Stitt addresses passing on FGs

[grizindabox]

Eriul, you are correct. Down by 7, everyone including Coach Stitt knew we needed at least 2 scores (TD,FG, 2 TD's, or 3 FG's) to go in front, unless we were going to try a two-point conversion on a TD, not a smart move playing at home, generally speaking.

And our D was playing well--no points before our 2 failed 4th down conversions, and that isn't hindsight it is what happened up to that point in the game--and no points surrendered to Weber after our failed 4th down conversion attempts in regulation, and yes, that is hindsight but the way our D was playing, an excellent bet that we would continue to give up 0 or few points to Weber for the remainder of the game.

So we had to chip away at the lead, and when we had the chance to, we didn't. Two trips into the red zone in the second half + two failed 4th down conversions = 0 points and a Griz loss.

Thus, we lost a game we should have won !!!

People have the right to be wrong, Eriul, and I am glad that the defenders of Coach Stitt's decision making last Saturday are taking full advantage of their right to be wrong !!! :thumb:

this discussion isn't even about whether Stitt was right or wrong...

 

[FCSwatcher]

But you still want to use the later FG attempt as a reason to kick the first...which is the definition of hindsight. Secondly, the main reason that they had the opportunity at 2:37 was because Weber took the ball over at the 9 after the first attempt failed. You can't use what happened later to support your decision on the first failed attempt. Once they kick the first field goal, there is no way to know how the game would unfold. If we can do that, I want to go back to the pick 6 that Chalich threw right before the half.....

I agree with your thought process

 

[tnt]

So based on the 1 drive, you believe that UM would score again...that the 5 non-scoring drives that were comparable to what Weber generated are non-factors?

No based on stats I would believe UM would score again.

You're kind of missing the point. If you have an average offense at some point, it's likely you will score. Ours happened to occur on that one drive. We should have scored on 3 of the 6 drives(which is about average btw.)

You saying our offenses were comparable is laughable when they averaged 17 yards a possession to our 36 and 0 points a possession to our(what should have been) 2.

That's right we would have a chance to score again which made the first make sense and forced the second. I would think had he scored the first TD, he would have taken the second FG. Whether we would have gotten to the red zone again or not attempting the first TD insured better field position. Statistically the right decision add to it the "gut" and he took the right gamble to put away the game.

Exactly what its going to take to win a title.

 

[uofmman1122]

Eriul, you are correct. Down by 7, everyone including Coach Stitt knew we needed at least 2 scores (TD,FG, 2 TD's, or 3 FG's) to go in front, unless we were going to try a two-point conversion on a TD, not a smart move playing at home, generally speaking.

And our D was playing well--no points before our 2 failed 4th down conversions, and that isn't hindsight it is what happened up to that point in the game--and no points surrendered to Weber after our failed 4th down conversion attempts in regulation, and yes, that is hindsight but the way our D was playing, an excellent bet that we would continue to give up 0 or few points to Weber for the remainder of the game.

So we had to chip away at the lead, and when we had the chance to, we didn't. Two trips into the red zone in the second half + two failed 4th down conversions = 0 points and a Griz loss.

Thus, we lost a game we should have won !!!

People have the right to be wrong, Eriul, and I am glad that the defenders of Coach Stitt's decision making last Saturday are taking full advantage of their right to be wrong !!! :thumb:

this discussion isn't even about whether Stitt was right or wrong...

His argument isn't even consistent.

Assumption 1: you take the field goal in both instances because it's the smart play. You always need the points.

Assumption 2: the offense was good enough to get another score.

Assumption 3: the defense was playing lights out.

If assumptions 2 and 3 are true, which Eriul is saying is the case, why would you kick two field goals down 7 points? If you assume those, you obviously go for it, because even if you don't get it, you're still down a score, which you think you'll be able to get, and you trust your defense.

If assumption 2 isn't true, kicking the field goal is a losing play, because you won't have another chance.

If assumption 3 isn't true, kicking the field goal is a losing play, because your defense probably gives up at least another field goal, and you still need a TD.

At the time of the decisions, there is no assumption 4: Ben Roberts will catch a TD pass in the 4th quarter. You can't do that.

I don't see how this is difficult to understand.

 

['68griz]

Passing on easy points is never the best decision....

 

[grizindabox]

Passing on easy points is never the best decision....

It might not be the best decision, but that doesn't always make it the wrong decision....

 

[cclarkblues]

I don't know if the level of insanity on the board is at an all time high, but it's not far off. Please relax a little bit. I'm getting PM's from trolls complaining that they can't get a word in edgewise.

