The decision to punt..

[IthacaBarrel]

Point of the discussion isn't that punting can never work. Hitting on nineteen can work too but it's still not smart. I was hoping Shafer would be an upgrade in these situations. I'm more interested in learning about Shafer and McDonald than what happened at the end of a game they weren't going to win either way

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

I think you make that call when you have more confidence in your defense than offense... It was the correct call in that scenario given what we had seen of our offense and their offense. I think it was more like hitting on 16 in that scenario. If our offense was solid and theirs potent as well, different decision

 

[Millhouse]

I think you make that call when you have more confidence in your defense than offense... It was the correct call in that scenario given what we had seen of our offense and their offense. I think it was more like hitting on 16 in that scenario. If our offense was solid and theirs potent as well, different decision

Look at us geeks posting at six am. (Elmo the musical sucks by the way.)

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[IthacaBarrel]

Look at us geeks posting at six am. (Elmo the musical sucks by the way.)

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Exactly!! We are getting old but this type of game minus last year gets old too!! I look forward to reading all the posts about how we need speed at wr!!! Guys who can beat press coverage!!!! I mean Sales was a speed Demon as was Lemon.

Shoot me, I wish I could just quit watching this crap sometimes, I really do. Such a waste of time when you think about it

 

[GoSU96]

Was the right call, got the ball back with 2:00 with a chance to win, in a lot of ways these days it takes more balls to do what Shafer did then to go for it on 4th when we all know we weren't getting it.

It worked very well... This is what I don't get

The fact is after throwing the pick, PSU is not going to do anything remotely risky deep in their end. Punting the ball gives you more chances instead of a make it or break play on 4th and 7 on your side of the 50.

 

[Scooch]

The fact is after throwing the pick, PSU is not going to do anything remotely risky deep in their end. Punting the ball gives you more chances instead of a make it or break play on 4th and 7 on your side of the 50.

As much as I'm almost always a "go for it" guy in that situation, this is an important part of the calculus and why I was ultimately OK with it. After that pick there was no way O'Brien was not just going to hand off three times and try to kill clock. I was much more optimistic that our D would force a fumble, or we'd get a good punt return, than I was that our O could string together 5-6-7 plays and score a TD.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

As much as I'm almost always a "go for it" guy in that situation, this is an important part of the calculus and why I was ultimately OK with it. After that pick there was no way O'Brien was not just going to hand off three times and try to kill clock. I was much more optimistic that our D would force a fumble, or we'd get a good punt return, than I was that our O could string together 5-6-7 plays and score a TD.

Exactly, agree with you and Go 100%... There is statistics and probability and then there is feel for the game. happy that Shafer made that call.

 

[GoSU96]

Exactly, agree with you and Go 100%... There is statistics and probability and then there is feel for the game. happy that Shafer made that call.

You need to draw an inside straight either way. But if you don't convert you are dead, best you are doing is getting the ball at your 20 with 2:00 if you don't convert. Punting makes PSU have to run three plays in their own end and then punt from inside their 20. You get a chance at a bad snap or fumbled exchange or a strip and then they have to execute the punt, which gives you another reasonable chance at a dynamic play. Regardless you end up with decent field position and enough time. It was the right call given the facts and circumstances.

 

[Millhouse]

You need to draw an inside straight either way. But if you don't convert you are dead, best you are doing is getting the ball at your 20 with 2:00 if you don't convert. Punting makes PSU have to run three plays in their own end and then punt from inside their 20. You get a chance at a bad snap or fumbled exchange or a strip and then they have to execute the punt, which gives you another reasonable chance at a dynamic play. Regardless you end up with decent field position and enough time. It was the right call given the facts and circumstances.

But you're not dead. Assuming that stacks the odds towards kicking.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[SmilinBob]

The call put the offense with the ball with a minute plus and good field position, it was the right call at the time. The offense was on its heels before that and needed to recalibrate but unfortunately they just continued to struggle.

