4th and 1

[Chief00]

Early in the game my philosophy is you put the points on the board. However, let's go with Diaco's theory and try to establish dominance on the line of scrimmage for short yardage. How do you not have your big back Johnson in the game when you are trying to play power football?

 

[Nostical]

How do you not have your big back Johnson in the game when you are trying to play power football?

I'd rather see Max Dilorenzo take those carries.

 

[Chief00]

Ok I accept that as a possibility but don't QB sneak or use a 180 pound back.

 

[uconnbill]

If you use the quarterback sneak you should come to the line and snap it right away before giving the defensive team time to set up. I didn't like how the Huskies ran that first 4th and 1 at all. They were expecting it as was every fan in the stadium

 

[BoatShow]

Should have thrown a screen to Drummond

 

[Milo65]

Put points on the board

 

[zls44]

Points on the board is a fallacy.

Going for it there is 100% correct. What they did to try and get it was awful.

 

[Milo65]

I disagree, we left 9 points off the board. Changes the whole game if we kick field goals in the red zone.

 

[zls44]

http://grantland.com/features/bill-barnwell-scenarios-coaches-fail-most/

 

[Chief00]

If you use the quarterback sneak you should come to the line and snap it right away before giving the defensive team time to set up. I didn't like how the Huskies ran that first 4th and 1 at all. They were expecting it as was every fan in the stadium

Quite frankly, if you go with a QB sneak you want to see an initial OL thrust in unison. Additionally, if the initial attempt is halted the OL needs to push the QB forward- Levy was just a spectator - I recognize there are rules but there are ways to do that without overtly using your hands.

 

[gopher2]

Put points on the board

.....and take the LEAD. Can't come away with no points after a long opening drive. Bad decision in my view. One of many today.

 

[zls44]

.....and take the LEAD. Can't come away with no points after a long opening drive. Bad decision in my view. One of many today.

Four minutes into the game. A FG there is, based on a mathematical analysis of what actually happens in games, practically meaningless.

Know what's better than a field goal? A touchdown. Do that.

 

[gopher2]

Four minutes into the game. A FG there is, based on a mathematical analysis of what actually happens in games, practically meaningless.

Know what's better than a field goal? A touchdown. Do that.

But a field goal is better than nothing, which is what we got. Its only 4 minutes into the game - take the lead and then try to get two score advantage.

 

[freescooter]

I take the points every time. The wind was pretty strong so maybe that influenced the thinking but even if you decide to go you need a better play call. If you sneak you need to do it quickly. And not telegraph it. I'd have brought in Johnson or Delorenzo, you could make a case either way, but really in my mind getting points out of the opening drive is important I think.

 

[Milo65]

I understand the thought process in going for it, but we do NOT have the o-line to make that kind of push. How many 3-1's and 4-1's have we come up short? Not getting points hurt us yesterday, hurt us against BYU, Navy, and Missouri. Especially with a strong defense it could/would have made a difference in all of these games.

 

[Jimdish255]

Why even consider the possibility of scoring 0 points especially when you're not very good at 4th down conversions, and not at all desperate for the 7 either mathematically or late in the game? 0 energizes the other team and cuts down on your options later. I consider it a reckless decision unless you have a proven o-line and a big back that can get you a positive push.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

I like going for it becwuse the offense had momentum and USF was on their heels, but the play call was beynd stupid. I guess when the look at BS they see Cam Newton or some othe 6-5 QB. That should have been Max or Johson getting the carry or a boot for BS.

 

[BNich]

Here's an article regarding going for it or taking the points. I think everyone on here should read it.

http://grantland.com/features/bill-barnwell-scenarios-coaches-fail-most/

 

[CTMike]

Why even consider the possibility of scoring 0 points especially when you're not very good at 4th down conversions, and not at all desperate for the 7 either mathematically or late in the game? 0 energizes the other team and cuts down on your options later. I consider it a reckless decision unless you have a proven o-line and a big back that can get you a positive push.

