(11-10-2014 10:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Say at Marshall in the fourth quarter we come down to 00:03 on the clock, down two points, LOS Marshall 40 yard line.

What's the call?

a. Farrimond 57 yard FG attempt
b. Hairston 57 yard FG attempt
c. Hail Mary
d. other (specify)

I don't know that Farrimond can make it from 57. If he could, I suspect he would have won the job out of camp because he is clearly solid from inside 40. I am confident that Hairston can, though I don't know the success rate. I feel pretty confident that it is better than the Hail Mary or some other flea-flicker.

Even a 5% chance is better than a Hail Mary (imo).... so yeah... assuming I'm right that Farrimond is suspect from there, Hairston would be my bet.

Of course, this is based on pretty slim actual knowledge. It just seems logical to me that if Farrimond were just as good as Hairston from 50+ that he would have gotten the job out of camp.

(11-10-2014 03:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 10:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Say at Marshall in the fourth quarter we come down to 00:03 on the clock, down two points, LOS Marshall 40 yard line.

What's the call?

a. Farrimond 57 yard FG attempt
b. Hairston 57 yard FG attempt
c. Hail Mary
d. other (specify)

I don't know that Farrimond can make it from 57. If he could, I suspect he would have won the job out of camp because he is clearly solid from inside 40. I am confident that Hairston can, though I don't know the success rate. I feel pretty confident that it is better than the Hail Mary or some other flea-flicker.

Even a 5% chance is better than a Hail Mary (imo).... so yeah... assuming I'm right that Farrimond is suspect from there, Hairston would be my bet.

Of course, this is based on pretty slim actual knowledge. It just seems logical to me that if Farrimond were just as good as Hairston from 50+ that he would have gotten the job out of camp.

We are dealing from the same knowledge we have been dealing from in the discussion of the failed 48 yard FG.

My thoughts on Farrimond vs. Hairston were that perhaps it was a decision between a more accurate kicker and a stronger kicker with greater range, and the latter got first shot.

But maybe not.

(11-10-2014 03:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 10:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Say at Marshall in the fourth quarter we come down to 00:03 on the clock, down two points, LOS Marshall 40 yard line.

What's the call?

a. Farrimond 57 yard FG attempt
b. Hairston 57 yard FG attempt
c. Hail Mary
d. other (specify)

I don't know that Farrimond can make it from 57. If he could, I suspect he would have won the job out of camp because he is clearly solid from inside 40. I am confident that Hairston can, though I don't know the success rate. I feel pretty confident that it is better than the Hail Mary or some other flea-flicker.

Even a 5% chance is better than a Hail Mary (imo).... so yeah... assuming I'm right that Farrimond is suspect from there, Hairston would be my bet.

Of course, this is based on pretty slim actual knowledge. It just seems logical to me that if Farrimond were just as good as Hairston from 50+ that he would have gotten the job out of camp.

Tend to agree . . .

(11-10-2014 10:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, if Farrimond makes a 51-yarder later this season, will that change the analysis any? what if he makes two?

Related question: Say at Marshall in the fourth quarter we come down to 00:03 on the clock, down two points, LOS Marshall 40 yard line.

What's the call?

a. Farrimond 57 yard FG attempt
b. Hairston 57 yard FG attempt
c. Hail Mary
d. other (specify)

It is an interesting question. One necessary piece of information is left out, and its something Joe Fan is not going to have at his disposal (and why speculation on this is somewhat pointless on this board).

That is, how far have Farrimond and Hairston made FG's in practice, and at one percentage accuracy?

I'm fairly certain our special teams coach and David Bailiff knew the answers to those questions before either player hits the field to make a FG attempt.

And my guess is that our FG attempts Saturday (particularly on 4th and forever) had much better chances of success than a hail Mary attempt, at least based on what the coaches knew from practices.

I think Hambone has a better feel for the odds than most of us, and even he wouldn't have as good a feel as our special team coaching staff.

