Game Coaching: Strange Decision in the 4th quarter?

[hcanes100]

I really thought we should have kicked the field goal earlier on the last drive, and then do the onside kick with much more time on the clock. I thought it would have given us a chance with more time on the clock on D if we didn't recover the onside kick to give us a better chance at winning. I know that is nit picking, but I think it could have given us another 1:30 on the clock when we kicked the onside kick and they won't have been able to kneel it dead like they did with 1:15+. I said this in the game thread, but don't think anyone noticed it.

I disagree with this. The TD is harder to get. When you're down in there inside the 20, you have to go for that TD. Give yourself 90 seconds to get the FG on the next possession. If we made the extra point, we would've had plenty of time to drive the field and kick a FG. Plus, the TD extends the game. If you miss the FG, you're done.

I really think you have to give yourself time for 2 possessions and not rely on getting the onside kick 100% to do it. No matter what, you have to play it perfect, which would include making the field goal. I think the extra point miss didn't play into it, but I do believe they could have used the 1:30 in addition to the 1:15, which would make it 2:45, they can't kneel it dead if we don't recover the onside kick. I think it would have given more options to tie\win the game, but again, it is nit picky for sure.

 

[umhurricane2511]

Had a convo with 2003alum and a couple others about this.

It was questionable, but I didn't have a huge problem with.

A long FG, even with a good kicker like Hopkins, is not automatic. Get a stop on 3rd, and concede a long FG attempt. And with our defense, I certainly understand only wanting to give them one bite at the apple to pick up the first.

But in a more general sense, I'm not overly concerned with these types of decisions because I've routinely seen great coaches at both levels bungle these situations. I think coaches get them "right" about half the time. And half the time when they're wrong, they get away with it.

This. Fans have all the time in the world to think about these things.

Coaches have about 3 seconds and EVERYBODY guesses wrong sometimes (not saying he was necessarily "wrong" on this one)

Fans have all the time to think about these things? I said it on the spot. Anyone who hasn't seen that scenario pop up in football either doesn't watch enough football or doesn't watch it with strategy in mind. This is NOT a freakishly unique scenario. On the flipside, check out how we've handled this situation on offense. In this very year under this very staff, we've not only run two plays, but we've run the ball on 3rd down.

I do not believe this is a 50/50 call. I can live with one of those. He has made plenty of those and I've never brought them up. This was a poorly reasoned decision. It was a panicked decision from a guy who prepares everything in a giant binder, but forgot to prepare this scenario. It was a decision he can try to seduce fans into thinking was made with strong rationale, but his abilities to speak and articulate things so magnificently fail to address the substance here.

This is a fail. Does it mean he can't be a good coach? No. Does it mean we can't win with him? Obviously not.

But, Golden likes to call things out "as is" in the media as it relates to his players. He should sit down and think about all of the alternatives of this situation and how he made a poor decision. Point blank.

I see your point, I really do.

I just think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. There were seriously about 10 plays with greater significance to the outcome of the game.

 

[Biscuits]

I have no problem with criticizing the decision.

But I think it's also fair to say that Golden's having little confidence in the D to get the needed stop isn't super-poor reasoning. The D showed later on that they just don't get stops when they need them. Third and long, and Freeman scampers for the first. I fully understand not giving the O two (or three, if they wind up back in no man's land and go for it) shots to either (a) get the first down or (b) hit a big play and put a TD on the board.

Ultimately, this was probably the lesser call, but I see the logic. I may not agree with it, but I see it. I don't think it was panicked, but I do think it was wrong. You can be wrong without being panicked. I see it from good coaches more often than you'd like.

 

[miami224]

it is what it is. bottom line is if hurns catches the 2 point conversion we would have had a two pointer to tie the game and from a fans stand point what more i could ask for going on the road being a 10 point underdog. i hope this was a learning experience for golden and one that didn't cost us the game.

 

[CanesAreAble]

I really thought we should have kicked the field goal earlier on the last drive, and then do the onside kick with much more time on the clock. I thought it would have given us a chance with more time on the clock on D if we didn't recover the onside kick to give us a better chance at winning. I know that is nit picking, but I think it could have given us another 1:30 on the clock when we kicked the onside kick and they won't have been able to kneel it dead like they did with 1:15+. I said this in the game thread, but don't think anyone noticed it.

I disagree with this. The TD is harder to get. When you're down in there inside the 20, you have to go for that TD. Give yourself 90 seconds to get the FG on the next possession. If we made the extra point, we would've had plenty of time to drive the field and kick a FG. Plus, the TD extends the game. If you miss the FG, you're done.