I generally like going for it - but I think Diaco can be optimistic to a fault. Believes in the kids so much that he doesn't always consider what could go wrong - I think a similar think happened at the end of the first half. He probably felt like 8 seconds was more than enough to get a play off without thinking what could go wrong / probability of all executing according to plan.

 

[Nostical]

At the end of the first half Diaco probably felt like 8 seconds was more than enough to get a play off without thinking what could go wrong.

He simply had to stress to BS as he headed on the field--- to throw it in the end zone or throw it away. Under no circumstances can we let the clock run out without a chance for 3 points.

 

[CTMike]

He simply had to stress to BS as he headed on the field--- to throw it in the end zone or throw it away. Under no circumstances can we let the clock run out without a chance for 3 points.

Totally agree, and he gave Shirreffs an earful as he came off the field. I just think Diaco needs to modify his "how likely is this to work" gauge. 8 seconds is time if everything goes right. What if things go wrong? You might call a different play there.

 

[huskymedic]

Totally agree, and he gave Shirreffs an earful as he came off the field. I just think Diaco needs to modify his "how likely is this to work" gauge. 8 seconds is time if everything goes right. What if things go wrong? You might call a different play there.

I won't use the "E" word because that spins some people sideways but...

>>"I'll take the blame for that," Shirreffs said. "I was supposed to take a shot in the end zone or throw it away ... just miscommunication. I've learned you have to capitalize on certain situations, critical situations. If you don't capitalize on those, then eventually it's going to catch up to you."<<

 

[SubbaBub]

4th down is function of ability to get the first down vs. the value of the 3 pts (or more importantly the necessity of getting 7). If you have a way to get 1 yard at will (100%) of the time then the decision is easy, GO! We haven't had the ability to get the yard in years so, we should be hedging on the importance of 7 and the consequences of not making it.

In the first quarter, we didn't need 7 (kick), but the consequence of giving USF the ball at their own 10 is minor (GO). The distance, I believe, was about a yard and a half (kick) and would have given us the lead (kick). I think that trumps the psychological high of making it (GO). It was a defensible decision for an aggressive coach, but it wasn't the smart play (this had been the theme all year).

The 44 missed FG was just dumb. The distance of 1 inch makes this a no-brainer (GO), the wind in the kicker's face combined with the distance of the kick (GO), and the need for a TD (GO) are all green lights for the sneak.

Given a reprieve by USF getting a delay of game and missing the FG, we found ourselves again with 4th down, again after missing a wide open receiver earlier in the series down 8 with 8 to go needing a TD (GO), even though it was 4th and 2 (kick) it would have been a 60+ yd attempt (kick/punt). The flow of the game says we needed to score on that drive, so I don't have a problem with Bob shirking convention on down, distance, clock because a first down likely means at least a FG attempt. The issue is I don't think anyone know what the play call was, it certainly wasn't any of the plays we successfully ran for pick up 2 yards throughout the game. It was probably some "special" lightly practiced play that was deeper in the playbook than was called for at this stage of the program development. It was a clusterF from the snap.

The last 4th and 10 down 15 pts with 4 to go was a no brainer go for it and was the only one converted.

Ironically, the decision to kick from 44 was the only obvious wrong decision, the play calls on the other two meaningful attempts were atrocious. I understand why the comments are all over the map but if you break it down the correct plays were:

Kick or at least run a better play
Go for it
Kick or at least run a better play
Go for it.

The staff was 1/4.

 

[SubbaBub]

I won't use the "E" word because that spins some people sideways but...

>>"I'll take the blame for that," Shirreffs said. "I was supposed to take a shot in the end zone or throw it away ... just miscommunication. I've learned you have to capitalize on certain situations, critical situations. If you don't capitalize on those, then eventually it's going to catch up to you."<<

Evolving is a fine word. If the split second decisions and ex-e-cu-tion of a first year QB were all we had to worry about our record would be a lot better.