(11-10-2014 10:49 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 10:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, if Farrimond makes a 51-yarder later this season, will that change the analysis any? what if he makes two?
Related question: Say at Marshall in the fourth quarter we come down to 00:03 on the clock, down two points, LOS Marshall 40 yard line.
What's the call?
a. Farrimond 57 yard FG attempt
b. Hairston 57 yard FG attempt
c. Hail Mary
d. other (specify)

It is an interesting question. One necessary piece of information is left out, and its something Joe Fan is not going to have at his disposal (and why speculation on this is somewhat pointless on this board).
That is, how far have Farrimond and Hairston made FG's in practice, and at one percentage accuracy?

I think most of us have a sufficiently good idea of the likely success rates of each of these options to engage in reasonable discussion. This is clearly a relevant question. I think the point was made above that all too often, coaches choose to try the field goal automatically, as the "safe" or "conservative" call, without considering the answer to your very relevant question. Note that I'm not saying that David Bailiff did that--I don't know the specific thought process--I'm offering that criticism of coaches in general.

Quote:And my guess is that our FG attempts Saturday (particularly on 4th and forever) had much better chances of success than a hail Mary attempt, at least based on what the coaches knew from practices.

But that does not consider all the relevant factors in the decision Saturday. And that's why the situation Saturday is different from the hypothetical. In the hypothetical, success on a, b, or c wins the game, failure loses. Therefore the only consideration is the likelihood of success. I'm pretty sure the field goal by your best kicker at that range would have the best chance, although into a heavy wind maybe not. I'm guessing at that distance it's Hairston, so that would be the choice.

The difference Saturday is that the consequences of success for the different options are not the same--up 10-0, a TD makes it a 3-possession game, a FG leaves it a 2-possession game--nor are the consequences of failure. Whatever happens, you have to keep playing the game afterwards. And since failure is the most likely outcome in all cases, then the varying consequences of failure have to be considered as well. I tried to put some numbers on the consequences of failure. That's the decision that needed to be made Saturday. And since the likely consequences of failure are worse with the FG attempt, that brings the other options far more into play than they are in the hypothetical.

(11-11-2014 03:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 10:49 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 10:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, if Farrimond makes a 51-yarder later this season, will that change the analysis any? what if he makes two?
Related question: Say at Marshall in the fourth quarter we come down to 00:03 on the clock, down two points, LOS Marshall 40 yard line.
What's the call?
a. Farrimond 57 yard FG attempt
b. Hairston 57 yard FG attempt
c. Hail Mary
d. other (specify)

It is an interesting question. One necessary piece of information is left out, and its something Joe Fan is not going to have at his disposal (and why speculation on this is somewhat pointless on this board).
That is, how far have Farrimond and Hairston made FG's in practice, and at one percentage accuracy?

I think most of us have a sufficiently good idea of the likely success rates of each of these options to engage in reasonable discussion. This is clearly a relevant question. I think the point was made above that all too often, coaches choose to try the field goal automatically, as the "safe" or "conservative" call, without considering the answer to your very relevant question. Note that I'm not saying that David Bailiff did that--I don't know the specific thought process--I'm offering that criticism of coaches in general.

Quote:And my guess is that our FG attempts Saturday (particularly on 4th and forever) had much better chances of success than a hail Mary attempt, at least based on what the coaches knew from practices.

But that does not consider all the relevant factors in the decision Saturday. And that's why the situation Saturday is different from the hypothetical. In the hypothetical, success on a, b, or c wins the game, failure loses. Therefore the only consideration is the likelihood of success. I'm pretty sure the field goal by your best kicker at that range would have the best chance, although into a heavy wind maybe not. I'm guessing at that distance it's Hairston, so that would be the choice.

The difference Saturday is that the consequences of success for the different options are not the same--up 10-0, a TD makes it a 3-possession game, a FG leaves it a 2-possession game--nor are the consequences of failure. Whatever happens, you have to keep playing the game afterwards. And since failure is the most likely outcome in all cases, then the varying consequences of failure have to be considered as well. I tried to put some numbers on the consequences of failure. That's the decision that needed to be made Saturday. And since the likely consequences of failure are worse with the FG attempt, that brings the other options far more into play than they are in the hypothetical.

