Scratching my head...

[OrangeOnions]

First off the kids gave great effort. It was fun while it lasted but...going for 2 when you should go for 1 and punting when you should go for it at midfield makes me question the game management/decisions.

 

[RMH44]

First off the kids gave great effort. It was fun while it lasted but...going for 2 when you should go for 1 and punting when you should go for it at midfield makes me question the game management/decisions.

go back to the hoops board where idiocy plays well.

 

[Jake]

Seriously??! You think he's an idiot for questioning those decisions? Punting from the 32 and on 4th and two against an offensive juggernaut are highly questionable calls.

So is chasing points in the third quarter.

 

[skurey]

They aren't questionable, they are the wrong decisions

 

[PhatOrange]

Seriously??! You think he's an idiot for questioning those decisions? Punting from the 32 and on 4th and two against an offensive juggernaut are highly questionable calls.

So is chasing points in the third quarter.

I see no down side in going for those two points in the 3rd Q.

 

[iommi]

I see no down side in going for those two points in the 3rd Q.

Wow...:crazy:

 

[iommi]

go back to the hoops board where idiocy plays well.

OrangeOnions is one of the best posters on the hoops board and his comments above are spot on.

 

[dasher]

I agree 100% with orange Onions. I didn't understand either move.

 

[PhatOrange]

Wow...:crazy:

whats the downside ... i can't wait to hear it.

 

[upperdeck]

i dont think we were chasing pts.. i thought we were trying to ride the momentum and put the pressure on USC. normally i kick , but it think in that game going for two was fine. but i also thought we were really stressing usc the whole 2nd half , punting down late was the wrong call.

but again if nassib makes a better throw at the end of the half the game is tied and we never go for two.

 

[iommi]

whats the downside ... i can't wait to hear it.

The downside is taking a point off the board too early. If you make it a 4 point game, you can score a touchdown and a PAT and be up 3. If you go for it too early like SU did, you leave your team down 5 with more than a quarter to play. Then if you get a touchdown, you are up 1 and are still chasing the point you did not get. You have to go for two and you fail, you can lose by a field goal.

Also, by going for it and failing it certainly did not help our momentum. Now, granted, if we got the two it would've helped us at the time but tt was way too early . If there was 12 minutes left in the game, it's a no-brainer to try for two and make it a field goal game. Why risk chasing that point when there's a quarter plus left to play. It's bad strategy and the basic strategy is to kick the extra point. They have charts and stuff for conversions. Every chart coaches have says that you do not chase points in the 3rd quarter. Period.

 

[retro44]

should we go back to the last two staffs?

i guess marrone should only practice the two point conversion in practice.

the 1 or 2 points would have never mattered in the long run,but it only gives the few something more to bitch about

 

[iommi]

should we go back to the last two staffs?

i guess marrone should only practice the two point conversion in practice.

the one or points would have never mattered in the long run,but it only gives the few something more to bitch about

Please...I liked that for once Marrone was aggressive...Imagine that!!!...in going for two...problem was it was not the right decision at the time and poor game management, enough valid criticism.

 

[Crusty]

I see no down side in going for those two points in the 3rd Q.

There was none. It was the right call. Beside people who question both calls are schizophrenic. One call was aggressive and one conservative. Hard to dislike both unless you are just frustrated.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

whats the downside ... i can't wait to hear it.

i agree with you. I didn't like the call but after weighing all of the pros and cons, it definitely made sense to go for two. If I was the coach I would have probably gone for one just like I probably wouldn't have done the first on side kick. However, it wasn't the calls that were bad, it was the execution. The first on side kick was probably the worst that I have ever seen. Then the next one wasn't much better.

 

[longtimefan]

The downside is taking a point off the board too early. If you make it a 4 point game, you can score a touchdown and a PAT and be up 3. If you go for it too early like SU did, you leave your team down 5 with more than a quarter to play. Then if you get a touchdown, you are up 1 and are still chasing the point you did not get. You have to go for two and you fail, you can lose by a field goal.

Also, by going for it and failing it certainly did not help our momentum. Now, granted, if we got the two it would've helped us at the time but tt was way too early . If there was 12 minutes left in the game, it's a no-brainer to try for two and make it a field goal game. Why risk chasing that point when there's a quarter plus left to play. It's bad strategy and the basic strategy is to kick the extra point. They have charts and stuff for conversions. Every chart coaches have says that you do not chase points in the 3rd quarter. Period.