 

[Millhouse]

The fact is after throwing the pick, PSU is not going to do anything remotely risky deep in their end. Punting the ball gives you more chances instead of a make it or break play on 4th and 7 on your side of the 50.

Not make or break.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[GoSU96]

But you're not dead. Assuming that stacks the odds towards kicking.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

PSU is not going to make the same offensive calls inside their 30 as they would on the plus side of the field. Pretty basic stuff. Their odds of getting a 1st down increase a great deal if you give up the ball on downs, it opens up their play book, period.

That's why the odds are stacked towards kicking.

 

[RF2044]

Does that always happen? The logic for punting assumes they are not going to pick up a first down. If you punt and they pick up a first down on this down, you're cooked too. People think your defense all of sudden gets worse if you go for it and fail rather than punt.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

On 4th and 7, with an offense that struggled all day, I'd say that was a pretty fair assumption.

It seems pretty simple--would you rather get the ball at midfield with 2 minutes left, or at our 20? Because the latter is what would have happened even if our defense didn't all of a sudden get worse if we go for it on 4th down in that situation and fail to pick it up.

 

[Millhouse]

PSU is not going to make the same offensive calls inside their 30 as they would on the plus side of the field. Pretty basic stuff. Their odds of getting a 1st down increase a great deal if you give up the ball on downs, it opens up their play

That is all true. But it doesn't mean you won't get the ball back quick after a punt. The odds of a psu first down don't change with field position as much as you think. Make or break do or die talk implies no chance of a three and out after a failed fourth down

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bayside44]

That is all true. But it doesn't mean you won't get the ball back quick after a punt. The odds of a psu first down don't change with field position as much as you think. Make or break do or die talk implies no chance of a three and out after a failed fourth down

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Kinda surprised by this thread. BOB seems exactly a by the numbers coach that was gonna run it three times and we were quite good at stopping that run. And PSU did put it on the carpet in the game more than once.

 

[Millhouse]

Kinda surprised by this thread. BOB seems exactly a by the numbers coach that was gonna run it three times and we were quite good at stopping that run. And PSU did put it on the carpet in the game more than once.

Very selective about probabilities. It worked because we got ball back. Wait they could've fumbled.

Well we could've gotten a first down. We couldve forced three and out if we didn't.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bayside44]

Very selective about probabilities. It worked because we got ball back. Wait they could've fumbled.

Well we could've gotten a first down. We couldve forced three and out if we didn't.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

If you want to play probabilities, we had a better chance of getting the ball back than getting a first down right there. I think it's completely different than Marrone last year punting to USC at Giants Stadium when we were moving it up and down the field.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

As much as I'm almost always a "go for it" guy in that situation, this is an important part of the calculus and why I was ultimately OK with it. After that pick there was no way O'Brien was not just going to hand off three times and try to kill clock.

So in other words, Shafer's call to turtle up was smart because we could be reasonably confident BOB was also going to turtle up.

Aye yi yi

The rationalization for punting is blowing my mind. The choice was NOT between having one down to get 7 yards vs having the the ball later at midfield with a short clock but 4 downs. The choice was between taking your chance to get 7 yards once and an unknown scenario where a large percentage of the possibilities are that you never see that football again. That was the choice. That we did force a three and out did not change those initial percentages. It was a bad call, and the outcome doesn't change that.

Also, what exactly do people mean when they say they want to give the defense a chance to make a play? Really, what does that mean? Do we really think in that situation the defense is going to cause a turnover, an unlikely event, and then score a touchdown off the turnover, an EXTREMELY unlikely event? And we have a better chance of that than getting 7+ yards once? OK, if that's not how we're defining it, guess what - the result of "the defense making a play" under any other circumstance means that they've gotten the ball back for that same offense we don't trust to get 7 yards. Why on earth do we think it's more likely that they can put together an entire scoring drive if we don't think they can nut up one time and get 7 yards?

But the part that really bothers me is that at least for this one part of this game, hardnosed was little more than a hashtag to get fans excited. It wasn't a true philosophy. It wasn't true confidence. It was just bluster that was abandoned when push came to shove.