+1. This past Saturday's situation was totally different than the hypothetical posed by OO above. And, again, many of you are failing to factor in the increased risk of a block on a long FG, which could have turned the game around at that point, and given UTSA all the momentum with plenty of time left. Given how well our defense was playing up to that point (and how poorly UTSA's offense was faring), I personally would have punted. Sure, people can point out that had the punt gone into the endzone for a touchback it would have only netted us 11 yards (since the FG was from the 31/32 yard line); however, I will again emphasize that a pooch kick in that situation (toward one of the sidelines) would have a VERY high probability of pinning the ball inside the 15 yard line (at the worst), if not even better.

IMO, attempting the 48/49 FG with Farrimond in that situation was high risk (i.e., the block) with little chance of reward (and the reward would only be 3 points and not change the course of the game as it would remain a 2-score game). Consequently, it made very little sense.

(11-11-2014 09:25 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 03:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 10:49 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 10:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, if Farrimond makes a 51-yarder later this season, will that change the analysis any? what if he makes two?
Related question: Say at Marshall in the fourth quarter we come down to 00:03 on the clock, down two points, LOS Marshall 40 yard line.
What's the call?
a. Farrimond 57 yard FG attempt
b. Hairston 57 yard FG attempt
c. Hail Mary
d. other (specify)

It is an interesting question. One necessary piece of information is left out, and its something Joe Fan is not going to have at his disposal (and why speculation on this is somewhat pointless on this board).
That is, how far have Farrimond and Hairston made FG's in practice, and at one percentage accuracy?

I think most of us have a sufficiently good idea of the likely success rates of each of these options to engage in reasonable discussion. This is clearly a relevant question. I think the point was made above that all too often, coaches choose to try the field goal automatically, as the "safe" or "conservative" call, without considering the answer to your very relevant question. Note that I'm not saying that David Bailiff did that--I don't know the specific thought process--I'm offering that criticism of coaches in general.

Quote:And my guess is that our FG attempts Saturday (particularly on 4th and forever) had much better chances of success than a hail Mary attempt, at least based on what the coaches knew from practices.

But that does not consider all the relevant factors in the decision Saturday. And that's why the situation Saturday is different from the hypothetical. In the hypothetical, success on a, b, or c wins the game, failure loses. Therefore the only consideration is the likelihood of success. I'm pretty sure the field goal by your best kicker at that range would have the best chance, although into a heavy wind maybe not. I'm guessing at that distance it's Hairston, so that would be the choice.

The difference Saturday is that the consequences of success for the different options are not the same--up 10-0, a TD makes it a 3-possession game, a FG leaves it a 2-possession game--nor are the consequences of failure. Whatever happens, you have to keep playing the game afterwards. And since failure is the most likely outcome in all cases, then the varying consequences of failure have to be considered as well. I tried to put some numbers on the consequences of failure. That's the decision that needed to be made Saturday. And since the likely consequences of failure are worse with the FG attempt, that brings the other options far more into play than they are in the hypothetical.

+1. This past Saturday's situation was totally different than the hypothetical posed by OO above. And, again, many of you are failing to factor in the increased risk of a block on a long FG, which could have turned the game around at that point, and given UTSA all the momentum with plenty of time left. Given how well our defense was playing up to that point (and how poorly UTSA's offense was faring), I personally would have punted. Sure, people can point out that had the punt gone into the endzone for a touchback it would have only netted us 11 yards (since the FG was from the 31/32 yard line); however, I will again emphasize that a pooch kick in that situation (toward one of the sidelines) would have a VERY high probability of pinning the ball inside the 15 yard line (at the worst), if not even better.

IMO, attempting the 48/49 FG with Farrimond in that situation was high risk (i.e., the block) with little chance of reward (and the reward would only be 3 points and not change the course of the game as it would remain a 2-score game). Consequently, it made very little sense.

I will throw some mud into the gears here. Anybody think we should of tried a fake FG or a fake punt and gone for it? If we are going to fake it, I would fake the FG, not the punt, as UTSA would not have been thinking return at all.

I kind of like this option last Saturday, not at all in my hypothetical.

(11-11-2014 10:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 09:25 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 03:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 10:49 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 10:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, if Farrimond makes a 51-yarder later this season, will that change the analysis any? what if he makes two?
Related question: Say at Marshall in the fourth quarter we come down to 00:03 on the clock, down two points, LOS Marshall 40 yard line.
What's the call?
a. Farrimond 57 yard FG attempt
b. Hairston 57 yard FG attempt
c. Hail Mary
d. other (specify)

It is an interesting question. One necessary piece of information is left out, and its something Joe Fan is not going to have at his disposal (and why speculation on this is somewhat pointless on this board).
That is, how far have Farrimond and Hairston made FG's in practice, and at one percentage accuracy?

