How could the percentages of a ball being picked off in the end zone when we were up by two TDs be more favorable towards an interception hurting us than one from deep in our territory when we were up by one TD? Adding context to my statement, supposedly (per the post I was replying to) the problem with the play call was that our QB is interception prone in quarter four. If he truly believes this, he should be even more opposed to that pass than to the pass that was intercepted.
The int had a receiver open inside the five with a reasonably free path to the end zone. Even if it had been covered a bit better, it would have given us a fresh set of downs (with an accurate pass) and more opportunities to kill clock before going up by three scores. The only problem with that play was that the pass was (very) high and led to an interception. Believing that the best path is to kill clock and settle for field goals is was killed us against Temple and almost killed us against Buffalo.
For openers, that Pitt was a far better offensive opponent than either Temple or Buffalo should in itself warrant a more aggressive approach. That we failed (against Temple) and almost failed (against Buffalo) with the overly conservative approach earlier in the season should have taught something to those who were calling the plays.
More importantly, you are allowed to disagree but it is difficult to argue that a FG attempt has a higher percentage than a pass to an open receiver (in an attempt to score a TD) that would either yield a TD or a new set of downs inside the five if the QB hits his target but I do not see how this position can be supported (this was not a hail Mary but somehow those holding the anti-pass position are behaving as if it was of equal difficulty).
