Decisions, decisions...

[Crusty]

Before I start let me be clear that I am not criticizing aggressive decisions as I prefer coaches trying to win rather than trying not to lose.

However, the great football chess match always creates interesting chain reactions. Yesterday’s UCONN game was a great example. The temptation for Monday morning quarterbacks is to question the two fourth and short decisions taking six points off the board and the first two-point conversion try that made the second one mandatory. Just one of the two field goals might have prevented OT.

At 17-6 down eleven we could have been 17-12 down only six with two FG. Of course, the next touchdown would have demanded a two=point conversion to get to a three point lead. But at down eleven the decisions made themselves.

Had we made one of those fourth and shorts and scored a TD the tone of the game would have been completely different. 17-13 would have felt very different. For this reason alone I liked the decision.

Had Fran kicked two field goals and lost that game we would all be going nuts this morning.

One last thought. The defense played great in the second half and the staff obviously made the needed adjustments. Is EROB starting to grow in the job? Maybe. If so, things will get very interesting.

 

[bballbeadle]

I said the same thing to my daughter. We should have gone for the field goals. I hope Coach Brown will think about that. At the moment we are not the kind of team that can push through. Take the points.

 

[dwilmont44]

I hope everyone realizes kicking a FG does not mean the FG will be made 100% of the time.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I think the first one was the right call to go for it, but wrong play call. The 2nd one given the 1st drive, being stuffed on short yardage drive 2, and needing to get on the board probably made it the wrong decision. But IMO it is like a 60-40 situation. It wasn't a black and white call.

 

[Surfan06001]

Before I start let me be clear that I am not criticizing aggressive decisions as I prefer coaches trying to win rather than trying not to lose.

However, the great football chess match always creates interesting chain reactions. Yesterday’s UCONN game was a great example. The temptation for Monday morning quarterbacks is to question the two fourth and short decisions taking six points off the board and the first two-point conversion try that made the second one mandatory. Just one of the two field goals might have prevented OT.

At 17-6 down eleven we could have been 17-12 down only six with two FG. Of course, the next touchdown would have demanded a two=point conversion to get to a three point lead. But at down eleven the decisions made themselves.

Had we made one of those fourth and shorts and scored a TD the tone of the game would have been completely different. 17-13 would have felt very different. For this reason alone I liked the decision.

Had Fran kicked two field goals and lost that game we would all be going nuts this morning.

One last thought. The defense played great in the second half and the staff obviously made the needed adjustments. Is EROB starting to grow in the job? Maybe. If so, things will get very interesting.

I would’ve felt that way about EROB if he didn’t go back into his shell and rush three on the last defensive series leading to the FG and overtime.

He made the same mistakes he did vs Stanford. How do you do that?

 

[upperdeck]

This is where the analytics fail. Both times its an auto go for it

However we showed all game long we had no running game which it much more dicey

 

[Scooch]

I’m almost always fine with going for it. You play to win the game. UConn is better than most believe so trying to KO them early and let the D play from ahead wasn’t a bad idea.

There’s wayyyyy too many things that went down between the 4th downs and the mid-4th quarter to assume it’d still be 17-12 had we kicked FGs. The game would have been played much differently had the score been different.

 

[OrangeTarheel]

I bet on us to score a TD on that first drive so I was allllllll in on the decision to go for it. The three hours that followed was tough to stomach though

 

[Surfan06001]

I’m almost always fine with going for it. You play to win the game. UConn is better than most believe so trying to KO them early and let the D play from ahead wasn’t a bad idea.

There’s wayyyyy too many things that went down between the 4th downs and the mid-4th quarter to assume it’d still be 17-12 had we kicked FGs. The game would have been played much differently had the score been different.

Fourth and two well inside their territory I think you go for it and I don’t think it should be a tough decision

 

[djorange1989]

I hope everyone realizes kicking a FG does not mean the FG will be made 100% of the time.

With our kickers?? How DARE you!!