I think most of us have a sufficiently good idea of the likely success rates of each of these options to engage in reasonable discussion. This is clearly a relevant question. I think the point was made above that all too often, coaches choose to try the field goal automatically, as the "safe" or "conservative" call, without considering the answer to your very relevant question. Note that I'm not saying that David Bailiff did that--I don't know the specific thought process--I'm offering that criticism of coaches in general.

Quote:And my guess is that our FG attempts Saturday (particularly on 4th and forever) had much better chances of success than a hail Mary attempt, at least based on what the coaches knew from practices.

But that does not consider all the relevant factors in the decision Saturday. And that's why the situation Saturday is different from the hypothetical. In the hypothetical, success on a, b, or c wins the game, failure loses. Therefore the only consideration is the likelihood of success. I'm pretty sure the field goal by your best kicker at that range would have the best chance, although into a heavy wind maybe not. I'm guessing at that distance it's Hairston, so that would be the choice.

The difference Saturday is that the consequences of success for the different options are not the same--up 10-0, a TD makes it a 3-possession game, a FG leaves it a 2-possession game--nor are the consequences of failure. Whatever happens, you have to keep playing the game afterwards. And since failure is the most likely outcome in all cases, then the varying consequences of failure have to be considered as well. I tried to put some numbers on the consequences of failure. That's the decision that needed to be made Saturday. And since the likely consequences of failure are worse with the FG attempt, that brings the other options far more into play than they are in the hypothetical.

+1. This past Saturday's situation was totally different than the hypothetical posed by OO above. And, again, many of you are failing to factor in the increased risk of a block on a long FG, which could have turned the game around at that point, and given UTSA all the momentum with plenty of time left. Given how well our defense was playing up to that point (and how poorly UTSA's offense was faring), I personally would have punted. Sure, people can point out that had the punt gone into the endzone for a touchback it would have only netted us 11 yards (since the FG was from the 31/32 yard line); however, I will again emphasize that a pooch kick in that situation (toward one of the sidelines) would have a VERY high probability of pinning the ball inside the 15 yard line (at the worst), if not even better.

IMO, attempting the 48/49 FG with Farrimond in that situation was high risk (i.e., the block) with little chance of reward (and the reward would only be 3 points and not change the course of the game as it would remain a 2-score game). Consequently, it made very little sense.

I will throw some mud into the gears here. Anybody think we should of tried a fake FG or a fake punt and gone for it? If we are going to fake it, I would fake the FG, not the punt, as UTSA would not have been thinking return at all.

I kind of like this option last Saturday, not at all in my hypothetical.

No, not with the distance we needed for a first down/TD. NO way a fake is going to get you 30 yards; especially not when the defense is backed up deep in their end of the field.

(11-11-2014 10:22 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 10:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 09:25 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 03:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 10:49 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  It is an interesting question. One necessary piece of information is left out, and its something Joe Fan is not going to have at his disposal (and why speculation on this is somewhat pointless on this board).
That is, how far have Farrimond and Hairston made FG's in practice, and at one percentage accuracy?

I think most of us have a sufficiently good idea of the likely success rates of each of these options to engage in reasonable discussion. This is clearly a relevant question. I think the point was made above that all too often, coaches choose to try the field goal automatically, as the "safe" or "conservative" call, without considering the answer to your very relevant question. Note that I'm not saying that David Bailiff did that--I don't know the specific thought process--I'm offering that criticism of coaches in general.

Quote:And my guess is that our FG attempts Saturday (particularly on 4th and forever) had much better chances of success than a hail Mary attempt, at least based on what the coaches knew from practices.

But that does not consider all the relevant factors in the decision Saturday. And that's why the situation Saturday is different from the hypothetical. In the hypothetical, success on a, b, or c wins the game, failure loses. Therefore the only consideration is the likelihood of success. I'm pretty sure the field goal by your best kicker at that range would have the best chance, although into a heavy wind maybe not. I'm guessing at that distance it's Hairston, so that would be the choice.

