Stitt addresses passing on FGs

[grizindabox]

No, uofmman, you're right !!!

The next time we are down seven in the third qtr, our D is playing well--not allowing any second-half points up to that point, and as we now know, wouldn't allow any 2nd half points at all, and our O has driven us deep into the opponent's red zone, twice--we did know that, no hindsight required, we should again

1. Panic !
2. Poop and pee uncontrollably down our leg ! and
3. Go for it because we're never going to get back here, screw the FG's !
4. And lose another close game at WA-GRIZ !!! (Having a winning record at home is really overrated, after all !)

You're proving my point here. No one knew at the time that that would be the case.

Say he kicks both field goals, but then we never get the Roberts TD.

You'd all be crucifying him on here for being a wuss and not manning up and going for it.

There were a lot of things that lead to us losing the game.
It wasn't Stitt's fault our QB threw a pick six. It wasn't Stitt's fault our defense couldn't stay home vs. a WR pass. It wasn't Stitt's fault we couldn't stop their run game (OMG FIRE TY!!!1!1).

And seriously, what if we had missed both field goals?

I get that you guys don't like Stitt, but you're choosing to ignore a lot because it's easier to hate on the guy.

ding...ding...ding...winner

 

[Eriul]

You're right.

Next time, Stitt should use the benefit of hindsight beforehand and know that he's going to get a long TD pass on a play that hasn't been open all day.

I mean, it was obvious that we'd score like that, so clearly he should have known ahead of time that even one of those field goals would have won the game.

But he didn't.

I blame his ego.

I would say the odds of us getting a break offensively or even defensively sometime in a full quarter are higher than our odds of converting a 4th and 3.

You mean like throwing another pick?

Or not moving the ball anyway, considering we scored on our second and third possessions, but then went cold for a quarter and a half?

Or leaving it to the defense who hasn't shown they can stop the run all game to get the ball back?

It's been beat to death, but I understand why people are upset about not taking field goals, but you HAVE TO remember that you have the benefit of hindsight that coach Stitt didn't have.

And considering how much shit he got for kicking the field goal against NDSU, the people grilling him on here would've found something to get pissed about no matter what happened.

Saying it is on hindsight is stupid as most of us bitching were bitching when he MADE the call in the first place. I think the defense stopped them just fine in the second half? I don't really understand the bitching about the defense when we only allowed 345 yards? The defense gave the offense every opportunity to win the game. The offense left points on the board IN THE THIRD QUARTER and that cost us the game. Simple.

Assuming we won't get another chance to score in a whole quarter is rather retarded

 

[Eriul]

IF we kicked the field goals and didn't score in the ENTIRE fourth quarter THEN I think the bitching would be more about how horrible the offense is rather than the fact that he took a field goal in the 3rd quarter?

 

[Ursus1]

After he went for it the first time and failed, it forced his hand on the second one.

no it didn't....unless you mean to try and prove his point/save face. There was still plenty of time left

 

[Eriul]

The first call for the field goal came after two Weber drives in the second half which totaled 2 yards and 9 plays with 6 total minutes off the clock.

We turn the ball over on downs and Weber then drives a whole 14 yards in 6 plays.

Then we go for it again on the next possession.

So... you have a whole quarter... Your defense is allowing about 1 yard a play and you have now driven twice into the red zone in three possessions coming out of half. You REALLY think you're not going to get another shot at scoring?

 

[get'em_griz]

No, uofmman, you're right !!!

The next time we are down seven in the third qtr, our D is playing well--not allowing any second-half points up to that point, and as we now know, wouldn't allow any 2nd half points at all, and our O has driven us deep into the opponent's red zone, twice--we did know that, no hindsight required, we should again

1. Panic !
2. Poop and pee uncontrollably down our leg ! and
3. Go for it because we're never going to get back here, screw the FG's !
4. And lose another close game at WA-GRIZ !!! (Having a winning record at home is really overrated, after all !)

You're proving my point here. No one knew at the time that that would be the case.

Say he kicks both field goals, but then we never get the Roberts TD.

You'd all be crucifying him on here for being a wuss and not manning up and going for it.

There were a lot of things that lead to us losing the game.
It wasn't Stitt's fault our QB threw a pick six. It wasn't Stitt's fault our defense couldn't stay home vs. a WR pass. It wasn't Stitt's fault we couldn't stop their run game (OMG FIRE TY!!!1!1).

