• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Should have Let Them Score at End

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
I didn't read the whole thread word for word.....but i skimmed it. I don't think you let them score on the first play, but we should have let them score from the 1. I don't think anybody can argue that.....can they?
 
Upvote 0
smith288 said:
What makes anyone here believe our offense could even get a 2pt conversion with how OSU played in the Redzone?
Click to expand...

Well if you use that logic what makes you think that we could drive the field out of our own goalpost to get in field goal range.

I just like the option of having more time on the clock, and a one possession game.
 
Upvote 0
smith288 said:
What makes anyone here believe our offense could even get a 2pt conversion with how OSU played in the Redzone?
Click to expand...
you're right. I'm sure the gameplan would have been the same knowing we needed 8 points to tie. I bet Tress would have even brought the fieldgoal unit on after playing it conservatively the whole drive.

moron. :smash:
 
Upvote 0
coxew said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is a great point! I'm almost ashamed that I didn't think this through to such a logical end. Greenies to you!

Even if Brown ultimately decides to be conservative and go for 1, which I don't think he would have, as a coach you don't even want to give your opponent the opportunity to make such a decision.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad said:
This is a great point! I'm almost ashamed that I didn't think this through to such a logical end. Greenies to you!

Even if Brown ultimately decides to be conservative and go for 1, which I don't think he would have, as a coach you don't even want to give your opponent the opportunity to make such a decision.
Click to expand...

No way you go for two. You play the percentages and don't bank on them scoring and getting the two.
 
Upvote 0
Bestbuck36 said:
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!!!
Click to expand...

You blitz everyone. Either you stuff them for a big loss or they score.
 
Upvote 0
crazybuckfan40 said:
No way you go for two. You play the percentages and don't bank on them scoring and getting the two.
Click to expand...

So, you play not to lose, instead of playing to win. Maybe you are okay with that philosophy (after all it worked so well when Cooper was here :roll1: ), but I am not.


You blitz everyone. Either you stuff them for a big loss or they score.
Click to expand...

I like this approach the best. You play like a winner and give it everything you have. If they still beat you, then you lose to the better team, end of story.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad said:
This is a great point! I'm almost ashamed that I didn't think this through to such a logical end. Greenies to you!

Even if Brown ultimately decides to be conservative and go for 1, which I don't think he would have, as a coach you don't even want to give your opponent the opportunity to make such a decision.
Click to expand...

The odds on 2-pt conversions are a little less than 40%. Brown would have been smart to kick his PAT if he were up 7, forcing tOSU to go for 2 if we got a late TD. If Texas failed at a 2-point conversion, a TD let's us tie the game with just a kick, and then Brown's crucified for being stupid. He has a better chance at winning in regulation if he kicks the PAT to go up by 8.
 
Upvote 0
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.
Click to expand...

That scoring scenario comes up with some frequencey and I have never seen a coach go for two. As stated, the odds on a 2 point conversion are less than 50%. By going fot two and missing - leaving you up 7 - you have more than doubled the chances (however remote to begin with) of going to OT.
 
Upvote 0
FindlayBucks said:
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.
Click to expand...

Let's work through this then. Starting at the 1 with 19 seconds left, tOSU needed to get a FG. Obviously the first play is going to be a hail mary. I don't know Smith's arm strength (I assume Tressel put him in, in part, because he had the stronger arm). How far could he throw it? Midfield? That wouldn't be far enough, so I'll be optimistic about his abilities and we'll say he would get it to the Texas 40-yard line (that is a 60-yard throw from the goalline - by comparison, Flutie's hail mary was 64 yards, so 60 sounds about right). So it takes a play whose very name speaks to the success rate one can expect with it just to get to the Texas 40.

So Smith, being alert and well-coached by Tressel, has his linemen run down the field the instant he throws the ball. Hopefully nobody is injured, and tOSU spikes the ball. If tOSU has the ball on the 40-yard line, that is about a 55-yard FG for Huston. 55-yards isn't impossible, but it isn't easy. It's one of those end-game scenarios that legends are made of. Now I've seen miraculous hail mary passes win games. I've seen miraculous 50+yard FGs win games. Your prefered scenario (of the two options) would require both of those to be successful for tOSU.

The other scenario gives you a kick return, 2 timeouts, and 1 minute of play to score a touchdown and then convert the 2-point conversion. Your kickoff game was excellent, but we'll start at the 20 if you want.

So you're saying that back-to-back miracle plays is preferable to eighty yards in a minute with 2 timeouts plus a two-point conversion. You're also saying that to think otherwise is idiocy?

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by crazybuckfan40
No way you go for two. You play the percentages and don't bank on them scoring and getting the two.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

So, you play not to lose, instead of playing to win. Maybe you are okay with that philosophy (after all it worked so well when Cooper was here :roll1: ), but I am not.
Click to expand...

Whatever emasculating term you want to refer to it as, there is only one D1-A head coach I would genuinely be concerned would go for 2 in that situation, and that is Mike Leach of Texas Tech.
 
Upvote 0
If the "let them score on purpose" strategy is such a great idea, why would Texas choose to score in the first place?

Wouldn't they just take it down to the 1 foot line (presumably uncontested), take a knee, take two more knees on the one (again, presumably uncontested), then go for it on 4th down?
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top