(10-22-2017 11:26 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  I have been on the coaching staff since the Miami game. I don't want them fired but we need to see improvement next year from the staff in key situations.

They coach with very little confidence in their own players. The reason they didn't go for the win in the end regulation because they were afraid of their QB turning the ball over and losing the game. The entire OT period was designed to not lose the game and guess what they did because Moore was trying to do too much again in a key situation.

I think the big concern is that this staff doesn't have the type of experienced needed to win at UC. Coming from power five programs hurts you when you are coaching in the American. At this level its all about winning with similar level players in an offensive minded league.

The players play hard and the team doesn't quit. They are doing well recruiting but this still seems like a long term rebuild. I almost think this staff is going to be fired after year three or four but will leave the next regime a lot of talent to win with. Right now I think UC finishes the year with 4 or 5 wins if they get some good breaks in the last four games. Next year there is real a chance at 6 wins and bowl game if UC can hold serve at home against Miami Ohio (PBS) , Ohio University, Alabama A&M, Tulane, and ECU. At that point you only need to beat UConn, Temple, or SMU on the road. Year three is scary because the non-conference schedule includes UCLA, at Ohio State, at Marshall. Road games at USF, Memphis, and Houston make the league schedule very difficult by AAC standards. Even if the team is really good at that point you are still looking at 5-7 wins based on the schedule again.

I am guessing that this year finishes 4-8, followed by two 6-6 seasons. Will that be enough to be keep the fans happy and coaching staff employed?

your first sentence really jumped out at me

(10-22-2017 11:26 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(10-22-2017 10:39 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 09:23 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  Last week folks are pissed we try the Hail Mary at the end of the half. Now they play it safe and don't let Hayden try and fling it downfield (which is his weakness ala last week. And 95% of his passing plays are short dunks over the middle to runningbacks or sideline shots to a receiver 5 to 9 yards downfield) and now folks are pissed they didn't get aggressive.

This place is hysterical. Fickell is horrible! Our recruits are gonna start decommitting! The ones we have gotten are insignificant anyway!

We didn;t try a hail mary last week. We ran a pass 30 yards from the endzone with zero time on the clock. Only bad things could happen. I'd have been thrilled had they tried a hail mary. The instructions to Moore last week should have been either (1) Throw it as far as you can towards the endzone or (2) Throw it away. In between should not have been an option on that play.

I disagree that 95% of his passed are short dunks. Moore is a good down field passer. Also 57 seconds is an eternity in football when the clock stops every first down. It was coaching malpractice to run the ball 2 times and go to OT when you had the chance to win the game without SMU's offense ever touching the ball again. This is especially true because SMU has a really good offense and a weak defense. That was just awful from the staff.

As for Moore... it's a bad play in OT but I get it. You're trying to win the game and the UC field goal kicking has been dreadful. As a UC fan I was absolutely convinced we were going to lose on a missed field goal. I had no confidence that our kicker would finish. I wish our coaches had been more aggressive there with a chance to win the game but instead we got conservative in OT just like the end of regulation.

The good news is losing v. winning yesterday has little to do with the long term success of this staff. Need to upgrade the talent, need to continue to develop the guys they have. Team is fighting, staff mostly has had good gameplans until the key moments. Plenty to be encouraged by long term, but the staff has to make better decisions during the key moments.

I have been on the coaching staff since the Miami game. I don't want them fired but we need to see improvement next year from the staff in key situations.

They coach with very little confidence in their own players. The reason they didn't go for the win in the end regulation because they were afraid of their QB turning the ball over and losing the game. The entire OT period was designed to not lose the game and guess what they did because Moore was trying to do too much again in a key situation.

I think the big concern is that this staff doesn't have the type of experienced needed to win at UC. Coming from power five programs hurts you when you are coaching in the American. At this level its all about winning with similar level players in an offensive minded league.

