Should have Let Them Score at End

[tedginn05]

lets all give hamby some credit, sure he bobbled the ball the first time but he kept with it and almost caught it and did have it until he got blasted, half of the time he would have caught it, you go out there and try to hold on to that ball after getting blasted like that

 

[Brutus1]

lets all give hamby some credit, sure he bobbled the ball the first time but he kept with it and almost caught it and did have it until he got blasted, half of the time he would have caught it, you go out there and try to hold on to that ball after getting blasted like that

I'm not blaming Hamby, I just used that illustration to show that coaching was not the only reason we lost. The coaches can only do so much. The players , in conjunction with the coaches, need to execute.

We're still ranked in the top ten. Under the circumstances, I'm happier than heck.

 

[gobucks123789]

i think we should've let them score and then get the ball with good field position

 

[Bestbuck36]

Actually our odds of returning the kick for a TD were increasing. How many times had Ginn touched the ball on Saturday at that point?

If he scores on average once every 7 or 8 times he touches it I would say he was probably due.

I have to admit the thought of letting them score was going through my mind as well. Its the process that makes it a little iffy. How do you let them score? Do you just part like the red sea or somehow disguise the fact that you are letting them score? Its risky either way you go. The bottom line is don't let the other team get ahead!!!

 

[DaytonBuck]

A similar situation to this was[FONT=arial,helvetica] Super Bowl XXXII between the Broncos and Packers in 98. Packers let Terrell Davis score at the end so they would have a chance to score. I think it's a no brainer you let them score. You've got your pick of 3 situations. I'm basing the time off of what I remember at the game so feel free to correct me. I wasn't exactly sober during the game.

1. You stop them like we did, there's roughly 30 seconds left in the game in which we need to move 50-60 yards with no time outs to setup a long field goal.

2. We stop them and hold them to a field goal which before the drive would have been the most likely situation. We would be out of time outs and still need a touchdown. The game clock would have been chewed down to 30 seconds if we stop them on the first set of downs with our two time outs. More if they pick up the first. They kick off to Ginn and Holmes but we're out of time outs with the precious clock blead down more.

3. Let them score off of the first play and we get the ball back with little time lost off of the clock. We need a two point conversion but we've got both remaining timeouts, the most of amount of time out all scenarios. We also get the ball into the hands one of our two biggest playmakers against team that's had some questionable kick coverage. Making a two point conversion is a lot of pressure but I like our chances of having to do that with timeouts and the most amount of time than having no time outs and the already precious clock burned down more.

We could get a kick blocked or a turnover by our D/Special Teams but the odds of either aren't great. I'd rather give our O the most amount of time to work and put the ball into the hands of Ginn or Holmes on the kickoff. Big time players make big plays in big games. You gotta give Ginn or Holmes the chance on that return. You also need all the time you can get at this point in the game.

It's not fun to let the other team score intentionally but if you've never seen it happen before you haven't watched enough football. Winning the game is the bottomline not some false sense of defensive pride. I can remember in addition to John Elway's last game in the Super Bowl where the Packers tried it, I can remember DIV playoff game in 96 or 97 where Germantown Valley View knocked off [SIZE=-1]Margaretta[/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=-1] by letting them score to prevent them from the clock down to around 20 seconds. VV went down and scored the game winner.
[/SIZE]

 

[lvbuckeye]

:2004:

 

[coxew]

There's a major problem with letting them score (besides it being the wrong mindset), that I haven't seen mentioned yet. Giving up a TD puts us down seven. Why would we think that Mack would have kicked the extra point to go up by 8? What if Texas went for the two point conversion which I believe is the correct move in this situation and that puts us down by 9? They have no reason to kick because whether we are down by seven or eight, we're going for the tie if we come back and score. If they fail, they're still up seven.

 

[OSUBasketballJunkie]

Why is this thread not deleted by now? It serves no purpose.

 

[buckeyefool]

I'm shocked at most of the people who say it is okay to let them score. And if you are Texas and this is such a great idea, why not go ahead and run the other direction and let the time run out? This is by far the stupidest idea I have ever heard. And CalFan I don't really give a damn what you IQ is.

 

[methomps]

There's a major problem with letting them score (besides it being the wrong mindset), that I haven't seen mentioned yet. Giving up a TD puts us down seven. Why would we think that Mack would have kicked the extra point to go up by 8? What if Texas went for the two point conversion which I believe is the correct move in this situation and that puts us down by 9? They have no reason to kick because whether we are down by seven or eight, we're going for the tie if we come back and score. If they fail, they're still up seven.

Because (A) coaches are very conservative in such situations and (B) it would be the wrong play. Mack Brown would raise one finger in the air without hesitation. He'd rather make Ohio State have to convert the 2 just to get overtime than try to do it himself and possibly relieve tOSU of the burden of needing a 2-point conversion. If he fails to get the 2, tOSU just needs an extra point to send it to overtime.

Here is what Mack Brown's thought process would be, if he would even consider it (which I doubt):

"If I get the 2 points, I win the game. However, my chances of getting it are poor. If I fail, Ohio State only needs to kick an extra point to tie. Or they can even go for 2 themselves and beat me. If I just kick this extra point, the worst that can happen is overtime and they would have to get their own 2-point conversion just to get that. Them needing a 2-point conversion is like a second chance for my defense if it falters.