And seriously, what if we had missed both field goals?

I get that you guys don't like Stitt, but you're choosing to ignore a lot because it's easier to hate on the guy.

uofmman, you are making way too much sense here. I like it. :thumb:

 

[nzone]

Kick the FG at the time. Not that difficult.

 

[mcg]

No, uofmman, you're right !!!

The next time we are down seven in the third qtr, our D is playing well--not allowing any second-half points up to that point, and as we now know, wouldn't allow any 2nd half points at all, and our O has driven us deep into the opponent's red zone, twice--we did know that, no hindsight required, we should again

1. Panic !
2. Poop and pee uncontrollably down our leg ! and
3. Go for it because we're never going to get back here, screw the FG's !
4. And lose another close game at WA-GRIZ !!! (Having a winning record at home is really overrated, after all !)

You're proving my point here. No one knew at the time that that would be the case.

Say he kicks both field goals, but then we never get the Roberts TD.

You'd all be crucifying him on here for being a wuss and not manning up and going for it.

There were a lot of things that lead to us losing the game.
It wasn't Stitt's fault our QB threw a pick six. It wasn't Stitt's fault our defense couldn't stay home vs. a WR pass. It wasn't Stitt's fault we couldn't stop their run game (OMG FIRE TY!!!1!1).

And seriously, what if we had missed both field goals?

I get that you guys don't like Stitt, but you're choosing to ignore a lot because it's easier to hate on the guy.

Good post. Hindsight is always 20/20. What's interesting is that the much of the discussion seems to crucify Mr. Stitt for going for it on fourth down, but no one seems to be offering any discussion about the fact that in neither case were the two yards gained.

 

[HookedonGriz]

You're right.

Next time, Stitt should use the benefit of hindsight beforehand and know that he's going to get a long TD pass on a play that hasn't been open all day.

I mean, it was obvious that we'd score like that, so clearly he should have known ahead of time that even one of those field goals would have won the game.

But he didn't.

I blame his ego.

I would say the odds of us getting a break offensively or even defensively sometime in a full quarter are higher than our odds of converting a 4th and 3.

You mean like throwing another pick?

Or not moving the ball anyway, considering we scored on our second and third possessions, but then went cold for a quarter and a half?

Or leaving it to the defense who hasn't shown they can stop the run all game to get the ball back?

It's been beat to death, but I understand why people are upset about not taking field goals, but you HAVE TO remember that you have the benefit of hindsight that coach Stitt didn't have.

And considering how much shit he got for kicking the field goal against NDSU, the people grilling him on here would've found something to get pissed about no matter what happened.

Saying it is on hindsight is stupid as most of us bitching were bitching when he MADE the call in the first place. I think the defense stopped them just fine in the second half? I don't really understand the bitching about the defense when we only allowed 345 yards? The defense gave the offense every opportunity to win the game. The offense left points on the board IN THE THIRD QUARTER and that cost us the game. Simple.

Assuming we won't get another chance to score in a whole quarter is rather retarded

Also lost in this is the fact he couldn't assume that Weber wouldn't put any more points on the board. To your point above, assuming Weber wouldn't score any more points at all in a whole 1.5 quarters would also be rather retarded, right. Or did you want to have your cake and eat it too here? If Weber puts up any points then trying to chase them down with field-goals is even worse. The way Weber was running all over us had to create a little doubt that we would not let them put up any more points on the board after they scored 21 in the first half.

 

[nzone]

Kicks up the kicks good. Your University of Montana Grizzlies 17 Weber State Wildcats 21

That simple!

 

[Glendivegriz]

I think the decision says that he didn't believe in the defense holding them. You go for it because you figure you are going to need at least two touchdowns. Only explanation. Either way you look at it he didn't have confidence in the offense or the defense or both. If he didn't believe the offense would get another chance, then a good reason to take the field goal and hope that special teams or the defense would score. Just as perplexing is the whole reasoning of going on fourth down instead of punting is based on his theory of percentages. The percentages by any measure say you kick the field goal.

 

[mcg]

Maybe you go for it because you are highly confident that you'll gain the two yards.