The players play hard and the team doesn't quit. They are doing well recruiting but this still seems like a long term rebuild. I almost think this staff is going to be fired after year three or four but will leave the next regime a lot of talent to win with. Right now I think UC finishes the year with 4 or 5 wins if they get some good breaks in the last four games. Next year there is real a chance at 6 wins and bowl game if UC can hold serve at home against Miami Ohio (PBS) , Ohio University, Alabama A&M, Tulane, and ECU. At that point you only need to beat UConn, Temple, or SMU on the road. Year three is scary because the non-conference schedule includes UCLA, at Ohio State, at Marshall. Road games at USF, Memphis, and Houston make the league schedule very difficult by AAC standards. Even if the team is really good at that point you are still looking at 5-7 wins based on the schedule again.

I am guessing that this year finishes 4-8, followed by two 6-6 seasons. Will that be enough to be keep the fans happy and coaching staff employed?

NO! Year 3 anything less than 8-4 will. Mean Luke is gone or many boosters will be. I can tell you the Club natives are already restless.

Inherited a much better roster and a far healthier program and 7-5 got Tubby an extension in year 3.

No one is getting fired for a .500 or better record in year 3 of this full-on sh!tshow of a rebuild.

Lord, I wish people had listened to what was actually going on and were not all In Tubby We Trust idiotic mode in 2013.

How many others felt the embarrassing blowout years ago down at USF was the beginning of the end for Tubs? It felt like a tipping point to me when I saw a UC team so poorly prepared and unwilling (or unable) to compete. Unfortunately, the buyout cost meant the program and fans had to suffer until December 2016 aboard his sinking ship.

I really had Dantonio flashbacks Saturday night. An undermanned defense gave great effort and held UC in the game against a potent offense. But the offensive play calling at critical times was mind numbing.

Coaching must get better for sure. Some QB's have a knack for engineering a game winning drive. That almost happened and this would have been a very different thread filled with jubilation and bowl predictions. We witnessed the razor thin margin between winning and losing. As some have said, the bye week comes at the right time.

Even if Fickell never wins here (which I don't believe will be the case), we are married to him for the long haul. The university's buyout doesn't drop below $2M until 6 years.

http://www.fox19.com/story/34380501/luke...-fox19-now

(10-22-2017 09:54 PM)doss2 Wrote:  

(10-22-2017 11:26 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(10-22-2017 10:39 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 09:23 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  Last week folks are pissed we try the Hail Mary at the end of the half. Now they play it safe and don't let Hayden try and fling it downfield (which is his weakness ala last week. And 95% of his passing plays are short dunks over the middle to runningbacks or sideline shots to a receiver 5 to 9 yards downfield) and now folks are pissed they didn't get aggressive.

This place is hysterical. Fickell is horrible! Our recruits are gonna start decommitting! The ones we have gotten are insignificant anyway!

We didn;t try a hail mary last week. We ran a pass 30 yards from the endzone with zero time on the clock. Only bad things could happen. I'd have been thrilled had they tried a hail mary. The instructions to Moore last week should have been either (1) Throw it as far as you can towards the endzone or (2) Throw it away. In between should not have been an option on that play.

I disagree that 95% of his passed are short dunks. Moore is a good down field passer. Also 57 seconds is an eternity in football when the clock stops every first down. It was coaching malpractice to run the ball 2 times and go to OT when you had the chance to win the game without SMU's offense ever touching the ball again. This is especially true because SMU has a really good offense and a weak defense. That was just awful from the staff.

As for Moore... it's a bad play in OT but I get it. You're trying to win the game and the UC field goal kicking has been dreadful. As a UC fan I was absolutely convinced we were going to lose on a missed field goal. I had no confidence that our kicker would finish. I wish our coaches had been more aggressive there with a chance to win the game but instead we got conservative in OT just like the end of regulation.

The good news is losing v. winning yesterday has little to do with the long term success of this staff. Need to upgrade the talent, need to continue to develop the guys they have. Team is fighting, staff mostly has had good gameplans until the key moments. Plenty to be encouraged by long term, but the staff has to make better decisions during the key moments.

