|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 6, 2009 9:10:17 GMT -6
The Go ahead score...
Hadn't seen anyone speak to this... but OSU's late drive to take the lead, the entire time I was yelling... take a knee... win on the fg... at the very least, don't give the ball back to Tex with 2 time outs and 2+ minutes on the board.
It almost seemed to me, Texas allowed that last TD. Not that the score was guaranteed... texas was taken to the limits often in that last drive, but they did get it done.
If the conservative, the non-risk taking, Tressell... simply places that ball in the middle of the field... takes three knees.... Texas gets the ball back with a minute 20 at the best, with no timeouts... though they only need a fg?
Right or wrong...
Take the TD whenever you can get it? Or work the clock, when the other teams offense is potent enough to score quickly?
|
|
|
|
Post by outlawjoseywales on Jan 6, 2009 9:50:26 GMT -6
Great posts, What you trying to do, get us "thinking?" For goodness sake our seasons are over, don't make us think!  I don't know, there was something odd about the entire feeling of this football game. When I turned it on, it just felt weird to me. It didn't feel like these two teams were ready to play or something. Anyway, I've coached a long time and do alot of things by "feeling." Kinda' kooky spiritual or something. Anyway, I can't put my finger on it, but that game just "felt" weird the entire time. I didn't seem like these were the same teams. To address your point: I don't think that OSU's staff was doing anything but fighting for their lives. They were just trying to score. Often in NFL games you can see strategy like this, especially in the playoffs, but I don't think that level of strategical thinking was involved-they were just trying to get in the end zone, and if they didn't-attempt the field goal. Also, a field goal is NOT a guaranteed thing. OK, enough of my kooky ideas, OJW |
|
|
|
Post by dg1694 on Jan 6, 2009 10:02:20 GMT -6
So you're saying he should have turned down the chance for a TD, and given Texas the ball and the chance to dictate -- a TD or a field goal? I think you are reaching...
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 6, 2009 10:27:08 GMT -6
Wasn't it a few years ago in the NFL some RB was gone, could have scored but took a knee at like the 2 yard line so his team could run out the clock rather than give the ball back? Seems like I remember that...I want to say it was Curtis Martin but that's a guess. Brian Westbrook last year. Khalife's point is probably right, but I have to agree with OJW on the 'fighting for their life' element. About not sending the house, I think that might be true against a threatening passing game and competent QB, but with Pryor and Boeckman, I am not sure Texas respected the passers enough to deal with the pressure well enough to 1) beat them with the passing game and 2) not make forced mistakes on the run. I was glad to see how effective TEMPO was in this game....wow. However, I think this will be outlawed in the future because the Networks producers will be throwing a fit because they won't be able to get all these cheesedick pans and crowd shots while the ball is being spotted and put in play (ARGH!!) |
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 6, 2009 16:46:24 GMT -6
So you're saying he should have turned down the chance for a TD, and given Texas the ball and the chance to dictate -- a TD or a field goal? I think you are reaching... Yup... When the OSU back saw the wide open lane.... he should have gotten to the three and taken a knee. Next two plays, the QB takes a knee in the middle of the field... to align the fG... I would do, everything in my power, to make sure that was the last possession... or close to it... However, I'm only advocating this strategy, if you fear the other teams offense... and with Colt McCoy going 41 of 48... ungodly accuracy, OSU should have been fearing him. |
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Jan 6, 2009 18:09:54 GMT -6
In this situation you kick the FG.
If you only kick the FG you allow Texas to win the game by only reaching your 30 (for a GWFG); as opposed to the TD which made them go all the way. Though you would force them to give up 2 timeouts and approx 50 seconds.
However, they also lose a down once they get to your 35 or so; by scoring the TD Tex will go for it on any 4th down, yet down only one they would have to kick on 4th down once they get to your 35 or so; hence they lose a down.
Even if the timeouts and time on the clock don't even out for you, I think the extra down when they are in long distance FG range make it worth it.