 

[get'em_griz]

You know what happens when you settle for field goals? Just ask Kansas City:

http://www.foxsports.com/kansas-city/story/by-settling-for-field-goals-chiefs-settle-for-1-3-start-100515

A week ago, they kicked a franchise-record 7 field goals against Cincinnati. By the logic of some on here, they did exactly what many of you are saying Stitt should have done. "Get the points anyway you can once you get into the red zone!!! Kick the field goal!!!" Well Kansas City took that advice, and it worked out so great for them. They lost to Cincinnati 36-21.

Yes hindsight is 20/20, but don't settle for field goals when you have the opportunity to score TDs.

 

[mtgrizrule]

I feel this is based on the flow of each of game, variables of the game, and matchups. It is a game to game strategy. Fact is, Weber State was owning our OL this game, GRIZ defense and punting was terrific in a field position game. In this game, I feel taking the FG's was the best option. Either way, we cannot change what happened. I look forward to seeing this season play out and future decisions. Got to admit it, Stitt has balls with his decision making.

 

[nzone]

You know what happens when you settle for field goals? Just ask Kansas City:

http://www.foxsports.com/kansas-city/story/by-settling-for-field-goals-chiefs-settle-for-1-3-start-100515

A week ago, they kicked a franchise-record 7 field goals against Cincinnati. By the logic of some on here, they did exactly what many of you are saying Stitt should have done. "Get the points anyway you can once you get into the red zone!!! Kick the field goal!!!" Well Kansas City took that advice, and it worked out so great for them. They lost to Cincinnati 36-21.

Yes hindsight is 20/20, but don't settle for field goals when you have the opportunity to score TDs.

WOW :lol: Grasp for straws much to justify the unjustifiable. KICK THE FIELD GOAL DOWN BY ONE SCORE IN THE 3RD QUARTER. ITS THAT DAMN SIMPLE!!!!

 

[Tailbone]

.... Just as perplexing is the whole reasoning of going on fourth down instead of punting is based on his theory of percentages. The percentages by any measure say you kick the field goal.

Not true! there is a whole lot of statistical data showing that "conventional wisdom" isn't very wise.

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/a-new-study-on-fourth-downs-go-for-it/

Other situations also expose "conventional wisdom".

Example: It's late in the 4th quarter, you are down 31-17. you score a TD......now what?

A) go for 2
B) kick the pat, score again, go for 2
C) kick pat, score again, kick pat, win in overtime

Answer: http://www.slate.com/articles/sport...he_late_game_scenario_in_which_going_for.html

Side note: Nothing sucks the wind out of me as a fan like watching the Griz work the ball down the field, only to miss a 23 yard field goal.

Conventional wisdom yields "Bobby ball" and a runner-up trophy.
I'm ready for something different. Not something dreamed-up by some whacko, something based on statistical evidence of success. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, I like where Stitt's head is at and expect far better results as the team matures.

 

[IdahoGrizFan]

Last night on the coaches show, Stitt talked about passing up on those field goals. His biggest point was that the Griz were down by 7 at the time and were down to their third string quarterback and he didn't know how many other opportunities they would have to try and tie the game. He said if they were down 6 points that's a different story because then another field goal ties it.

But his own argument goes against going for it. The assumed lack of future opportunities leads you to believe Stitt is thinking we are not moving the ball consistently. If that is the case you don't go for it on 4th and short because of that same offensive inconsistency. That is a lot to ask of the 3rd string QB with no game experience.

 

[grizindabox]

I picture nzone as a guy that has gone through life always kicking field goals never to taste what it is like to score a touchdown.....

 

[grizindabox]

Last night on the coaches show, Stitt talked about passing up on those field goals. His biggest point was that the Griz were down by 7 at the time and were down to their third string quarterback and he didn't know how many other opportunities they would have to try and tie the game. He said if they were down 6 points that's a different story because then another field goal ties it.

But his own argument goes against going for it. The assumed lack of future opportunities leads you to believe Stitt is thinking we are not moving the ball consistently. If that is the case you don't go for it on 4th and short because of that same offensive inconsistency. That is a lot to ask of the 3rd string QB with no game experience.

or you could think that the odds are better to pick up 2 yards and only having 7 more yards to score a touchdown instead of having to drive 60 or 70 yards....lots of ways to look at it....

 

[nzone]

I picture nzone as a guy that has gone through life always kicking field goals never to taste what it is like to score a touchdown.....[/quote

Wanna compare?