Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
11 minutes ago, TXpride said:

0-7 in the 3Q, ball at the 1 ft line. No coach in the country kicks a FG there.

That seems exactly backwards, and especially the play call.  (I don't think it was the 1 foot line either.)

We were in a 15 round slugfest where 10-14 points could have won it.  Read the room, Sark.

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, TXpride said:

0-7 in the 3Q, ball at the 1 ft line. No coach in the country kicks a FG there.

he wasn’t wrong to go for it on 4th down any of the five times, he just sucks at calling plays that don’t get stuffed at the LOS. you’d think he’d have a super deep arsenal of two-point/4th-and-short plays full of motion and deception where guys will get open and it will be a matter of pitch-and-catch, but nope; we just call a sneak of hand it off up the middle for no gain and let the defense get back out there where we pray they will score a TD for us. it’s baffling.

edited to add: think back to New England converting three consecutive 2-pt conversions in their all time super bowl comeback win, and on every single one of them it was the play design that made it happen. belichick was more than ready with a bag of plays designed to get 2-3 yards by getting your first read wide the fuck open with superior scheming and play calling. every play was pitch and catch. sark’s complete inability to convert in these moments has been shocking.

Edited by Derka
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

7-6 changes the complexion of the game. Arch going down the field leaves the field with 3 twice instead of zero, twice. That could have helped Arch’s confidence a bit. Who’s to say on the last drive if we only needed 3 to win vs 7 to tie it might have made a difference. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That seems exactly backwards, and especially the play call.  (I don't think it was the 1 foot line either.)

We were in a 15 round slugfest where 10-14 points could have won it.  Read the room, Sark.

The stats say 1 yard line, but when OSU got the ball it was on the 2... so? Either way, it was NOT 1'

Screenshot_20250830_183304_Chrome.thumb.jpg.7123cb65bbdd508680795e14888a9c46.jpg

 

Posted
1 minute ago, US183 said:

7-6 changes the complexion of the game. Arch going down the field leaves the field with 3 twice instead of zero, twice. That could have helped Arch’s confidence a bit. Who’s to say on the last drive if we only needed 3 to win vs 7 to tie it might have made a difference. 

It absolutely changes the game plan. Weird fonting shit when quoting you. 

Posted
20 minutes ago, TXpride said:

0-7 in the 3Q, ball at the 1 ft line. No coach in the country kicks a FG there.

No active coach.

Jim Tressel and Jeff Fisher both would.

Posted

A FG over going for it on 4th and goal from the 1 would have been deadpanned as a soft move and rightfully so. You will never be offered a better deal than 6 points at the cost of 1 yard. That Texas's offense had struggled to that point isn't an argument to kick the FG. It's an argument to take that chance because your odds of getting that kind of scoring opportunity again are slim to none. Texas knew this. Ohio State knew this. Ohio State converted on 4th and goal from the 1 and Texas didn't, and that was the margin. FGs would not have changed that. 

I don't even know what other situation this could be applied to. If you're seriously advocating trotting out a college kicker for a 60 yard field goal on 4th and 2, you are an idiot. If you're seriously arguing for kicking a FG down 14-0 in Q4, you are an idiot. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
9 minutes ago, Derka said:

he wasn’t wrong to go for it on 4th down any of the five times, he just sucks at calling plays that don’t get stuffed at the LOS. you’d think he’d have a super deep arsenal of two-point/4th-and-short plays full of motion and deception where guys will get open and it will be a matter of pitch-and-catch, but nope; we just call a sneak of hand it off up the middle for no gain and let the defense get back out there where we pray they will score a TD for us. it’s baffling.

edited to add: think back to New England converting three consecutive 2-pt conversions in their all time super bowl comeback win, and on every single one of them it was the play design that made it happen. belichick was more than ready with a bag of plays designed to get 2-3 yards by getting your first read wide the fuck open with superior scheming and play calling. every play was pitch and catch. sark’s complete inability to convert in these moments has been shocking.

Shits a little easier when Tom Brady is your qb

Posted
8 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

I don't even know what other situation this could be applied to. If you're seriously advocating trotting out a college kicker for a 60 yard field goal on 4th and 2, you are an idiot. If you're seriously arguing for kicking a FG down 14-0 in Q4, you are an idiot. 

 

I don't want to jump to conclusions here, but what's the verdict, then?

Posted

Sark fucked his team royally in this game. His playcalling sucked for 3Qs, and he refused to take points when he should. He kicks the two FGs and then gets the TD. He either is a 2-point conversion from a tie, or he has the ball at midfield when a FG wins the game. By 1-3 points. His in game strategy sucks when his playcalling is lacking.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

A FG over going for it on 4th and goal from the 1 would have been deadpanned as a soft move and rightfully so. You will never be offered a better deal than 6 points at the cost of 1 yard. That Texas's offense had struggled to that point isn't an argument to kick the FG. It's an argument to take that chance because your odds of getting that kind of scoring opportunity again are slim to none. Texas knew this. Ohio State knew this. Ohio State converted on 4th and goal from the 1 and Texas didn't, and that was the margin. FGs would not have changed that. 

