I'm glad I didn't see the last punt

[Bayside44]

I don't care about "scoring range". That is just a way to make fg sound better than they are. People who talk that way ignore the math reality. Keeping the ball puts us close to "scoring range" too

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Their 2 TDs came from big plays, the rest of the time they could not march down the field and score that way.

Keeping the ball makes sense when we have sustained success at moving the ball. Outside that 4th and 5 botches snap (after we failed to do anything on that 3rd and 5) it's hard to point to any punt as a momentum killer.

 

[Millhouse]

so what % do you think it was?

They ended up converting three out of seven third and ten plus passes according to cfbstats

Two to broyld one to Clark I think.

To be conservative I'll say they were at least twice as likely as you think



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[GoSU96]

I don't care about "scoring range". That is just a way to make fg sound better than they are. People who talk that way ignore the math reality. Keeping the ball puts us close to "scoring range" too

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Here's the math,

SU converting on 4th and long, 20%, which means 80% chance in PSU getting the ball near mid field which allows them to open up the playbook and more likely extend their possession. Best case scenario PSU goes three and out, and pins SU deep 80 + yds with 2 minutes left.

SU punting and getting the ball back with 2 minutes in reasonable field position, 75%.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

Here's the math,

SU converting on 4th and long, 20%, which means 80% chance in PSU getting the ball near mid field which allows them to open up the playbook and more likely extend their possession. Best case scenario PSU goes three and out, and pins SU deep 80 + yds with 2 minutes left.

SU punting and getting the ball back with 2 minutes in reasonable field position, 75%.

Exactly... What

 

[GoSU96]

They ended up converting three out of seven third and ten plus passes according to cfbstats

Two to broyld one to Clark I think.

To be conservative I'll say they were at least twice as likely as you think



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Jesus, those were in the first half when PSU was selling out to stop the run, not 4th and long with less than 5 minutes and a 6pt lead. You think PSU is playing the same defense at that point?

 

[Millhouse]

Here's the math,

SU converting on 4th and long, 20%, which means 80% chance in PSU getting the ball near mid field which allows them to open up the playbook and more likely extend their possession. Best case scenario PSU goes three and out, and pins SU deep 80 + yds with 2 minutes left.

SU punting and getting the ball back with 2 minutes in reasonable field position, 75%.

disagree about your 75% number.

there is no way that PSU has a great chance of converting a first down at midfield and a 1 in 4 chance at their own 15 or wherever it was

being near midfield didn't help us much when we were on offense (very odd stats in another thread i just posted)

field position doesn't magically make or break an offense as much as you guys think

i actually do appreciate you guys playing along with percentage but your assumptions stink

 

[IthacaBarrel]

Jesus, those were in the first half when PSU was selling out to stop the run, not 4th and long with less than 5 minutes and a 6pt lead. You think PSU is playing the same defense at that point?

I would have bet 5 K that we weren't going to make that 4th down... Call me crazy. Wasn't going to happen. Allen looked like me throwing the ball at that point. Good Lord

 

[Millhouse]

Jesus, those were in the first half when PSU was selling out to stop the run, not 4th and long with less than 5 minutes and a 6pt lead. You think PSU is playing the same defense at that point?

they were selling out to stop the run on 3rd and 10 plus in the first half?

you're in midseason form

 

[GoSU96]

disagree about your 70% number.

being near midfield didn't help us much when we were on offense (very odd stats in another thread i just posted)

I haven't looked at it, but they finally get a game where they have a bunch of short fields, which wasn't the case at all last year, and generate 17pts. Ugh.

But since you are a fan of percentages, the odds of getting a TD when starting a drive at mid field vs +75 are significantly better. That's the key driver you are ignoring.

 

[Millhouse]

I haven't looked at it, but they finally get a game where they have a bunch of short fields, which wasn't the case at all last year, and generate 17pts. Ugh.

But since you are a fan of percentages, the odds of getting a TD when starting a drive at mid field vs +75 are significantly better. That's the key driver you are ignoring.

you're ignoring that if you convert a fourth down at midfield, you are more likely to score too

field position only matters to the other team i guess

 

[Millhouse]

Their 2 TDs came from big plays, the rest of the time they could not march down the field and score that way.

Keeping the ball makes sense when we have sustained success at moving the ball. Outside that 4th and 5 botches snap (after we failed to do anything on that 3rd and 5) it's hard to point to any punt as a momentum killer.

if their tds came from big plays, who cares where you give them the ball? that's all the more reason to not worry as much about it

 

[Bayside44]

if their tds came from big plays, who cares where you give them the ball? that's all the more reason to not worry as much about it

Because they cannot sustain drives.

 

[GoSU96]

if their tds came from big plays, who cares where you give them the ball? that's all the more reason to not worry as much about it

You think they were going to jack up the ball from their own 20? Now you are just being ridiculous. Time, score, circumstances. Those are all factors in the decision, it's not in void.