I have been on the coaching staff since the Miami game. I don't want them fired but we need to see improvement next year from the staff in key situations.

They coach with very little confidence in their own players. The reason they didn't go for the win in the end regulation because they were afraid of their QB turning the ball over and losing the game. The entire OT period was designed to not lose the game and guess what they did because Moore was trying to do too much again in a key situation.

I think the big concern is that this staff doesn't have the type of experienced needed to win at UC. Coming from power five programs hurts you when you are coaching in the American. At this level its all about winning with similar level players in an offensive minded league.

The players play hard and the team doesn't quit. They are doing well recruiting but this still seems like a long term rebuild. I almost think this staff is going to be fired after year three or four but will leave the next regime a lot of talent to win with. Right now I think UC finishes the year with 4 or 5 wins if they get some good breaks in the last four games. Next year there is real a chance at 6 wins and bowl game if UC can hold serve at home against Miami Ohio (PBS) , Ohio University, Alabama A&M, Tulane, and ECU. At that point you only need to beat UConn, Temple, or SMU on the road. Year three is scary because the non-conference schedule includes UCLA, at Ohio State, at Marshall. Road games at USF, Memphis, and Houston make the league schedule very difficult by AAC standards. Even if the team is really good at that point you are still looking at 5-7 wins based on the schedule again.

I am guessing that this year finishes 4-8, followed by two 6-6 seasons. Will that be enough to be keep the fans happy and coaching staff employed?

NO! Year 3 anything less than 8-4 will. Mean Luke is gone or many boosters will be. I can tell you the Club natives are already restless.

Our Boosters better open up their checkbooks if they already want him fired. How delusional must they be to think that this team was going to go out and shock the world?

Next year is critical as this year is the last year of the Club Seats 3 year commitment.

(10-23-2017 09:01 AM)doss2 Wrote:  Next year is critical as this year is the last year of the Club Seats 3 year commitment.

Yeah, we barely get the money to pay the $5M for a new scoreboard that's been needed for a decade, but somehow the fat wallets are going to pony up the $9.1M to fire him next year and the cash to hire someone else.

GTFOH.

we dont need a miracle genius coaching to right the ship. if we can just eliminate stupid penalties/mistakes and play fundamentally sound, along with better game management from the coaches would go a LONG way to calming down rational fans. not asking all that much which is why people are frustrated. the talent level is what it is and we all know that by now. ucf/usf are a ways off, but games like SMU have to claw out a win.

this is what we expected this season but it looks like its going to take fickell 2-3 years to get there. hopefully by the time he gets there we'll also have the upgraded talent to compete for a conference title.

(10-23-2017 06:44 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Inherited a much better roster and a far healthier program and 7-5 got Tubby an extension in year 3.

No one is getting fired for a .500 or better record in year 3 of this full-on sh!tshow of a rebuild.

Lord, I wish people had listened to what was actually going on and were not all In Tubby We Trust idiotic mode in 2013.

'15 was the weakest 7-5 record that any team has ever posted. It was obvious by the second half of that season that Tubs was done here, maybe not contractually, but in terms of ever having a competitive team.

(10-22-2017 10:39 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 09:23 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  Last week folks are pissed we try the Hail Mary at the end of the half. Now they play it safe and don't let Hayden try and fling it downfield (which is his weakness ala last week. And 95% of his passing plays are short dunks over the middle to runningbacks or sideline shots to a receiver 5 to 9 yards downfield) and now folks are pissed they didn't get aggressive.

This place is hysterical. Fickell is horrible! Our recruits are gonna start decommitting! The ones we have gotten are insignificant anyway!

We didn;t try a hail mary last week. We ran a pass 30 yards from the endzone with zero time on the clock. Only bad things could happen. I'd have been thrilled had they tried a hail mary. The instructions to Moore last week should have been either (1) Throw it as far as you can towards the endzone or (2) Throw it away. In between should not have been an option on that play.