I really think you have to give yourself time for 2 possessions and not rely on getting the onside kick 100% to do it. No matter what, you have to play it perfect, which would include making the field goal. I think the extra point miss didn't play into it, but I do believe they could have used the 1:30 in addition to the 1:15, which would make it 2:45, they can't kneel it dead if we don't recover the onside kick. I think it would have given more options to tie\win the game, but again, it is nit picky for sure.

But when do you kick the FG? We didn't even get to the 40 yard line until there was 2:20 left.

 

[VinnDogg]

The reason we lost yesterday was not on the coaches. Dumbo and Poops didn't outcoach Golden, Fisch and the Eyetalian.

We just simply do not have enough ballers on this team.

 

[hcanes100]

I really thought we should have kicked the field goal earlier on the last drive, and then do the onside kick with much more time on the clock. I thought it would have given us a chance with more time on the clock on D if we didn't recover the onside kick to give us a better chance at winning. I know that is nit picking, but I think it could have given us another 1:30 on the clock when we kicked the onside kick and they won't have been able to kneel it dead like they did with 1:15+. I said this in the game thread, but don't think anyone noticed it.

I disagree with this. The TD is harder to get. When you're down in there inside the 20, you have to go for that TD. Give yourself 90 seconds to get the FG on the next possession. If we made the extra point, we would've had plenty of time to drive the field and kick a FG. Plus, the TD extends the game. If you miss the FG, you're done.

I really think you have to give yourself time for 2 possessions and not rely on getting the onside kick 100% to do it. No matter what, you have to play it perfect, which would include making the field goal. I think the extra point miss didn't play into it, but I do believe they could have used the 1:30 in addition to the 1:15, which would make it 2:45, they can't kneel it dead if we don't recover the onside kick. I think it would have given more options to tie\win the game, but again, it is nit picky for sure.

But when do you kick the FG? We didn't even get to the 40 yard line until there was 2:20 left.

I thought we had about 2:45 when we were inside the 30, but I could be wrong. I didn't TiVo the game, but I remember posting in the game thread we should do it, and I believe it was around the 2:45 mark.

 

[CanesAreAble]

I thought we had about 2:45 when we were inside the 30, but I could be wrong. I didn't TiVo the game, but I remember posting in the game thread we should do it, and I believe it was around the 2:45 mark.

Nah, we didn't have that much time. I DVR'd the game.

 

[NorthFlaCane]

He definitely should have taken the holding penalty there, but his decision still would have worked out had the refs not screwed Williams on the PI call.

 

[sfcane2]

You can go back and look at decisions any coach makes and question them. College coaches have countless against the chalk calls. Les Miles more than any I can think of. Look back at Saban against LSU and he had some head scratchers especially in the overtime.

Would a computer say he should have taken the penalty, maybe. But at the same time Golden obviously had no confidence we would stop them if we gave them two plays.

 

[Pennmed Canefan]

I'd push them back. In essence, it comes down to whether or not you think they'll get 10+ yards on that second down. If not, your decision wins. If so, they have a better down/distance than they did. It's a vote of no confidence but this was the best game our defense played this season IMO (I throw out GT because of their lack of flexibility). There are definitely other points this year when I would've aimed for 3rd down honestly.

 

[LuCane]

I have no problem with criticizing the decision.

But I think it's also fair to say that Golden's having little confidence in the D to get the needed stop isn't super-poor reasoning. The D showed later on that they just don't get stops when they need them. Third and long, and Freeman scampers for the first. I fully understand not giving the O two (or three, if they wind up back in no man's land and go for it) shots to either (a) get the first down or (b) hit a big play and put a TD on the board.

Ultimately, this was probably the lesser call, but I see the logic. I may not agree with it, but I see it. I don't think it was panicked, but I do think it was wrong. You can be wrong without being panicked. I see it from good coaches more often than you'd like.

Fair and true. Scary. But, fair and true.

Also, at no point did I say this was *the* or even *a* deciding factor in the game. However, I bring this stuff up because I only care about observations that will have an effect on the future.

Worst decision ever? Nah. But, I simply want to emphasize substance over words. I'm an Al Golden fan. I think he can rectify a lot of things and move us in the direction we need to go. That said, I don't think anyone can disagree that we want to see substance as efficient and powerful as the words we hear from him.

 

[wushah]

I would agree with Lu here. You know that their kicker has a big leg, you know that they're already in FG range and that a few more yds makes that easier, and so, IMO, the more right answer is to push them back. Up by 13 in the 4th, I don't know how aggressive Jimbo is going to be on 2nd and long. He would probably run it, see what happened, and then make a decision as to how aggressive he wanted to by on 3rd down. With 13 min to go, you have to keep as many points off the board as possible. Push them back and use the down and distance to your advantage.