My question is why did OSU go for 2 after the last TD, had they kicked the PAT they could have had the opportunity for a GTFG at the end, even if they make the 2pt they gain nothing
|
|
|
|
Post by coachnorm on Jan 7, 2009 8:41:04 GMT -6
This kind of thinking is why every schmoe in the stands thinks he can coach football. Every decision a coach makes can and will be second guessed by people who have the benefit of sitting around for hours or days afterward instead of being in the heat of the moment. There isn't a decision they made that is wrong, and at the same time there isn't a decision they made that can't be dissected, second guessed, or picked apart.
|
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 7, 2009 15:28:20 GMT -6
This kind of thinking is why every schmoe in the stands thinks he can coach football. Every decision a coach makes can and will be second guessed by people who have the benefit of sitting around for hours or days afterward instead of being in the heat of the moment. There isn't a decision they made that is wrong, and at the same time there isn't a decision they made that can't be dissected, second guessed, or picked apart. I beg to differ coach... This kind of thinking is what creates well grounded rules for when to go for two pt conversions... When's the right time to try an onsides kick... Best opportunity to attempt to convert a 4th down. The question was... Right or wrong... Take the TD whenever you can get it? Or work the clock, when the other teams offense is potent enough to score quickly?Have an opinion or don't... but don't be that schmoe, who doesn't have a valid opinion, so instead denounces the question as uninsightful. Its called a case study for a reason. |
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Jan 7, 2009 16:46:22 GMT -6
I do think it is a valid question.
I'm not sure though it is ever in the best interests of a team to forfeit a down when trailing.
I thought about this a lot a few years ago.
We had a similar situation in a game- down 14-18 with 1:50 or so to go we had a first and goal from the 4.
We needed the TD (didn't have a kicker anyway), and I had confidence that our O could score- even if we only had 3 plays.
I seriously thought about taking a knee to waste time or one of their timeouts.
In the end though, I just couldn't bring myself to do this.
For one, I didn't think it would send the right message to our defense (i.e. "we can't win with you on the field too long").
Still, we made an effort to bleed the clock as much as possible between plays, but we did score on 2nd down (with a little over 1:00 left).
We ended up losing in similar fashion to OSU. It was our only loss of the season.
A few major differences in our game: unlike OSU, we were down the WHOLE game. Down 6-18 entering the 4th. This was also during the regular season-we still had more games to play where we would need our defense to be confident.
Like OSU though we had shut our opponents down for most of the quarter and had really exploded offensively in the 4th qr.
I remember thinking "waste a play", then thinking "we can't do that...momentum will carry us"... then after the loss thinking "we should have taken a knee". That was mostly emotional though... after thinking it through again that summer-I felt we did the right thing.
Maybe in some extreme cases this would be good strategy- but I will never truly second guess myself for scoring when we had the opportunity to do so, given that we had a deficit on the scoreboard.
Time consideration should be taken in to account...but I always feel better if we have more points than the other team.
I also think (at least in our case, undefeated at mid season) that it is never in the best interests of a team-or a program to try to "protect" one (or more) components of the team (in this case defense). In the long run that will get you beat more.
Still, the last game...a bowl game... against a great offense... this might be the time to do such a thing (especially when ANY score would win the game-TD or FG).
But if we were given this situation again, I'd score when I could score (milking time, but not forfeiting downs) and expect my D to step up.
|
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 7, 2009 17:36:52 GMT -6
Wow... Good story Senator... I think needing a go ahead TD instead of a FG is a big difference. I think you did the right thing... too many extenuating factors with having to score a TD. However, with a fg to win... I think you take the knee, place the ball, and kick the fg... sure you can miss the fg... but you could also turnover the ball or get a penalty, while trying to score the td. I do appreciate the story though... especially with a perfect season on the line... Oh the pain... the inhumanity...  |
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 7, 2009 17:37:23 GMT -6
Is it really a question of the value of pts?