I don't even know what other situation this could be applied to. If you're seriously advocating trotting out a college kicker for a 60 yard field goal on 4th and 2, you are an idiot. If you're seriously arguing for kicking a FG down 14-0 in Q4, you are an idiot. 

 

Fuck this. You never chase points until the 4Q when you are in a one score game.

Edited by HtownHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

Sark fucked his team royally in this game. His playcalling sucked for 3Qs, and he refused to take points when he should. He kicks the two FGs and then gets the TD. He either is a 2-point conversion from a tie, or he has the ball at midfield when a FG wins the game. By 1-3 points. His in game strategy sucks when his playcalling is lacking.

What makes you think we would convert a 2 pt conversion if we couldn't punch it in from 1/2 yard?

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, TXpride said:

What makes you think we would convert a 2 pt conversion if we couldn't punch it in from 1/2 yard?

So it's 14-12 and we have the ball at midfield where a FG wins the game, and we are running the ball on 3rd and maybe 4th down instead of relying on Manning.

Edited by HtownHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

Fuck this. You never chase points until the 4Q when you are in a one score game.

A touchdown ties the game and significantly increases your win probability. Kicking a FG, still needing a TD, and giving OSU the ball in standard field position vs. turning it over at the 1 is a negligible difference. Don't be stupid.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, HtownHorn said:

Fuck this. You never chase points until the 4Q. 

I don't think of going for it on 4th down as chasing points. I think of going for a 2 point conversion early in a game to create a certain point differential as chasing points. 

I didn't have a problem with either Texas or Ohio State going for the touchdown on 4th and goal. I didn't like the early 4th down conversion Sarkisian went for with Manning's QB sneak that worked. I didn't like the next 4th down conversion after crossing the 50, especially with this new punter and his ability to get the ball inside the 10 (a bit of a segue, but man I love our punter - why are we recruiting Americans for that role?). I didn't like the 4th down attempt by Ohio State that they would have converted if Max Klare hangs on to the ball. 

I am of the opinion that settling for field goals can get you beat. Obviously they have a time and place. 4th and short on the goal line is not it. 

BTW, on Ohio State's play where they converted for the touchdown Hill has an unblocked path through the hole, but he fell down without making contact with anyone. If instead he's able to standup the lead blocker or even make the tackle that doesn't get converted. Not trying to blame the play on Hill. It's bam bam and he's just trying to be disruptive in the backfield. But that play could have easily failed for them, too. It was still the right call on their part, IMO. They were wise not to call a quarterback keeper, unlike Texas. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, SL Xpress said:

I don't think of going for it on 4th down as chasing points. I think of going for a 2 point conversion early in a game to create a certain point differential as chasing points. 

I didn't have a problem with either Texas or Ohio State going for the touchdown on 4th and goal. I didn't like the early 4th down conversion Sarkisian went for with Manning's QB sneak that worked. I didn't like the next 4th down conversion after crossing the 50, especially with this new punter and his ability to get the ball inside the 10 (a bit of a segue, but man I love our punter - why are we recruiting Americans for that role?). I didn't like the 4th down attempt by Ohio State that they would have converted if Max Klare hangs on to the ball. 

I am of the opinion that settling for field goals can get you beat. Obviously they have a time and place. 4th and short on the goal line is not it. 

BTW, on Ohio State's play where they converted for the touchdown Hill has an unblocked path through the hole, but he fell down without making contact with anyone. If instead he's able to standup the lead blocker or even make the tackle that doesn't get converted. Not trying to blame the play on Hill. It's bam bam and he's just trying to be disruptive in the backfield. But that play could have easily failed for them, too. It was still the right call on their part, IMO. They were wise not to call a quarterback keeper, unlike Texas. 

Understood, but yeah it's chasing points when you can easily have 3, instead of 0. Sarkisian's 4th down playcalling is fucking abysmal. Has been since he got here.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, SL Xpress said:

I didn't like the early 4th down conversion Sarkisian went for with Manning's QB sneak that worked.

This is the only 4th down go/no go decision that should be scrutinized. It worked out, so it'll be forgotten, but turning the ball over to OSU on your own 35 is flirting with disaster and a new set of downs at your own 35 is not at all worth that risk even if you feel good about it. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, HtownHorn said:

Understood, but yeah it's chasing points when you can easily have 3, instead of 0. Sarkisian's 4th down playcalling is fucking abysmal. Has been since he got here.

