CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

Was Bronco’s decision to go for two a good decision?

by creative45 · 9/22/2012

Advertisement
C
creative45
I believe it was. If for no other reason then Bronco after considering the circumstance decided that it was and Coach Peterson agreed. And don’t think Coach Peterson was just saying that to cover for Bronco. Coach Peterson has back up that decision with action. You remember the Oklahoma game right?



Lets consider some other points. A false assumption is that we would have won in over time. Best that we could hope for was 50-50. Both offensives and kicking games sucked. Both defensives were great. Probably first one to miss a field goal would lose. You can’t really use momentum as a reason we would have won because momentum didn’t win it for us going for two and we only had a couple of yards to go instead of, I’m not sure where the ball starts in over time, out of field goal range.



And how’s this for a scenario? We go first and end up with a field goal. Boise gets the ball, executes one of Coach Petersons famous trick plays and scores on our defense. The defense shuts out Boise in regulation but loses the game in over time. This could have been absolutely devastating to our team. So, yes, going for two was a good decision just not a good result. That’s what happens with high rewards, comes high risk.
C
Cougy_Monster
I almost always side with the camp that says to go for 2 to win the game. You've just scored, so you have the momentum. The opposing defense is suffering from weakened confidence because, again, you just scored.



But this time I just groaned when I saw that we were going for 2. Our offense was unpredictable and even though we had just scored it sure didn't seem like we had a lot of confidence. Also, our D is a brick wall. There is no way in OT that BSU moves the ball.



But in the end the decision of whether to go for 2 or not wasn't even really the most important decision of the night. Its kind of like deciding which way to drive home drunk. It doesn't really matter -- you're already driving drunk. Our team was a disaster from so many poor decision PRIOR to the extra point vs 2 decision.
F
frdbtr
I've heard all the arguments. I still think it would have been wiser to kick the extra point and let the defense that had locked down BSU all night win the game for us.
Y
Y 4 Ever
My opinion: Right decision to go for 2. Wrong play call. Hill had just driven the length of the field on the power of his legs and Boise had NO answer for it. You have the ball at the 2 yard line. Run Hill.
S
scott715
Rule of thumb, went on the road go for the win. This move was our of character for Bronco who loves being safe. I applaud the move to go for it. In the long run, it is good.
Advertisement
J
Jarhead
In a game that has been somewhat back and forth and you're on the road against a strong opponent, I wouldn't fault going for 2. I typically prefer going for the extra point, but I can understand if the team goes for 2.



In a game where your offense has completely struggled (remember how they almost doubled their passing yard total for the game on that first catch of the last drive?), but managed to scrap together a game saving drive; I just don't like the odds of a two point conversion in general.



Other factors which influenced me to dislike the call:

-Inexperienced Freshman quarterback: Translation 1, less likely to convert due to less experience. Translation 2, a failed 2 point conversion wipes out the positive experience he just had in completing a game saving drive (in actually reality it doesn't completely, but internally for him, it will be hard for him to forget)

-No time outs left for BYU: Translation 1, you miss the conversion, you are almost guaranteed to lose; but if you make the conversion, Boise St. could still beat you in regulation (and they would be more motivated to do so). Translation 2, once you line up for the 2 point conversion you can't call timeout to change the play, or possible change your mind to go for 1 if you don't like what you see as far as Boise State's defensive alignment. Or how about being able to call timeout because you realized you just called what was primarily a pass play for a guy which had managed just 4 out of 10 completions in the game.

-Unstoppable defense, slightly better offense: this may be the best BYU defense I have ever seen, and it would have been miraculous if Boise State had managed to score on them in a tied ballgame with the remaining regulation. In overtime, our running quarterback offense with a little momentum was more likely to score on their defense than their offense on our defense.



And I'm not just monday morning coaching here. When I saw that they were going for 2, I was upset right then. If they had converted and won, I would have said that they made the wrong call, but were fortunate to win.



By the way, the decision to not do an onside kick was just stupid.



Oh and by the way, you don't have to be qualified to be a professional coach to be able to analyze a situation like this. Most of us have seen plenty of close games, and possibly played in many games, and we know the percentages involved in these situations.
V
vancouvercougar
Y 4 Ever wrote:
My opinion: Right decision to go for 2. Wrong play call. Hill had just driven the length of the field on the power of his legs and Boise had NO answer for it. You have the ball at the 2 yard line. Run Hill.


I would like to have seen a run by Hill with an option to Williams. If the run isn't there for Hill then he can pitch to Williams then block for him.
S
stuckinbig10country
People keep mentioning Hill being a freshman as a reason to go to overtime...i actually see that as a reason to go for 2. It's already all new to him, why put the extra pressure on him of overtime.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
J
jvquarterback
Odds of getting 2 on a pass < 50%. Odds of getting two on a run >50%.



If you go for 2 and fail with 3 minutes left and one timeout you should have tried an onside kick.



Poor coaching lost the game at the end. Riley Nelson lost it earlier in the game.
C
Cougarbib
Everyone contributed to the loss.