 

[Dmcnabbrules]

I wouldn’t have minded kicking the field goal the second time. Tripp Woody’s kicks looked solid. Jack did a great job pulling a few bad snaps off the turf. He was able to spot the ball perfectly on both low snaps. I am starting to trust the field goal unit.

 

[djorange1989]

I would’ve felt that way about EROB if he didn’t go back into his shell and rush three on the last defensive series leading to the FG and overtime.

He made the same mistakes he did vs Stanford. How do you do that?

The only thing different this time was their star receiver wasn’t left in single coverage and had to make an insane catch to extend the game. That being said, we should have blitzed and made their QB rush a throw, which in a 4th and 10 would be tough for them to convert

 

[Crusty]

I would’ve felt that way about EROB if he didn’t go back into his shell and rush three on the last defensive series leading to the FG and overtime.

He made the same mistakes he did vs Stanford. How do you do that?

I mentioned that to Mrs Crusty, aka Alyce!

 

[CanadianSU]

Always take the points early. Simple rule. Unless it’s 4th and 1

 

[Chip]

I like going for it, but I don't like gimmicks or not blocking the blitzer off the right side.

That said, not to be that guy, but if we kick and make it, it changes everything, might not be that same 17-12 score.

 

[anomander]

I'm totally fine with it. You don't win games kicking FG's. We went down the field on the 1st possession, i'm sure Fran assumed we would have plenty of opportunities. Anything 4th and 2 you have to go for it, assuming there are no situational circumstances.

 

[Noexcuse]

I think running the wildcat with Villari on the first one was the obvious call . . . for UConn to defend. Hate to say it but that call in that situation is getting stale.

 

[SanDiegoCuse]

I think I’d like to retire the wildcat with Villari.

 

[OttosShoes]

I think running the wildcat with Villari on the first one was the obvious call . . . for UConn to defend. Hate to say it but that call in that situation is getting stale.

I didn't like that call either. Basically a 10v11 scrum with Angeli feigning the radio issues.

Although I'll say Steve could be an actor. He sold it. The D just knew Villari didn't forget what position he played.

 

[sdhall01]

I said the same thing to my daughter. We should have gone for the field goals. I hope Coach Brown will think about that. At the moment we are not the kind of team that can push through. Take the points.

I’ve gotta disagree, at least for the first TD. You marched down the field against a program you thought your lesser. If we picked it up and scored a TD, the entire cadence of the game would have been different.

The second time, I think I would have taken the field goal.

 

[Archbold44]

The only thing different this time was their star receiver wasn’t left in single coverage and had to make an insane catch to extend the game. That being said, we should have blitzed and made their QB rush a throw, which in a 4th and 10 would be tough for them to convert

You did not need 8 people in coverage. But I would not advocate less than 7. What stunk was not crushing that guy on the reception. On the other hand, an unnecessary roughness or targeting call could make a bad thing worse. That is another downside to blitz… we mail the QB late and now we a penalty 1st down. Bottom line is it took a great play to get the 1st down AND we did not give up a game losing TD trying to strip the ball.

 

[mustacheovich]

Running a QB sneak on a legit 4th&2 didn't make sense, that needs to be reserved for 4th and inches unless our interior line starts miraculously getting more push

 

[dollarbill44]

I think running the wildcat with Villari on the first one was the obvious call . . . for UConn to defend. Hate to say it but that call in that situation is getting stale.

And with the QB and RB feigning confusion, it is a 9 vs 11 play.

 

[Cuseregular]

I’ve gotta disagree, at least for the first TD. You marched down the field against a program you thought your lesser. If we picked it up and scored a TD, the entire cadence of the game would have been different.

The second time, I think I would have taken the field goal.

Exactly the first one sets the tone of aggressiveness in a 0-0 game, so I liked the call, the second one you take the points after they already scored a touchdown to get on the board.

Our guy was too aggressive in the circumstances, their guy was too conservative, thankfully