I disagree that 95% of his passed are short dunks. Moore is a good down field passer. Also 57 seconds is an eternity in football when the clock stops every first down. It was coaching malpractice to run the ball 2 times and go to OT when you had the chance to win the game without SMU's offense ever touching the ball again. This is especially true because SMU has a really good offense and a weak defense. That was just awful from the staff.

As for Moore... it's a bad play in OT but I get it. You're trying to win the game and the UC field goal kicking has been dreadful. As a UC fan I was absolutely convinced we were going to lose on a missed field goal. I had no confidence that our kicker would finish. I wish our coaches had been more aggressive there with a chance to win the game but instead we got conservative in OT just like the end of regulation.

The good news is losing v. winning yesterday has little to do with the long term success of this staff. Need to upgrade the talent, need to continue to develop the guys they have. Team is fighting, staff mostly has had good gameplans until the key moments. Plenty to be encouraged by long term, but the staff has to make better decisions during the key moments.

Moore is averaging 5.6ish yards per attempt. That's like 118th or something in the country. It's mostly short slants over the middle or someone running a sideline route 5 to 9 yards from the LOS. Sure, there are some shots downfield, but it's rare. These quick shot passes keep Moore from tipping off the defense from staring down his primary receiver. Last week, Moore stared down his main guy, threw it too early, and the defense ate it up for a pick six. Which probably led to them aiming for overtime yesterday. Don't risk Moore telegraphing his throw on a shot downfield.

Our defense held them to a field goal, which is probably what the staff was expecting, given how the defense was playing.

People keep using this "coaching" buzzword. I get it, we had some clock and timeout issues earlier in the season. But I've got no complaints on that front as of late. Last week I think we had double digit penalties, as did USF. This weekend we only had 6, SMU had 7. That's improvement. All our receivers had severe cases of the dropsies earlier in the year. I don't remember a blatant should-have-had-it drop from our guys this week, and that Pinkney catch stands out to me. Improvement. Play calling? People wanted aggressive after Tuberville, so they take a shot last week, Moore stared his guy down, throws it early and short, it gets picked. This week they learn from that and don't take the longshot with Moore, but instead take it to OT since for most of the second half the defense had been bending but not breaking. Besides, our running game was having a far better day than our passing game, at least with Doaks and Warren. In OT we don't have to drive down the whole field, it puts Hayden right near the endzone, no need for crazy downfield shots. Now, I wasn't a huge fan of the runs to start our OT possession, but I'm not going to condemn them for it. Had Hayden held on to the ball we still would have had a shot at a second OT. The staff is damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Regardless, this bye week is much needed and quite timely. If we can get past Tulanes offense, we got a real shot at a bowl, and the 15 practices that come with it. Any chance for our coaches to KEEP coaching improvement and set us up better for next year. The future is bright.

(10-23-2017 10:35 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  Play calling? People wanted aggressive after Tuberville, so they take a shot last week, Moore stared his guy down, throws it early and short, it gets picked. This week they learn from that and don't take the longshot with Moore, but instead take it to OT since for most of the second half the defense had been bending but not breaking. Besides, our running game was having a far better day than our passing game, at least with Doaks and Warren. In OT we don't have to drive down the whole field, it puts Hayden right near the endzone, no need for crazy downfield shots. Now, I wasn't a huge fan of the runs to start our OT possession, but I'm not going to condemn them for it. Had Hayden held on to the ball we still would have had a shot at a second OT. The staff is damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

You do understand the significant difference between allowing your QB to throw a ball in the field of play with ZERO seconds on the clock and giving him multiple chances with 53 seconds and a timeout, right?

The problem with last week is you either tell your QB that he throws it as far as he can for a hail mary or he throws it away. If you don't think he can make that long a throw, take a knee. There was ZERO upside to what they ran. ZERO. You aren't getting a touchdown, only bad things can happen. It's on the staff to tell your QB that you cannot make that kind of throw BEFORE it happens... even if it is a complete pass its an idiotic, risky play.