If I go for two now and fail, the Texas sports radio will villify me for a month. I'll be another RRS loss away from being unemployed. I'd rather tOSU have to go for 2 than have to do it myself. OK, let me raise one finger in the air and...oh crap, delay of game?"

I'm shocked at most of the people who say it is okay to let them score. And if you are Texas and this is such a great idea, why not go ahead and run the other direction and let the time run out? This is by far the stupidest idea I have ever heard. And CalFan I don't really give a damn what you IQ is.

Because Mack Brown likes his job.

 

[MolGenBuckeye]

Gotta agree with at least considering the free score.

Another similar game was a Michigan-Illinois game a few years back. Illinois was up by 1, with Michigan out of timeouts. Illinois broke a huge running play, scoring a touchdown. If the guy just took a knee, they run out the clock. Instead, Michigan had another chance at tying the game up.

"oh crap, delay of game?"

 

[Zurp]

That has to be the dumbest idea I have every heard.

I don't think that's the dumbest idea I've ever heard. But I don't like the idea.

Maybe it's a good idea - get the ball back in your hands. But I'd put it on par with Arena Football. I guess I'm just traditional in thinking you should play the game the way it was meant to be played.

It just seems very weaselly. It'd be like arm-wrestling someone and spitting in his eye to distract him.
Or stealing your best friend's girlfriend.
Or bunting to get a base-hit to break up the opposing pitcher's potential perfect game in the 8th inning.
Or knuckle-ball pitchers.

I guess its usually "anything to win the game," but I still don't like it.

 

[Pheasant]

Your defense can show the attitude of a champion in overtime after the offense steps up to the plate and plays like a champion and drives down the field for the tying score in front of 100,000 Buckeye fans. You have no chance if Texas runs out the clock. You have some chance if you have the ball down 8. You control your own destiny. It's as simple as that.

Situations do come up where it is the best strategy. Last night was one. Genreally it's in a shoot out type game. Most coaches do not understand the importance of the clock in these situations- on both sides of the ball. I have seen Steve Marriuchi employ the strategy a couple of times. It's far from desirable, it just happens to be significantly better than the alternatives.

I wish we had won this game for 2 reasons, because obviously it sucks to lose, and also because the fucking morons wouldn't have come out of the woodwork if we had won.
This wasn't a shootout type of game. We showed all night that we couldn't drive and score a touchdown. It would have been nice to stop them at the 5 and have room to work....but the situation we were in (needing a field goal on the 1 with little time) was better than needing a touchdown and being on the 20 with more time.
Our best bet would have been to put Texas away earlier....why am I replying to this idiocy.
Somebody please delete this thread.

 

[crazybuckfan40]

Guys I quit posting in this thread after everyone just went on to say how idiotic the idea was, but I still think that it was a good idea.

Just a couple things about the end of the game. We let them get their biggest rushing play with a rb, when we really need a stop. That really hurt.

Then when we tried to stop them, we let about 20 seconds run off the clock when we didnt call timeouts quickly. And then it took the ref 20 sec. to spot the ball after the third down play. All of that was just weird to me especially at home.

Ok now back to ? at hand, in hindsight I am sure the coaches might of thought that they would kick a fg, if we stopped them still giving us a chance with the ko return and a chance to drive the field. Thinking there would be more than 25 sec. left.

My thinking was even if you sit there and stop them they could still go up 4 and you need to drive the length of the field to win. So I figured why not let them into the endzone, on one of the running plays, and get the ball back with a minute and half with 2 to's.

After the game we look back and say it might of been a better situation that we were in having 25 sec. and only needing a fg to win. I think Texas liked that situation b/c they knew how far we were backed up.

When I was in high school we were playing Kenton in Mauk's senior year. There was about a minute or so to go and all we needed was a first down to run out the clock, but they let our rb go for like a 60 yd. td to put us up by 8. They knew they would have a better chance to try and win the game, instead of just letting us get the first down and then take a knee. Luckily we picked off Mauk and we won, but man was I just screamin' for a rb to go down.

 

[BB73]

Why is this thread not deleted by now? It serves no purpose.

I think it's a legitimate discussion. At the time I wanted us to let Texas score, for the reasons that methomps and DaytonBuck explained. I don't believe it's a loser's mentality, it's trying to give yourself the best chance at a win. I was actually discussing it with a Texas fan in the stands.

He was happier giving us the ball, down by a point inside the 5 with less than 30 seconds to go, than he would have been having to kick off with an 8 point lead with about 2:20 to go.

If we would have scored in the last 2 minutes, tied the game with a 2-point conversion, and won it in overtime, everyone would be calling JT a genius; just like the time when Bill Belichick won a game by giving up an intentional safety to improve field position late in the game.

Would it have worked? Probably not. But in my opinion it would have slightly improved our odds of winning the game.

It's a valid discussion of coaching strategy. But it's unfortunate that CalFan, who started the thread, is a pompous prick.