I think they had USC on their heels after the Gulley TD, and going for a quick 2 might have caught them unprepared. Unfortunately, there was a stoppage to review the play, and whatever surprise advantage the Orange had disappeared. I would have shifted gears, and gone for 1 at that point.

 

[syr02esq]

We were aggressive. I like that.

 

[iommi]

I think they had USC on their heels after the Gulley TD, and going for a quick 2 might have caught them unprepared. Unfortunately, there was a stoppage to review the play, and whatever surprise advantage the Orange had disappeared. I would have shifted gears, and gone for 1 at that point.

Another mistake was once there was the stoppage and USC adjusted their defense, it put us in a bind... personally, once we no longer had them on their heels, maybe Doug should've re-evaluated and kicked. I think he should've kicked anyway, but you get my point.

 

[PhatOrange]

The downside is taking a point off the board too early. If you make it a 4 point game, you can score a touchdown and a PAT and be up 3. If you go for it too early like SU did, you leave your team down 5 with more than a quarter to play. Then if you get a touchdown, you are up 1 and are still chasing the point you did not get. You have to go for two and you fail, you can lose by a field goal.

Also, by going for it and failing it certainly did not help our momentum. Now, granted, if we got the two it would've helped us at the time but tt was way too early . If there was 12 minutes left in the game, it's a no-brainer to try for two and make it a field goal game. Why risk chasing that point when there's a quarter plus left to play. It's bad strategy and the basic strategy is to kick the extra point. They have charts and stuff for conversions. Every chart coaches have says that you do not chase points in the 3rd quarter. Period.

lot of big fat IFs there. I've read about 40 posts saying we should have gone for it twice today because we would have to 'essentially' outscore USC and not play field position. So Marrone is trying to pick up an extra point to put it within 3 and that's somehow a bad decision. Look if we lost by 1 maybe you could point to that but being down 4 points (kicking it) or down 5 (missing it) had no bearing on the outcome and it's slim that it would have. You would still need 2 fgs or 1 touchdown to take the lead. People are seriously reaching by critizing that 2 point call.

I'm pretty sure I saw Spurrier or somebody else go for 2 in the first quarter on their first TD last week.

 

[retro44]

Who here would have ever thought a marrone coached team would have 800 yards passing and a 100 pass attempts after only two games.

Marrone has finally looked as aggressive as the days when he was with the Saints and everybody was bitching that he wasn't.I guess now is not good enough anymore

 

[cliftonparksufan]

Who here would have ever thought a marrone coached team would have 800 yards passing and a 100 pass attempts after only two games.

Marrone has finally looked as aggressive as the days when he was with the Saints and everybody was bitching that he wasn't.I guess now is not good enough anymore

It should not be unrealistic that we put up north of 50 next week.

 

[iommi]

lot of big fat IFs there. I've read about 40 posts saying we should have gone for it twice today because we would have to 'essentially' outscore USC and not play field position. So Marrone is trying to pick up an extra point to put it within 3 and that's somehow a bad decision. Look if we lost by 1 maybe you could point to that but being down 4 points (kicking it) or down 5 (missing it) had no bearing on the outcome and it's slim that it would have. You would still need 2 fgs or 1 touchdown to take the lead. People are seriously reaching by critizing that 2 point call.

I'm pretty sure I saw Spurrier or somebody else go for 2 in the first quarter on their first TD last week.

Lol. What happened after the failed conversion is not relevant. It was the wrong decision at the time.

 

[zibby]

Punting from the 32 and on 4th and two against an offensive juggernaut are highly questionable calls.

It was actually from the USC 49. I think you're thinking of Gregg Williams. If HCDM keeps this up, I'm going to start calling him Dougg.

 

[PhatOrange]

Lol. What happened after the failed conversion is not relevant. It was the wrong decision at the time.

no it wasn't 21 - 17 would not have put us in a better position to win the game.

 

[iommi]

It was actually from the USC 49. I think you're thinking of Gregg Williams. If HCDM keeps this up, I'm going to start calling him Dougg.

Wrong. It was from the 32.