You play the game in front of you as well as the percentages. And even if the percentages are in your favor, sometimes the factored risk of what happens if you don't get the more likely outcome outweigh the percentages on their face.

All or nothing vs extend the game.

 

[Millhouse]

You think they were going to jack up the ball from their own 20? Now you are just being ridiculous. Time, score, circumstances. Those are all factors in the decision, it's not in void.

You play the game in front of you as well as the percentages. And even if the percentages are in your favor, sometimes the factored risk of what happens if you don't get the more likely outcome outweigh the percentages on their face.

All or nothing vs extend the game.

a) Not all or nothing

b) "extend the game" is a terrible way to think. goal is to maximize chance of winning. not to maximize the amount of game time where you have any chance at all.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

SU punting and getting the ball back with 2 minutes in reasonable field position, 75%.

Go, you basically pulled that number out of thin air. If we're going by what actually happened in the game thus far, PSU had gotten a first down on about 1/2 of their possessions. That's a big jump going from 50% to 75%, and you're crediting that 25% swing to field position. No, I'm not buying that.

a) Not all or nothing

b) "extend the game" is a terrible way to think. goal is to maximize chance of winning. not to maximize the amount of game time where you have any chance at all.

Millhouse and I don't see eye to eye on certain things, but on this one we're basically soul brothers.

 

[Millhouse]

Go, you basically pulled that number out of thin air. If we're going by what actually happened in the game thus far, PSU had gotten a first down on about 1/2 of their possessions. That's a big jump going from 50% to 75%, and you're crediting that 25% swing to field position. No, I'm not buying that.


Millhouse and I don't see eye to eye on certain things, but on this one we're basically soul brothers.

you have to go way out on a limb with crazy assumptions to justify kicking there. we became the worst offense in history and PSU became the best.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Because they cannot sustain drives.

That would seem to be all the more reason why when you have the ball late in the game, you try to keep it.

 

[skurey]

You can't just make up percentages and use that as proof :rolling:

 

[Bayside44]

That would seem to be all the more reason why when you have the ball late in the game, you try to keep it.

Wait - the other team could not sustain a long drive, we had a limited at best shot at 4th and long, 2 timeouts, so we should not punt to the team back that cannot move the ball and just turned it over?

We got the ball back with a lot of time and good field position. This isn't even making any sense.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Wait - the other team could not sustain a long drive, we had a limited at best shot at 4th and long, 2 timeouts, so we should not punt to the team back that cannot move the ball and just turned it over?

We got the ball back with a lot of time and good field position. This isn't even making any sense.

My bad on this one. I misread the post. I thought you were saying our offense couldn't sustain drives. I see now you were referring to PSU.

 

[All4SU]

That's true. If you think it through until the end, yes, if you honestly believe that our defense or special teams had a better chance of scoring than our offense, yeah, why burn clock with an unproductive offense?

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that we were playing to have the defense score. But, we were punting well -- better than PSU -- and if we could hold to three and out, we would likely get improved field position. And for the most part, our punt coverage was good. Plus we would not have to try to complete a fourth and seven n order to gain a new set of downs. And yes, there certainly a CHANCE of a turnover on the punt, not to mention that our defense had already forced 4 turnovers. Three+ minutes left. I'm frequently in agreement with Millhouse on the theory that football coaches punt too often. But given those circumstances, in this situation, I think the smart think was to punt.

 

[All4SU]

I would have bet 5 K that we weren't going to make that 4th down... Call me crazy. Wasn't going to happen. Allen looked like me throwing the ball at that point. Good Lord

I would have contributed a dollar to that bet.

 

[Millhouse]

Wait - the other team could not sustain a long drive, we had a limited at best shot at 4th and long, 2 timeouts, so we should not punt to the team back that cannot move the ball and just turned it over?

We got the ball back with a lot of time and good field position. This isn't even making any sense.

we all know what happened.

the far worse punt was the 4th and 5 from the PSU 41. well, i wish it were a punt. if only we were so lucky.

that one was horrible. the one at the end is closer to a toss up

 

[Millhouse]

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that we were playing to have the defense score. But, we were punting well -- better than PSU -- and if we could hold to three and out, we would likely get improved field position. And for the most part, our punt coverage was good. Plus we would not have to try to complete a fourth and seven n order to gain a new set of downs. And yes, there certainly a CHANCE of a turnover on the punt, not to mention that our defense had already forced 4 turnovers. Three+ minutes left. I'm frequently in agreement with Millhouse on the theory that football coaches punt too often. But given those circumstances, in this situation, I think the smart think was to punt.

when we got the punt away, we punted well.

 

[Bayside44]

we all know what happened.

the far worse punt was the 4th and 5 from the PSU 41. well, i wish it were a punt. if only we were so lucky.

that one was horrible. the one at the end is closer to a toss up

I tend to agree they should go for it in that spot. Wasn't make or break, roll the QB out and get it going and force the defense to make decisions.