The one thing I hope people understand is that when you're talking about playing the percentages the argument stands on its own. What happens after is just one of the possibilities and can't change the percentages you started with when you made your choice. In this case we got the ball back, bit that doesn't make it a better call. Other side of the same coin, if we didn't get the ball back it doesn't make it a worse call. The initial percentages matter, and the outcome afterwards doesn't affect the odds of that initial choice.



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[OttoinGrotto]

If you want to play probabilities, we had a better chance of getting the ball back than getting a first down right there.

That isn't true.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bayside44]

So in other words, Shafer's call to turtle up was smart because we could be reasonably confident BOB was also going to turtle up.

Aye yi yi

The rationalization for punting is blowing my mind. The choice was NOT between having one down to get 7 yards vs having the the ball later at midfield with a short clock but 4 downs. The choice was between taking your chance to get 7 yards once and an unknown scenario where a large percentage of the possibilities are that you never see that football again. That was the choice. That we did force a three and out did not change those initial percentages. It was a bad call, and the outcome doesn't change that.

Also, what exactly do people mean when they say they want to give the defense a chance to make a play? Really, what does that mean? Do we really think in that situation the defense is going to cause a turnover, an unlikely event, and then score a touchdown off the turnover, an EXTREMELY unlikely event? And we have a better chance of that than getting 7+ yards once? OK, if that's not how we're defining it, guess what - the result of "the defense making a play" under any other circumstance means that they've gotten the ball back for that same offense we don't trust to get 7 yards. Why on earth do we think it's more likely that they can put together an entire scoring drive if we don't think they can nut up one time and get 7 yards?

But the part that really bothers me is that at least for this one part of this game, hardnosed was little more than a hashtag to get fans excited. It wasn't a true philosophy. It wasn't true confidence. It was just bluster that was abandoned when push came to shove.

The one thing I hope people understand is that when you're talking about playing the percentages the argument stands on its own. What happens after is just one of the possibilities and can't change the percentages you started with when you made your choice. In this case we got the ball back, bit that doesn't make it a better call. Other side of the same coin, if we didn't get the ball back it doesn't make it a worse call. The initial percentages matter, and the outcome afterwards doesn't affect the odds of that initial choice.



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

The defense made more plays than the offense. Our offense wasn't getting 7 yards there.

And we got the ball back with 2 minutes to go in the same spot with more downs. Not sure how this is an issue.

Like someone else posted BOB kicked a meaningless extra point instead of trying to get up by 14. Not exactly dealing with a mad scientist type on the other sideline.

 

[Bayside44]

That isn't true.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Did we get the ball back with plenty of time to score and about the same field position? Yes we did.

Did anything positive happen once we did? Nope.

Not sure what else needs to be said.

 

[Millhouse]

On 4th and 7, with an offense that struggled all day, I'd say that was a pretty fair assumption.

It seems pretty simple--would you rather get the ball at midfield with 2 minutes left, or at our 20? Because the latter is what would have happened even if our defense didn't all of a sudden get worse if we go for it on 4th down in that situation and fail to pick it up.

It's not a fair assumption. You guys act like it's a hail Mary

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[Millhouse]

If you want to play probabilities, we had a better chance of getting the ball back than getting a first down right there. I think it's completely different than Marrone last year punting to USC at Giants Stadium when we were moving it up and down the field.

With less time. Time is worth something. The odds of conversion vs a three and out don't have to be equal

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Did we get the ball back with plenty of time to score and about the same field position? Yes we did.

Bayside, let me ask you, because clearly my understanding of space and time is lacking here - how exactly did getting the ball back change the probabilities of a choice made in the past?

 

[GoSU96]

It's not a fair assumption. You guys act like it's a hail Mary

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

And you guys act like it doesn't matter where PSU starts their possession or where SU would start their last one.

 

[tbonezone]

that late punt worked out OK for us but face it if they make even 1 first down it's game over.
just not worth that gamble. i guess i'd have gone for it.really good chance we don't see the ball again.