 

[uofmman1122]

I don't know if the level of insanity on the board is at an all time high, but it's not far off. Please relax a little bit. I'm getting PM's from trolls complaining that they can't get a word in edgewise.

Then they must not be good trolls.

Just saying.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Watching the game in real time, I had no problem with either decision not to kick. After the game I had a few second thoughts. I guess that's why they call it hindsight, huh?

 

[UMGriz75]

As "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" turns into "Tuesday Morning Quarterbacking" turns into ...

 

[mtgriz]

I didn't mind going for the first down both times but I was frustrated that Coach called pass plays on both 3rd and 4th down with only two yards to go each time.

 

[fanofzoo]

I didn't mind going for the first down both times but I was frustrated that Coach called pass plays on both 3rd and 4th down with only two yards to go each time.

Yeah don't we have a heavy package, why try to fool.

 

[garizzalies]

I've seen some "cat fights" on here before but that was a serious cat fight. I almost said literal cat fight but they're not actually cats fighting--they're just two chicks arguing over football. Which, I have to admit, was kinda hot for a second there (one was even talking about going to the library)

 

[Eriul]

Eriul, you are correct. Down by 7, everyone including Coach Stitt knew we needed at least 2 scores (TD,FG, 2 TD's, or 3 FG's) to go in front, unless we were going to try a two-point conversion on a TD, not a smart move playing at home, generally speaking.

And our D was playing well--no points before our 2 failed 4th down conversions, and that isn't hindsight it is what happened up to that point in the game--and no points surrendered to Weber after our failed 4th down conversion attempts in regulation, and yes, that is hindsight but the way our D was playing, an excellent bet that we would continue to give up 0 or few points to Weber for the remainder of the game.

So we had to chip away at the lead, and when we had the chance to, we didn't. Two trips into the red zone in the second half + two failed 4th down conversions = 0 points and a Griz loss.

Thus, we lost a game we should have won !!!

People have the right to be wrong, Eriul, and I am glad that the defenders of Coach Stitt's decision making last Saturday are taking full advantage of their right to be wrong !!! :thumb:

this discussion isn't even about whether Stitt was right or wrong...

His argument isn't even consistent.

Assumption 1: you take the field goal in both instances because it's the smart play. You always need the points.

Assumption 2: the offense was good enough to get another score.

Assumption 3: the defense was playing lights out.

If assumptions 2 and 3 are true, which Eriul is saying is the case, why would you kick two field goals down 7 points? If you assume those, you obviously go for it, because even if you don't get it, you're still down a score, which you think you'll be able to get, and you trust your defense.

If assumption 2 isn't true, kicking the field goal is a losing play, because you won't have another chance.

If assumption 3 isn't true, kicking the field goal is a losing play, because your defense probably gives up at least another field goal, and you still need a TD.

At the time of the decisions, there is no assumption 4: Ben Roberts will catch a TD pass in the 4th quarter. You can't do that.

I don't see how this is difficult to understand.

You missed a very large step there in the fact that a fg allows your future score to be a leading one but I'm kinda done with the whole argument. You can use whatever false logic you want but Stitt is one of very few coaches who would go for 4th and 2 from the 9 down 7 with 20 minutes left to play. When you're sub 50% on 4th downs I don't see the logic in leaving points on the board to try and convert 4th downs with so much time left.

 

[Dmontanagrizzlies]

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.

He went on to say that he passed on the second field goal due to the fact they missed out on converting that previous fourth-down. He felt at that point since he missed out on that opportunity earlier he had to make up for it and go after a touchdown.

He finished by saying that he makes decisions to try and win football games. That his decisions are trying to put his team in the best position to win.

I can see both sides of this. If he converts and they score a touchdown we are all applauding his gutsy call. If he sends the kicker out there and the kicker misses it then we are mad he didn't go for the 2 yards. If he makes a FG they are still down 4 and still need to score a TD at that point to win the game. His explanation made a lot of sense to me.

I gotta call a little BS on the first paragraph. This is the same coach that faced the #1 team in the nation, elected to play small ball when the opportunity didn't present itself for a TD.In the end,was in the drivers seat to win the game. If he's applying that same philosophy, he'd gone for it instead of kicking a FG.
Sometimes coach, you gotta play small ball, period.
3rd string QB, lines not working well that day, only so many times can you roll the dice.
This team is based off momentum, when we keep showing a 3 and out on every start, it's pretty obvious that teams have us figured until we can run the ball down their throats...
Kick the FG..