This week they had 53 seconds against a bad defense, only needing a field goal. Moore had not thrown a pick up to that point and didn't have to make a risky play because he could play for OT if things weren't there. Not giving your team a chance to win there is bad coaching any way you slice it. It's by far the riskier play, but too often coaches are poor at weighing risk / reward...they think in worst case scenario instead of thinking in terms of what gives them the best chance of winning.

(10-23-2017 10:42 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 10:35 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  Play calling? People wanted aggressive after Tuberville, so they take a shot last week, Moore stared his guy down, throws it early and short, it gets picked. This week they learn from that and don't take the longshot with Moore, but instead take it to OT since for most of the second half the defense had been bending but not breaking. Besides, our running game was having a far better day than our passing game, at least with Doaks and Warren. In OT we don't have to drive down the whole field, it puts Hayden right near the endzone, no need for crazy downfield shots. Now, I wasn't a huge fan of the runs to start our OT possession, but I'm not going to condemn them for it. Had Hayden held on to the ball we still would have had a shot at a second OT. The staff is damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

You do understand the significant difference between allowing your QB to throw a ball in the field of play with ZERO seconds on the clock and giving him multiple chances with 53 seconds and a timeout, right?

The problem with last week is you either tell your QB that he throws it as far as he can for a hail mary or he throws it away. If you don't think he can make that long a throw, take a knee. There was ZERO upside to what they ran. ZERO. You aren't getting a touchdown, only bad things can happen. It's on the staff to tell your QB that you cannot make that kind of throw BEFORE it happens... even if it is a complete pass its an idiotic, risky play.

This week they had 53 seconds against a bad defense, only needing a field goal. Moore had not thrown a pick up to that point and didn't have to make a risky play because he could play for OT if things weren't there. Not giving your team a chance to win there is bad coaching any way you slice it. It's by far the riskier play, but too often coaches are poor at weighing risk / reward...they think in worst case scenario instead of thinking in terms of what gives them the best chance of winning.

I just don't agree. I just don't see Hayden Moore driving us down the field 60 something yards in a hurry. It's too big a risk, maybe they could have dink and dunked there way downfield, but I have no problem giving our running game a chance to keep playing the way they had, and see if they break a big one and get us closer. If not, rely on the play of our defense and automatically put our offense on their 25 or whatever the OT starting point is.

(10-23-2017 07:51 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Even if Fickell never wins here (which I don't believe will be the case), we are married to him for the long haul. The university's buyout doesn't drop below $2M until 6 years.

http://www.fox19.com/story/34380501/luke...-fox19-now

If he doesn't win here it will not be due to:

1. Hiring a bunch or retreads from the south with little to no connections to this region.

2. Coasting and spending his time on the links.

3. Not putting in effort to fight recruiting battles.

4. Not instilling an attitude transplant of all out effort.

We may never be where we were under Kelly or even Jones again. I'm not worried about what CLF is doing, though. He's checking off all the boxes the last d-bag didn't.

(10-23-2017 11:00 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 10:42 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 10:35 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  Play calling? People wanted aggressive after Tuberville, so they take a shot last week, Moore stared his guy down, throws it early and short, it gets picked. This week they learn from that and don't take the longshot with Moore, but instead take it to OT since for most of the second half the defense had been bending but not breaking. Besides, our running game was having a far better day than our passing game, at least with Doaks and Warren. In OT we don't have to drive down the whole field, it puts Hayden right near the endzone, no need for crazy downfield shots. Now, I wasn't a huge fan of the runs to start our OT possession, but I'm not going to condemn them for it. Had Hayden held on to the ball we still would have had a shot at a second OT. The staff is damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

You do understand the significant difference between allowing your QB to throw a ball in the field of play with ZERO seconds on the clock and giving him multiple chances with 53 seconds and a timeout, right?

The problem with last week is you either tell your QB that he throws it as far as he can for a hail mary or he throws it away. If you don't think he can make that long a throw, take a knee. There was ZERO upside to what they ran. ZERO. You aren't getting a touchdown, only bad things can happen. It's on the staff to tell your QB that you cannot make that kind of throw BEFORE it happens... even if it is a complete pass its an idiotic, risky play.