Are the extra 4 pts. worth more than the 50 seconds and 2 timeouts?
If its a value question... how do you value pts vs timeouts and time?
I think thats the real question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2009 17:45:08 GMT -6
Not to sound rude, but usually Case studies are grounds for a topic...what's the topic being explained here? i saw alot of the case studies, but can't find an epilogue, explaining the purpose of the studies...this one seems to deal with clock management, am I correct??
|
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 7, 2009 17:57:24 GMT -6
Not to sound rude, but usually Case studies are grounds for a topic...what's the topic being explained here? i saw alot of the case studies, but can't find an epilogue, explaining the purpose of the studies...this one seems to deal with clock management, am I correct?? Tough crowd...  Case Study... OSU vs Texas... Topic... The "go ahead score" and its relative value (pts) vs the value of Time outs, time on the clock, and the other teams ability to score. My apologies for not presenting a more formal thread with the appropriate syntax, structure, and direction.  |
|
|
|
Post by coachsky on Jan 7, 2009 18:31:17 GMT -6
I have to disagree with the premise of clocking it out and kicking a field goal.
I think you score and make TX score a TD.
OSU played terrible defense on the last drive. I am a big believer in bringing pressure, but in that drive, it wasn't impacting McCoy. Just not the right time. He's a veteran college QB. He knows how to handle that pressure. The whole drive, I kept saying fake your blitzes and drop 8, or drop 7. Keep it in front to you and get a pick. OSU was sending 5 or 6 and pressing, wrong time and wrong game situation for that. I loved the pressure that Utah put on Bama, but there is a time and place.
I felt bad for the OSU kids after the game, I don't think the OSU coaching staff put them in the best position to win the game. I've made similar decisions as a coach and it really stings.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachpoe on Jan 7, 2009 18:46:06 GMT -6
I agree with coachsky...make them score 6 instead of a field goal is a huge. Who knows what could have happened had the back pulled up. This situation is different then westbrook's going down because OSU was trailing. The Eagles were up, and had the luxury of trying to run out the clock. A lot of times I think coaches can "out think" themselves. You're down, you need points to win the game, you have a chance to win it, don't pass it up.
|
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 7, 2009 20:34:05 GMT -6
I think I recall a Indianapolis v SD game a couple of years ago... but the Indy coach missed the kick, to win the game, and Indy lost.
Being that that situation is the reverse, should Indy have neglected the FG, neglected running the clock, they took a couple of knees, ran the clock, and tried to win with the game winning fg.
Is that situation any different? Do you fault Indy for settling for the go ahead fg? Why or why not?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 7, 2009 20:36:30 GMT -6
Wow... Good story Senator... I think needing a go ahead TD instead of a FG is a big difference. I think you did the right thing... too many extenuating factors with having to score a TD. However, with a fg to win... I think you take the knee, place the ball, and kick the fg... sure you can miss the fg... but you could also turnover the ball or get a penalty, while trying to score the td. I do appreciate the story though... especially with a perfect season on the line... Oh the pain... the inhumanity... I agree, but ONLY if the offensive team will be able to ensure that the FG to win is going to the be LAST PLAY of the game. In TX v OSU, this was not the case. |
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 8, 2009 9:40:45 GMT -6
Business concepts have this thing called the "time value of money." That is, money today, right now, is more valuable than money in the future. Simulating that circumstance to the "time value of pts," could we say, pts later in the game are more valuable than pts. earlier in the game? I mean... is 7 pts, simply 7 pts? Or is it more so a 7 pt lead in the fourth quarter is extremely more valuable than a 7 pt lead in the 1st? And the real question becomes, is a 3 pt lead with :50 seconds left, more valuable than a 7pt lead with 2:10 seconds left? Someone much smarter than myself needs to tackle this conumdrum... Spread? Bro? OJW? Tog? Huey? Delta? Well, not really Delta... I just said his name so he wouldn't be mad.... |
|