 

[uofmman1122]

Eriul, you are correct. Down by 7, everyone including Coach Stitt knew we needed at least 2 scores (TD,FG, 2 TD's, or 3 FG's) to go in front, unless we were going to try a two-point conversion on a TD, not a smart move playing at home, generally speaking.

And our D was playing well--no points before our 2 failed 4th down conversions, and that isn't hindsight it is what happened up to that point in the game--and no points surrendered to Weber after our failed 4th down conversion attempts in regulation, and yes, that is hindsight but the way our D was playing, an excellent bet that we would continue to give up 0 or few points to Weber for the remainder of the game.

So we had to chip away at the lead, and when we had the chance to, we didn't. Two trips into the red zone in the second half + two failed 4th down conversions = 0 points and a Griz loss.

Thus, we lost a game we should have won !!!

People have the right to be wrong, Eriul, and I am glad that the defenders of Coach Stitt's decision making last Saturday are taking full advantage of their right to be wrong !!! :thumb:

this discussion isn't even about whether Stitt was right or wrong...

His argument isn't even consistent.

Assumption 1: you take the field goal in both instances because it's the smart play. You always need the points.

Assumption 2: the offense was good enough to get another score.

Assumption 3: the defense was playing lights out.

If assumptions 2 and 3 are true, which Eriul is saying is the case, why would you kick two field goals down 7 points? If you assume those, you obviously go for it, because even if you don't get it, you're still down a score, which you think you'll be able to get, and you trust your defense.

If assumption 2 isn't true, kicking the field goal is a losing play, because you won't have another chance.

If assumption 3 isn't true, kicking the field goal is a losing play, because your defense probably gives up at least another field goal, and you still need a TD.

At the time of the decisions, there is no assumption 4: Ben Roberts will catch a TD pass in the 4th quarter. You can't do that.

I don't see how this is difficult to understand.

You missed a very large step there in the fact that a fg allows your future score to be a leading one but I'm kinda done with the whole argument. You can use whatever false logic you want but Stitt is one of very few coaches who would go for 4th and 2 from the 9 down 7 with 20 minutes left to play. When you're sub 50% on 4th downs I don't see the logic in leaving points on the board to try and convert 4th downs with so much time left.

You're acting like this is a black and white, right or wrong issue, while ignoring so much, chiefly that you have the benefit of hindsight. Stitt didn't have that.

Not to mention that with a kicker that's missed extra points, no field goal is automatic.

I'm not trying to say going for it instead of kicking the field goal was the right choice. I'm just saying that there was no right or wrong choice with the information he had at the time. It wasn't our team down 5 with 0:36 left on the clock in red zone. There was a lot of game left to play.

Now that the game is over, you can nitpick everything Stitt did from opening kickoff until the final field goal, but only because it's over and you know how it turned out. Even with two missed 4th down opportunities, we still had a chance to win the game. Some of that loss was definitely on Stitt, but two failed 4th down attempts didn't exclusively lose us this game.

I'm much more upset at the fact that we couldn't execute on four straight short yardage plays to pick up 2 and then 3 yards. Any team should be able to get that kind of yardage when it really needs it. That's something I can get behind when people are upset about Stitt.

 

[Fahque]

:shock:

 

[Umista]

Even a sober drunk can tell Griz fans the (FG VS Going for it) call does not even enter into the fact we lost the game.

It is so simple to see... it is amazing an old blind drunk knows it's our poor offense and not whether we punt/ pass/ kick or call time out because it was the play of our offense. Period!

What the downers out to be concerned is with is our 4th string QB and how he might perform. 5th?

Perhaps Simis can take us through the next few games and releive the stress many of you Griz fans are having. Calm down, smoke em if you have em, drink more, kick the bitching habit..... not field goals!

 

[signedbewildered]

I'm over it. You can contemplate scenarios till you're blue in the face.....(not sure why that would make your face blue but thats what gramps always said) Not gonna pretend to know enough about the game to say I could have done any better. I still have faith in Stitt and will do my best to allow him what he deserves (time) to put his team together and get us going in the right direction. Going to be a rollercoaster but in the long run I trust there will be more downhill than uphill runs. Or is it the other way around?

 

[Dmontanagrizzlies]

On another note.....this place is once again becoming a basketball school.

Back to football. Stitt wanted a place with pressure and passion. You want to keep asses in the seats so we don't have to drink away on spending big money on seats, win some ball games, by playing smart. You can get cute when we have schollies back and you have your " dudes". Until then, play smart.