This week they had 53 seconds against a bad defense, only needing a field goal. Moore had not thrown a pick up to that point and didn't have to make a risky play because he could play for OT if things weren't there. Not giving your team a chance to win there is bad coaching any way you slice it. It's by far the riskier play, but too often coaches are poor at weighing risk / reward...they think in worst case scenario instead of thinking in terms of what gives them the best chance of winning.

I just don't agree. I just don't see Hayden Moore driving us down the field 60 something yards in a hurry. It's too big a risk, maybe they could have dink and dunked there way downfield, but I have no problem giving our running game a chance to keep playing the way they had, and see if they break a big one and get us closer. If not, rely on the play of our defense and automatically put our offense on their 25 or whatever the OT starting point is.

You also automatically put their offense in field goal range and put the risk of depending on our kicking game to match theirs.

This kind of attitude is why teams down 4 with 2 minutes left win more often than teams down 3 with 2 minutes left. Teams down 4 have to play for the win. Teams down 3 play for OT hoping they'll win there, but taking advantage of having the ball last is huge in football.

Risk of a turnover is still there in OT, but in regulation Moore can work anything beyond ten yards down the middle and the entire sidelines. He doesn't have to force anything, because going to OT is not a bad result. A field goal wins the game and the other team may not get the ball back. The numbers say playing for OT is a riskier play, but coaches are bad at weighing risk, because they weight it by worst case scenario.... if they run, they view worst case as going to OT and if they throw they view it as losing in regulation. But having a chance to win without SMU getting the ball is a HUGE advantage...where the reward far outweighs the risk.

(10-23-2017 11:00 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 10:42 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 10:35 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  Play calling? People wanted aggressive after Tuberville, so they take a shot last week, Moore stared his guy down, throws it early and short, it gets picked. This week they learn from that and don't take the longshot with Moore, but instead take it to OT since for most of the second half the defense had been bending but not breaking. Besides, our running game was having a far better day than our passing game, at least with Doaks and Warren. In OT we don't have to drive down the whole field, it puts Hayden right near the endzone, no need for crazy downfield shots. Now, I wasn't a huge fan of the runs to start our OT possession, but I'm not going to condemn them for it. Had Hayden held on to the ball we still would have had a shot at a second OT. The staff is damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

You do understand the significant difference between allowing your QB to throw a ball in the field of play with ZERO seconds on the clock and giving him multiple chances with 53 seconds and a timeout, right?

The problem with last week is you either tell your QB that he throws it as far as he can for a hail mary or he throws it away. If you don't think he can make that long a throw, take a knee. There was ZERO upside to what they ran. ZERO. You aren't getting a touchdown, only bad things can happen. It's on the staff to tell your QB that you cannot make that kind of throw BEFORE it happens... even if it is a complete pass its an idiotic, risky play.

This week they had 53 seconds against a bad defense, only needing a field goal. Moore had not thrown a pick up to that point and didn't have to make a risky play because he could play for OT if things weren't there. Not giving your team a chance to win there is bad coaching any way you slice it. It's by far the riskier play, but too often coaches are poor at weighing risk / reward...they think in worst case scenario instead of thinking in terms of what gives them the best chance of winning.

I just don't agree. I just don't see Hayden Moore driving us down the field 60 something yards in a hurry. It's too big a risk, maybe they could have dink and dunked there way downfield, but I have no problem giving our running game a chance to keep playing the way they had, and see if they break a big one and get us closer. If not, rely on the play of our defense and automatically put our offense on their 25 or whatever the OT starting point is.

It's not like Moore hadn't completed a pass all game. But even if you agree that the running game was the right way to go in that situation (which I don't), you can't tell me that you agree with who they were handing the ball off to can you? When the running game was working, it was because of Warren and Doaks.