 

[CaneDaddy]

Don't discuss hypotheticals and not accept everything in between. What if we take the penalty and they break one? He trusted the defense to make the stop and save the down. He is an aggressive coach and made an aggressive call. It should have worked out.

 

[LuCane]

Don't discuss hypotheticals and not accept everything in between. What if we take the penalty and they break one? He trusted the defense to make the stop and save the down. He is an aggressive coach and made an aggressive call. It should have worked out.

Uh, I did discuss that possibility. It's under the conversion alternative. He didn't trust the defense. He did quite the opposite. He didn't trust them, so he reduced the number of times they'd have to make the stops.

 

[umhurricane2511]

Don't discuss hypotheticals and not accept everything in between. What if we take the penalty and they break one? He trusted the defense to make the stop and save the down. He is an aggressive coach and made an aggressive call. It should have worked out.

Uh, I did discuss that possibility. It's under the conversion alternative. He didn't trust the defense. He did quite the opposite. He didn't trust them, so he reduced the number of times they'd have to make the stops.

Exactly, he didn't trust them to make 2 stops. And would you? We've all seen them play this year.

 

[LuCane]

Don't discuss hypotheticals and not accept everything in between. What if we take the penalty and they break one? He trusted the defense to make the stop and save the down. He is an aggressive coach and made an aggressive call. It should have worked out.

Uh, I did discuss that possibility. It's under the conversion alternative. He didn't trust the defense. He did quite the opposite. He didn't trust them, so he reduced the number of times they'd have to make the stops.

Exactly, he didn't trust them to make 2 stops. And would you? We've all seen them play this year.

Given the circumstances and how we had played yesterday, as well as the fact the Vernon to DT and using him for games/stunts was decently effective, yes, I would have pushed them to 2nd and 20. Who knows. Maybe they throw a TD on the next play. Maybe Manuel hangs another one (like the one we dropped for an INT). Unless it's a game like Maryland or even VTech (where we couldn't stop the O for our lives), I get them out of "no man's land."

 

[umhurricane2511]

Don't discuss hypotheticals and not accept everything in between. What if we take the penalty and they break one? He trusted the defense to make the stop and save the down. He is an aggressive coach and made an aggressive call. It should have worked out.

Uh, I did discuss that possibility. It's under the conversion alternative. He didn't trust the defense. He did quite the opposite. He didn't trust them, so he reduced the number of times they'd have to make the stops.

Exactly, he didn't trust them to make 2 stops. And would you? We've all seen them play this year.

Given the circumstances and how we had played yesterday, as well as the fact the Vernon to DT and using him for games/stunts was decently effective, yes, I would have pushed them to 2nd and 20. Who knows. Maybe they throw a TD on the next play. Maybe Manuel hangs another one (like the one we dropped for an INT). Unless it's a game like Maryland or even VTech (where we couldn't stop the O for our lives), I get them out of "no man's land."

Great points. Yeah, I noticed the Vernon to DT thing. Seemed like as a whole, the DL played better yesterday. Whether it was scheme change or them just being jacked up, they definitely looked more physical. They got pressure on Manuel and stopped the run outside of a few plays.

 

[breakingbryan]

Wow Lu is on a warpath in this thread. Ordinarily I love this type of call, but you have to question it now based on field position and.

There's tons of things to take into consideration, but if the coaches felt that we could prevent them from getting a first down, they would have been left with a long field goal. Yes their kicker is good, but he did miss one yesterday. If you think you have the advantage (for whatever x's and o's reason), why give the other team an extra play to work with? Be agressive and force the given, which would be a long field goal, as opposed to giving the other team 2 chances to make a first down. Bottom line is that they have an opportunity to get a first down either way. One is a higher probability of first down but they only get one shot. The other is lower probability, followed by an unknown one, and they get 2 shots at it. Take the known risk and hopefully force a long field goal that isn't a given.

But, I see the other side too. I think I would have made the same call though.

 

[CaneDaddy]

Don't discuss hypotheticals and not accept everything in between. What if we take the penalty and they break one? He trusted the defense to make the stop and save the down. He is an aggressive coach and made an aggressive call. It should have worked out.

Uh, I did discuss that possibility. It's under the conversion alternative. He didn't trust the defense. He did quite the opposite. He didn't trust them, so he reduced the number of times they'd have to make the stops.

I would think it takes more trust to stop someone on one play as opposed to two regardless of yardage.