Let them score?

[kuethstheman]

Haven't seen this. Apologies if.

Anyone thing we should have let them score with 1:30 left? It was already a chip-shot field goal. Which odds are better? Them missing the FG on the last play or us going the length for a tying touchdown with 1:30 left? Would have had two TOs left, I think.

 

[jekelish]

I thought it initially, but you're also assuming that Ollison wouldn't have just stopped and taken a knee at the 1, and then running down the clock for a 20 yard FG.

 

[Millhouse]

I thought it initially, but you're also assuming that Ollison wouldn't have just stopped and taken a knee at the 1, and then running down the clock for a 20 yard FG.

if you're gonna do it you gotta do it early hoping that the guy wasn't coached. I said I was tempted but Fgs are no sure thing even for blowit

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I thought it initially, but you're also assuming that Ollison wouldn't have just stopped and taken a knee at the 1, and then running down the clock for a 20 yard FG.

Given that they already had a pretty easy field goal, I'd take that gamble.

 

[Whitey23]

Hard nosed coaches don't let teams score. (At least that's my assumption of Shafer's opinion)

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Hard nosed coaches don't let teams score. (At least that's my assumption of Shafer's opinion)

I suspect this is the case.

 

[OrangeAl]

Yeah, that thought did cross my mind. It was just so plain that they could control the clock and end the game the way they did.

 

[Toga]

I'm yelling at TV to let them score.

 

[SWC75]

I think Shafer would say "Hell, no! What kind of message does that send to the kids?

 

[Millhouse]

I think Shafer would say "Hell, no! What kind of message does that send to the kids?

" we fight our @sses off all game and you want us to let them score?!?"

 

[007]

It was at the 1:39 mark, 1st and 10 Pitt. No time outs left. Ollison was steamrolling them at that point. It was inevitable that Pitt would run the clock down to 3 seconds and kick a point blank the FG. This was the smart play for Pitt. They could have scored a rushing touchdown, but I think most other teams are well coached enough to know you try to drain as much time as you can in that situation. SU could do nothing to prevent this short of forcing a fumble - see the point about Ollison steamrolling. The only chance they had was to get the ball back before Pitt could run out the clock, or block the kick.

The only chance SU had to win was to let Pitt score on that 1st down with the clock at 1:39. You get the ball back with about 1:25 ish, down 7. Unconventional - yes. Long, long shot - yes. But, at least you controlled your own fate. Letting Pitt run the clock out gave them 0 chance to win.

 

[Orangeman]

It was at the 1:39 mark, 1st and 10 Pitt. No time outs left. Ollison was steamrolling them at that point. It was inevitable that Pitt would run the clock down to 3 seconds and kick a point blank the FG. This was the smart play for Pitt. They could have scored a rushing touchdown, but I think most other teams are well coached enough to know you try to drain as much time as you can in that situation. SU could do nothing to prevent this short of forcing a fumble - see the point about Ollison steamrolling. The only chance they had was to get the ball back before Pitt could run out the clock, or block the kick. The only chance SU had to win was to let Pitt score on that 1st down with the clock at 1:39. You get the ball back with about 1:25 ish, down 7. Unconventional - yes. Long, long shot - yes. But, at least you controlled your own fate. Letting Pitt run the clock out gave them 0 chance to win.

In a playoff situation, yes

We're all sitting here thinking this WAS a playoff-like situation, but really it wasn't

I'm not diminishing anything, just reality.

As an aside, I think what will become one of the biggest decisions in both college/pro over time, particluarly Pro given the longer extra point:

You're up 1, they let you score a TD. Do you kick to go up 8, or try to claim victory from 2 yards?

I think it depends on your team and command of the LOS

 

[Cusefan78]

I'm not a believer in the let them score method. I think that was probably our best option but it really doesn't set a good example. All game these kids are fighting and all of a sudden you say let him him in. I saw a few plays that are defense was really close to pulling the ball out of the running backs arm. You just never know. Fumbles, bad hand offs, bad snap, missed fg. Stranger things happen in football. Just ask Michigan.