The difference Saturday is that the consequences of success for the different options are not the same--up 10-0, a TD makes it a 3-possession game, a FG leaves it a 2-possession game--nor are the consequences of failure. Whatever happens, you have to keep playing the game afterwards. And since failure is the most likely outcome in all cases, then the varying consequences of failure have to be considered as well. I tried to put some numbers on the consequences of failure. That's the decision that needed to be made Saturday. And since the likely consequences of failure are worse with the FG attempt, that brings the other options far more into play than they are in the hypothetical.

+1. This past Saturday's situation was totally different than the hypothetical posed by OO above. And, again, many of you are failing to factor in the increased risk of a block on a long FG, which could have turned the game around at that point, and given UTSA all the momentum with plenty of time left. Given how well our defense was playing up to that point (and how poorly UTSA's offense was faring), I personally would have punted. Sure, people can point out that had the punt gone into the endzone for a touchback it would have only netted us 11 yards (since the FG was from the 31/32 yard line); however, I will again emphasize that a pooch kick in that situation (toward one of the sidelines) would have a VERY high probability of pinning the ball inside the 15 yard line (at the worst), if not even better.

IMO, attempting the 48/49 FG with Farrimond in that situation was high risk (i.e., the block) with little chance of reward (and the reward would only be 3 points and not change the course of the game as it would remain a 2-score game). Consequently, it made very little sense.

I will throw some mud into the gears here. Anybody think we should of tried a fake FG or a fake punt and gone for it? If we are going to fake it, I would fake the FG, not the punt, as UTSA would not have been thinking return at all.

I kind of like this option last Saturday, not at all in my hypothetical.

No, not with the distance we needed for a first down/TD. NO way a fake is going to get you 30 yards.

All it has to do is get 11 to be a plus play. less likely to lose the extra 7 as a FG, some chance of scoring, some chance of making it inside the 20. Plus zero complaints of conservative play.

(11-11-2014 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 10:22 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 10:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 09:25 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 03:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think most of us have a sufficiently good idea of the likely success rates of each of these options to engage in reasonable discussion. This is clearly a relevant question. I think the point was made above that all too often, coaches choose to try the field goal automatically, as the "safe" or "conservative" call, without considering the answer to your very relevant question. Note that I'm not saying that David Bailiff did that--I don't know the specific thought process--I'm offering that criticism of coaches in general.


But that does not consider all the relevant factors in the decision Saturday. And that's why the situation Saturday is different from the hypothetical. In the hypothetical, success on a, b, or c wins the game, failure loses. Therefore the only consideration is the likelihood of success. I'm pretty sure the field goal by your best kicker at that range would have the best chance, although into a heavy wind maybe not. I'm guessing at that distance it's Hairston, so that would be the choice.

The difference Saturday is that the consequences of success for the different options are not the same--up 10-0, a TD makes it a 3-possession game, a FG leaves it a 2-possession game--nor are the consequences of failure. Whatever happens, you have to keep playing the game afterwards. And since failure is the most likely outcome in all cases, then the varying consequences of failure have to be considered as well. I tried to put some numbers on the consequences of failure. That's the decision that needed to be made Saturday. And since the likely consequences of failure are worse with the FG attempt, that brings the other options far more into play than they are in the hypothetical.

+1. This past Saturday's situation was totally different than the hypothetical posed by OO above. And, again, many of you are failing to factor in the increased risk of a block on a long FG, which could have turned the game around at that point, and given UTSA all the momentum with plenty of time left. Given how well our defense was playing up to that point (and how poorly UTSA's offense was faring), I personally would have punted. Sure, people can point out that had the punt gone into the endzone for a touchback it would have only netted us 11 yards (since the FG was from the 31/32 yard line); however, I will again emphasize that a pooch kick in that situation (toward one of the sidelines) would have a VERY high probability of pinning the ball inside the 15 yard line (at the worst), if not even better.

IMO, attempting the 48/49 FG with Farrimond in that situation was high risk (i.e., the block) with little chance of reward (and the reward would only be 3 points and not change the course of the game as it would remain a 2-score game). Consequently, it made very little sense.

I will throw some mud into the gears here. Anybody think we should of tried a fake FG or a fake punt and gone for it? If we are going to fake it, I would fake the FG, not the punt, as UTSA would not have been thinking return at all.