We had two chances to go for the win and in both cases it appeared that the coaches were satisfied playing for the tie. That's a great way to lose a game in my opinion.

(10-23-2017 11:00 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 10:42 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 10:35 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  Play calling? People wanted aggressive after Tuberville, so they take a shot last week, Moore stared his guy down, throws it early and short, it gets picked. This week they learn from that and don't take the longshot with Moore, but instead take it to OT since for most of the second half the defense had been bending but not breaking. Besides, our running game was having a far better day than our passing game, at least with Doaks and Warren. In OT we don't have to drive down the whole field, it puts Hayden right near the endzone, no need for crazy downfield shots. Now, I wasn't a huge fan of the runs to start our OT possession, but I'm not going to condemn them for it. Had Hayden held on to the ball we still would have had a shot at a second OT. The staff is damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

You do understand the significant difference between allowing your QB to throw a ball in the field of play with ZERO seconds on the clock and giving him multiple chances with 53 seconds and a timeout, right?

The problem with last week is you either tell your QB that he throws it as far as he can for a hail mary or he throws it away. If you don't think he can make that long a throw, take a knee. There was ZERO upside to what they ran. ZERO. You aren't getting a touchdown, only bad things can happen. It's on the staff to tell your QB that you cannot make that kind of throw BEFORE it happens... even if it is a complete pass its an idiotic, risky play.

This week they had 53 seconds against a bad defense, only needing a field goal. Moore had not thrown a pick up to that point and didn't have to make a risky play because he could play for OT if things weren't there. Not giving your team a chance to win there is bad coaching any way you slice it. It's by far the riskier play, but too often coaches are poor at weighing risk / reward...they think in worst case scenario instead of thinking in terms of what gives them the best chance of winning.

I just don't agree. I just don't see Hayden Moore driving us down the field 60 something yards in a hurry. It's too big a risk, maybe they could have dink and dunked there way downfield, but I have no problem giving our running game a chance to keep playing the way they had, and see if they break a big one and get us closer. If not, rely on the play of our defense and automatically put our offense on their 25 or whatever the OT starting point is.

In that situation no way I ask Moore to try to win the game. We would've lost by a field goal in regulation. The kid is like a nuclear reactor meltdown waiting to happen in crunch time.

He gets the yips over 3 foot putts when they are for $$.

I haven't gone through all 34 pages in this thread, but did anyone else think about going for the on-side kick after tying up the score 28-28?

Normally I would not be in agreement with that strategy in that situation, but with our defense and SMU's offense I just felt the odds were not favorable for us to match them in OT. We were kicking off from the 50 due to the penalty for the hit out of bounds, meaning we would have gotten the ball on their side of the field if we recovered the kickoff.

(10-23-2017 12:47 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I haven't gone through all 34 pages in this thread, but did anyone else think about going for the on-side kick after tying up the score 28-28?

Normally I would not be in agreement with that strategy in that situation, but with our defense and SMU's offense I just felt the odds were not favorable for us to match them in OT. We were kicking off from the 50 due to the penalty for the hit out of bounds, meaning we would have gotten the ball on their side of the field if we recovered the kickoff.

I had the same thought after where the ball was placed for kickoff from the SMU penalty. I guess the thought was even an onside kick from that point could give their offense the ball at the 40. An offense that is well built for a 60 second drill.

(10-23-2017 01:05 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 12:47 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I haven't gone through all 34 pages in this thread, but did anyone else think about going for the on-side kick after tying up the score 28-28?

Normally I would not be in agreement with that strategy in that situation, but with our defense and SMU's offense I just felt the odds were not favorable for us to match them in OT. We were kicking off from the 50 due to the penalty for the hit out of bounds, meaning we would have gotten the ball on their side of the field if we recovered the kickoff.

I had the same thought after where the ball was placed for kickoff from the SMU penalty. I guess the thought was even an onside kick from that point could give their offense the ball at the 40. An offense that is well built for a 60 second drill.

I'm fine with how they played that part but that would have been a very reasonable risk.