 

[007]

In a playoff situation, yes

We're all sitting here thinking this WAS a playoff-like situation, but really it wasn't

I'm not diminishing anything, just reality.

As an aside, I think what will become one of the biggest decisions in both college/pro over time, particluarly Pro given the longer extra point:

You're up 1, they let you score a TD. Do you kick to go up 8, or try to claim victory from 2 yards?

I think it depends on your team and command of the LOS

You lost me. Letting them score would have been the right call if this was a "playoff-like situation." But since it wasn't a play-off its not the right call? Not sure how that applies to college ball. The only playoff you would ever face is that national semifinal game. The right play, IMO, is to do the thing with the highest probability of giving you the chance to win the game.

 

[anomander]

I believe it was after the BC game in 2013 when be was asked if he thought of letting BC score and he said hell no you don't let people score

 

[Oakland]

It was mentioned in the chatroom. Do you hope for the 4% chance they miss the FG, or do you let them score and take the 6% chance you can score a TD. Shafer and most other coaches aren't going for the 6%. There must be some examples of teams in a similar situation letting the other team score.

Haven't seen this. Apologies if.

Anyone thing we should have let them score with 1:30 left? It was already a chip-shot field goal. Which odds are better? Them missing the FG on the last play or us going the length for a tying touchdown with 1:30 left? Would have had two TOs left, I think.

 

[donniesyracuse]

I would have let them score. I wonder if Pitt would have been smart enough not to.

 

[Toga]

I believe it was after the BC game in 2013 when be was asked if he thought of letting BC score and he said hell no you don't let people score

Oy

 

[DomeStranger]

I was yelling to let them score. And was hoping when Shafer took the TO to review the spot, that's what he was telling his team. I won't criticize him for not doing it, but that's the forward kind of thinking I'd like to see from a coach.

 

[Millhouse]

It was mentioned in the chatroom. Do you hope for the 4% chance they miss the FG, or do you let them score and take the 6% chance you can score a TD. Shafer and most other coaches aren't going for the 6%. There must be some examples of teams in a similar situation letting the other team score.

99 music city bowl Kentucky vs us

 

[007]

99 music city bowl Kentucky vs us

Good memory, Millhouse. Hal Mumme allowed SU to score, going up by 7 with the score. P, maybe one of the most conservative coaches we have ever had, went for 2! instead of kicking the PAT and going up 8.

That's hardnosed.

 

[upperdeck]

if the weather sucks and the kick is 35+ stop them. once its inside 30 i think you have to let them score. lows odds of causing a fumble, low odds of a miss.. much rather try to drive 80 yds in 1:30 then hope they miss a short fg.. if it was windy/wet day you can let it play out but not on the dome.

 

[Millhouse]

if the weather sucks and the kick is 35+ stop them. once its inside 30 i think you have to let them score. lows odds of causing a fumble, low odds of a miss.. much rather try to drive 80 yds in 1:30 then hope they miss a short fg.. if it was windy/wet day you can let it play out but not on the dome.

the only argument for not letting them score is that there are enough examples out there where we would expect them to take a knee.

the only way it works is if you let them score when you have a good chance of stopping them, at which point it becomes a much riskier decision that most coaches won't take.

letting them score worked when it was a new strategy. i would hope our guys know to take a knee if the situation was reversed.

 

[kuethstheman]

the only argument for not letting them score is that there are enough examples out there where we would expect them to take a knee.

the only way it works is if you let them score when you have a good chance of stopping them, at which point it becomes a much riskier decision that most coaches won't take.

letting them score worked when it was a new strategy. i would hope our guys know to take a knee if the situation was reversed.

Pitt looked like they were going all-out to gain yards. They might have known to stop short of the goal line though.

 

[Millhouse]

Pitt looked like they were going all-out to gain yards. They might have known to stop short of the goal line though.

pitt might be meatheaded enough to barrel in. it's just much dicier than it used to be. when mumme did it, everyone's brains exploded. lots of arguments about whether he was an idiot