I kind of like this option last Saturday, not at all in my hypothetical.

No, not with the distance we needed for a first down/TD. NO way a fake is going to get you 30 yards.

All it has to do is get 11 to be a plus play. less likely to lose the extra 7 as a FG, some chance of scoring, some chance of making it inside the 20.

??? What the heck are you talking about? You don't risk a fake simply to get to the opposition's 20 yard line. You have a much, MUCH better chance of pinning UTSA inside their 10 or 15 yard line with a pooch or directional punt. One only does a fake punt if going for the first down. And I would argue that given the position on the field, with the defense bunched within the 30 yards to the end zone, it would be VERY difficult to even get 11 yards on a fake.

I was OK with the FG attempt, as I think Farrimond has the leg and the staff needs to gauge his comfort kicking from 40+. That said, I would have been intrigued by a fake FG, letting Driphus pooch kick (like they used to do on occasion with McHargue), or going wildowl and letting Bob punt it. From a psychological standpoint, I wanted some points after having 1st-and-goal from the 8.

(11-11-2014 10:27 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 10:22 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 10:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 09:25 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  +1. This past Saturday's situation was totally different than the hypothetical posed by OO above. And, again, many of you are failing to factor in the increased risk of a block on a long FG, which could have turned the game around at that point, and given UTSA all the momentum with plenty of time left. Given how well our defense was playing up to that point (and how poorly UTSA's offense was faring), I personally would have punted. Sure, people can point out that had the punt gone into the endzone for a touchback it would have only netted us 11 yards (since the FG was from the 31/32 yard line); however, I will again emphasize that a pooch kick in that situation (toward one of the sidelines) would have a VERY high probability of pinning the ball inside the 15 yard line (at the worst), if not even better.

IMO, attempting the 48/49 FG with Farrimond in that situation was high risk (i.e., the block) with little chance of reward (and the reward would only be 3 points and not change the course of the game as it would remain a 2-score game). Consequently, it made very little sense.

I will throw some mud into the gears here. Anybody think we should of tried a fake FG or a fake punt and gone for it? If we are going to fake it, I would fake the FG, not the punt, as UTSA would not have been thinking return at all.

I kind of like this option last Saturday, not at all in my hypothetical.

No, not with the distance we needed for a first down/TD. NO way a fake is going to get you 30 yards.

All it has to do is get 11 to be a plus play. less likely to lose the extra 7 as a FG, some chance of scoring, some chance of making it inside the 20.

??? What the heck are you talking about? You don't risk a fake simply to get to the opposition's 20 yard line. You have a much, MUCH better chance of pinning UTSA inside their 10 or 15 yard line with a pooch or directional punt. One only does a fake punt if going for the first down. And I would argue that given the position on the field, with the defense bunched within the 30 yards to the end zone, it would be VERY difficult to even get 11 yards on a fake.

It is arguable, although I prefer the word discussible. Still, say the holder fires a short pass to, say, Mayden. If incomplete, we have saved seven yard over a failed FG. If Mayden can run with it, he has a chance of going ALL! THE! WAY!. If tackled outside the 20, gave up a few yards compared to a failed punt. If tackled inside the 20, just as good as the successful pooch punt.

some of the pooch punts, both ours and the oppositions, have gone forever. When that ball is rolling and bouncing, no telling what it will do. sometimes it even bounces backwards. I don't see it as a given that it will be successfully executed.

Pooch punt certainly belongs in the mix for discussion. If we were to do that, shouldn't we take an intention five yard penalty first?

(11-11-2014 10:33 AM)mrbig Wrote:  From a psychological standpoint, I wanted some points after having 1st-and-goal from the 8.

And, it's precisely this reason that I try to avoid trips to Las Vegas.

Did anyone post the attendance figures for the game?

(11-11-2014 10:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Pooch punt certainly belongs in the mix for discussion. If we were to do that, shouldn't we take an intention five yard penalty first?

Perhaps the BEST idea (if you're going to punt it) is to let Farrimond try it, but snap it to him like a quick kick... or let him rugby to the right and essentially roll the ball downfield. Maybe do a run/pass/punt option. Let him decide if he can throw, run or punt the ball inside the 20...

