instead of 40 or 50 needing a TD anyway."

Obviously, that poster understands the game. Ha.

The poster, Hickaggie's post after the touchdown : "And I was wrong" .
Admitting one was wrong can be the class thing to do.

He wasn't wrong, tho. He was correct. UM got lucky by the bonehead plays calls of NDSU. Had they run the ball on even one of the 2 pass plays, or completed either of those passes--and not stopped the clock twice--UM would not have had time to come down the field for the TD. Don't think even instinct can anticipate such odd, really dumb, calls. It all worked out for UM. We're all happy. UM beat UNC the day the Griz kicked off in both halves, but doesn't make the call correct.

 

[mtgriz]

I would love to get Grizfan-24's take on the strategy. Now that is a guy who truly does understand the game.

 

[montanaguy]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

http://www.amazon.com/Obsessive-Compulsive-Anonymous-Recovering-Disorder/dp/0962806625

 

[garizzalies]

Jesus PR. Griz win and your pissed they didn't win it your way? For F*** sake.

I'm not pissed in any respect. Couldn't be happier. Don't have a complaint in the world. Just trying to discuss the finer points of football on a football message board.

No your not...you are trying to make everyone believe that what you wanted the Griz to do, go for the TD instead of kicking the FG is 100% what they should have done and if people don't agree then they are all wrong and know nothing about football. Thing is, you are also saying Stitt was wrong....but he is the guy that coached the team to a victory while you sat with all your ex-player rent-a-buddies criticizing his decisions.

I think it's even worse than that. I think he started running his mouth but he was either to drunk or to dumb to realize his entire premise was wrong from the get go--it wasn't a 4th and goal from the 4, it was actually a 4th and goal from the 11--huge difference. His incorrect rant carried over to the next morning and he started this thread. When it was pointed out (on the first page) that he was wrong, most people would have said, "ah, that makes more sense, thanks." But since we all know he'll never admit he was wrong, he doubles-down and we get 7 pages of garbage. The weirdest part is, his rant (my way had a better chance of winning) usually only flies, if at all, when the team loses. Incredibly, he ignores the actual game and instead cites fucking wiki

 

[PlayerRep]

Jesus PR. Griz win and your pissed they didn't win it your way? For F*** sake.

I'm not pissed in any respect. Couldn't be happier. Don't have a complaint in the world. Just trying to discuss the finer points of football on a football message board.

No your not...you are trying to make everyone believe that what you wanted the Griz to do, go for the TD instead of kicking the FG is 100% what they should have done and if people don't agree then they are all wrong and know nothing about football. Thing is, you are also saying Stitt was wrong....but he is the guy that coached the team to a victory while you sat with all your ex-player rent-a-buddies criticizing his decisions.

I think it's even worse than that. I think he started running his mouth but he was either to drunk or to dumb to realize his entire premise was wrong from the get go--it wasn't a 4th and goal from the 4, it was actually a 4th and goal from the 11--huge difference. His incorrect rant carried over to the next morning and he started this thread. When it was pointed out (on the first page) that he was wrong, most people would have said, "ah, that makes more sense, thanks." But since we all know he'll never admit he was wrong, he doubles-down and we get 7 pages of garbage. The weirdest part is, his rant (my way had a better chance of winning) usually only flies, if at all, when the team loses. Incredibly, he ignores the actual game and instead cites f***[*] wiki

You just refuse to admit what is obvious to most knowledgeable football fans. As I've said, if Brint was saying this, all or most would be agreeing with him. I didn't think the question would generate anything other than: yup, you're right. Glad it worked out for the Griz.