Red zone issues are a noted problem. I think even the most rabid Sarkisian fan can acknowledge that. I think the most optimistic feel like it might be a Ewers issue, but I am not one of them. I guess my feeling is that we'll have to win even with Red Zone issues.

I think our team motto should be, "Nobody scores from the one yard line. Not even us!"

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's situational.  You're in a low-scoring slugfest with a great team on their field in front of 100K+ drunk rednecks.  Take the fucking points.

Wrong, again. Points are at a premium. You'll never have a better chance at a TD again and the downside of OSU getting the ball at their own 1 is negligible. Go for the TD.

The cost/benefit and impact on win probability is really, really clear cut.

Edited by gmr548
Posted
2 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

This is the only 4th down go/no go decision that should be scrutinized. It worked out, so it'll be forgotten, but turning the ball over to OSU on your own 35 is flirting with disaster and a new set of downs at your own 35 is not at all worth that risk even if you feel good about it. 

 

The success of it also rewards poor decision making. I thought it was dumb at the time, and I think it's even worse in retrospect. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

I can't question play calling when the QB couldn't hit a damn thing today.  How many more ints did you want Arch to be exposed to?  Bus first deep pass should have been picked.. practically everything he threw deep should have been picked

Posted
3 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

So it's 14-12 and we have the ball at midfield where a FG wins the game, and we are running the ball on 3rd and maybe 4th down instead of relying on Manning.

You're assuming we would've had the same opportunities if we kicked a FG. They wouldn't have been pinned in their own endzone, forcing them to go ultra conservative and giving us the ball right back at midfield. You're also assuming we make all of our FGs (last one would've been 60+ yards). The safer assumption is that we find a way to pick up half a yard.

Posted
2 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Wrong, again. Points are at a premium. You'll never have a better chance at a TD again and the downside of OSU getting the ball at their own 1 is negligible. Go for the TD.

The cost/benefit and impact on win probability is really, really clear cut.

Nope. You only go for it if you think this is your one chance, as the game played out we had multiple more chances to add points. If you want to go for it, fine, go for it after you already have points on the board. Plus you get in game reps for anew kicker. He kicks the FG there, he kicks the FG on the 4th and three, instead of shitty play call, and we are down one score instead of two.

Posted

He knows, but his compulsion to try and force a square peg into a round hole will not allow him to think practically. He wants the TD, not 3 pts. It's maddening. 

Doesn't matter, we will be fine moving forward. Our defense is elite. Arch can beat up on scrubs for 3 weeks to get some work in with Wingo, Moore, Endries, etc. We'll see where we stand when we face UF. 

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, TXpride said:

You're assuming we would've had the same opportunities if we kicked a FG. They wouldn't have been pinned in their own endzone, forcing them to go ultra conservative and giving us the ball right back at midfield. You're also assuming we make all of our FGs (last one would've been 60+ yards). The safer assumption is that we find a way to pick up half a yard.

60 yards? We had 4th and three inside the 10. What the fuck are you talking about? Or are you talking about the final drive where the playcalling would have been completely different trying to set up a FG instead of having to score a TD.

Edited by HtownHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, HtownHorn said:

Nope. You only go for it if you think this is your one chance, as the game played out we had multiple more chances to add points. If you want to go for it, fine, go for it after you already have points on the board. Plus you get in game reps for anew kicker. He kicks the FG there, he kicks the FG on the 4th and three, instead of shitty play call, and we are down one score instead of two.

What? It was in fact our one chance to get 6 points for gaining one yard, and you literally cannot get better value than that in football. 

Posted
1 minute ago, HtownHorn said:

60 yards? We had 4th and three inside the RZ. What the fuck are you talking about?

Your hypothetical when we're down 12-14.

Posted
Just now, TXpride said:

Your hypothetical when we're down 12-14.

It was 3rd and 5, and we aren't throwing the ball in that situation. We were throwing because we needed a TD instead of 10-15 more yards for a FG.

Posted
1 minute ago, HtownHorn said:

60 yards? We had 4th and three inside the 10. What the fuck are you talking about?

The failed 4th down on the first drive would have been a 60 yard kick.

Texas then had a 4th and goal from the 1 in Q3 down 7-0 and a 4th and 3 at the 9 down 14-0 in Q4.

None of these are the right place to kick a FG.

Posted
13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's situational.  You're in a low-scoring slugfest with a great team on their field in front of 100K+ drunk rednecks.  Take the fucking points.

That’s even more reason to go for it. You are unlikely to ever get a better chance than the ball at the 1 foot line. And if you kick a FG, you need a TD anyway for it to truly matter.

There is no way anyone can say with a serious face we should have kicked a field goal from the 1 foot line with what we had shown offensively up to that point.

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...