I actually kinda like that idea.

The only reason you take the delay is to give yourself more room for a traditional high punt... but if you're aiming for the sidelines or essentially rolling the ball downfield, why bother with that. Heck... Maybe you take the delay and then still fake it from the punt formation. The delay might convince them enough that you're punting to make the 5 yards moot. That's probably not a great idea, but I like the idea of Farrimond with an option.

(11-11-2014 02:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 10:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Pooch punt certainly belongs in the mix for discussion. If we were to do that, shouldn't we take an intention five yard penalty first?

Perhaps the BEST idea (if you're going to punt it) is to let Farrimond try it, but snap it to him like a quick kick... or let him rugby to the right and essentially roll the ball downfield. Maybe do a run/pass/punt option. Let him decide if he can throw, run or punt the ball inside the 20...

I actually kinda like that idea.

The only reason you take the delay is to give yourself more room for a traditional high punt... but if you're aiming for the sidelines or essentially rolling the ball downfield, why bother with that. Heck... Maybe you take the delay and then still fake it from the punt formation. The delay might convince them enough that you're punting to make the 5 yards moot. That's probably not a great idea, but I like the idea of Farrimond with an option.

If my memory serves (it might not), I recall we ran a running play before the 2nd FG attempt, a play which needed a bunch (15/20?), gained a yard or two, but moved us away from the center to the hash. Farrimond appears to have the leg - with his kicks seemingly having the distance for 45+, but might not be as comfortable from the side?

(11-11-2014 01:56 PM)owl95 Wrote:  Did anyone post the attendance figures for the game?

21195

(11-11-2014 02:21 PM)NYNightOwl Wrote:  If my memory serves (it might not), I recall we ran a running play before the 2nd FG attempt, a play which needed a bunch (15/20?), gained a yard or two, but moved us away from the center to the hash. Farrimond appears to have the leg - with his kicks seemingly having the distance for 45+, but might not be as comfortable from the side?

Maybe. From distance, the hashes mean less, imo. I suspect we ran against what was likely deep dime coverage (man under with deep safety help?) hoping to get at least 5-10 making it a much easier kick rather than throw against dime and (likely) gain nothing... or at least not gain much more than we expected to gain by running. The difference for Farrimond between a 42 yarder and a 32 yarder is probably a rounding error.... and the probability of getting to 42 yards by running was probably higher. It just didn't work out right... and we STILL had a shot. Wasn't the 2nd FG 4th and goal from the 31 or so?

For clarity's sake, in college the defense takes over possession after a missed field at the previous spot (i.e., line of scrimmage) not at the spot of the kick. See Page FR-39:

http://www.dfoa.com/attachments/article/...e_Book.pdf

Quote:On an unsuccessful field goal attempt, if the ball is untouched by Team B after crossing the neutral zone and is declared dead beyond the neutral zone, the postscrimmage kick spot is:
(a) The previous spot, if the previous spot is on or outside Team B’s 20-yard line; (A.R. 10-2-3-V)
(b) Team B’s 20-yard line, if the previous spot is between Team B’s 20-yard line and its goal line.

The 'spot of the kick' rule is NFL-only.

(11-11-2014 04:14 PM)chrisc Wrote:  For clarity's sake, in college the defense takes over possession after a missed field at the previous spot (i.e., line of scrimmage) not at the spot of the kick. See Page FR-39:

http://www.dfoa.com/attachments/article/...e_Book.pdf

Quote:On an unsuccessful field goal attempt, if the ball is untouched by Team B after crossing the neutral zone and is declared dead beyond the neutral zone, the postscrimmage kick spot is:
(a) The previous spot, if the previous spot is on or outside Team B’s 20-yard line; (A.R. 10-2-3-V)
(b) Team B’s 20-yard line, if the previous spot is between Team B’s 20-yard line and its goal line.

The 'spot of the kick' rule is NFL-only.

In the 70's, the rule was that a FG was more like a punt... If it made the end-zone (or out of the end-zone) it came out to the 20. That's why you had so many 60+ yard attempts.

I think it'd be fun if they reinstated that, though perhaps bringing it out to the 25 or even 30 on a miss... Teams might also put a returner back there more often.

Might be fun