But consider this



Re no insides kick being stupid - if our lock-down defense had gotten a stop instead of giving up yet another big play - see end of Utah game - BYU would have gotten the ball back - opportunity for a big return - maybe we rely on that Rocket Arm and get TE loose deep or Hoff, maybe field goal kicker gets another shot.



It is a team sport.



Re going for two. I started yelling know when they called it. I mostly get why Bronco went. But I really wonder if he thought through the ZERO timeouts. That was why I was against going. Clock mgmt was an issue all game - penalties and confusion and wasted time-outs - see also Utah game. But it is a team sport. A missed block greatly reduced the chance of this working. Failing to see tight end was a missed opportunity.



I do think they should have Gone to Hill at least one drive sooner.



Maybe we would have scored with more time in the clock.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
Advertisement
J
Jarhead
Cougarbib wrote:

Re no insides kick being stupid - if our lock-down defense had gotten a stop instead of giving up yet another big play - see end of Utah game - BYU would have gotten the ball back - opportunity for a big return - maybe we rely on that Rocket Arm and get TE loose deep or Hoff, maybe field goal kicker gets another shot.


Maybe we actually recover the onside kick, and therefore we have a short field for our offense with over 3 minutes to score any way possible.



And if we don't recover the onside kick; our defense still has a chance to get a stop.
T
tww
Going for 2 made about the same amount of sense as gambling with the rent money. Though gutsy, even if you convert it is still crazy and irresponsible.



The argument that the offense had momentum and the BSU defense was on the ropes and demoralized just does not work. Going for 2 is like taking the points off the board and trying to get another touchdown because 6 points is the same as zero points. Going for 2 gave BSU new life and demoralized the offense that thought it had already tied the game.



There is no logical justification for going for 2. It was an act of desperation not calculation.
C
creative45
Here is a part of my post that no one has touched on, what happens if we make the extra point, go into overtime, we make a field goal, and our defense gives up a long touch down on a defensive break down. What does this do to the team and even the fan base?
C
creative45
tww wrote:
Going for 2 made about the same amount of sense as gambling with the rent money. Though gutsy, even if you convert it is still crazy and irresponsible.



The argument that the offense had momentum and the BSU defense was on the ropes and demoralized just does not work. Going for 2 is like taking the points off the board and trying to get another touchdown because 6 points is the same as zero points. Going for 2 gave BSU new life and demoralized the offense that thought it had already tied the game.



There is no logical justification for going for 2. It was an act of desperation not calculation.


Good arguments can be and have been made for going or not going for two. To say that its like gambling with the rent money or that there is no justification is to ignore the history of football. And what better team to illustrate this point then boise. Boise goes for the win, instead of the tie and a chance to go into over time against Oklahoma. Boise is famous for gambling on plays and have been criticized on this board for doing it. Boise faked a punt deep in their territory in this very game. Boise hasn't been successful on every gamble but they have experience high risk high rewards.



To say that points were taken off the board is just silly. During this touchdown drive we were never ahead or tied. Scoring 6 points allowed us the option to tie the score or go ahead and let our defense win the game by shutting boise down. Now if we had kick the extra point and made it but there was a defensive penalty and we decided to go for two instead of keeping the extra point then this argument makes sense.
N
northerncougar
Going for two was the worst possible decision Bronco could have made on Thursday. Worst possible.



Reasons:

1. We had no timeouts and a freshman QB. We didn't have the time to put something in place that gave us a great chance to win. Joe Dupaix had to grab Hill and push him out there with 22 seconds on the play clock, as he didn't even know we were going for two. Very, poor handling of this situation by our coaching staff. Huge mistake.



2. We had all the momentum. We had hit 68 straight PAT's to that point. Take the point and ride the momentum. Had we tied it up, we might have even been able to stop them and win in regulation.



3. Our Oline was moldy swiss cheese all game. The chance of them holding their ground was very low, which was proven by the RG getting blown up on that play. It had been happening all game. The first three plays were loss of yardage because our Oline couldn't keep the three man front out of our backfield. We had a much better chance to win in OT.



4. BSU didn't believe in their kicker. He missed his first and would have no confidence that he could make a FG. Our D stopped them all game in 4th down situations. Put the game on our D's back and let them win it for us.



5. BSU was on their heels trying to stop Hill. Carry that advantage into OT.



6. When the offense has been struggling all game, and then finally puts a drive together, you don't put them in a very high risk situation, when there are other, lower risk situations. I understand that coaches talk about going for two on the road to win, but going to OT at home. This was one that should have been the exact opposite. Everything about this situation screamed DON"T GO FOR 2!!!



I have been very critical of Bronco since this decision and rightfully so. But don't misunderstand me. I am not one who is calling for him to be fired. Just the opposite. Firing a coach means a year or two, at best for the team to recover. Our D is lights out and Bronco deserves all the credit for that, he now needs to fix the issues on offense. I believe he can, but his arrogance and emotions have prevented that so far. Hopefully he can fix it. Hopefully...
Advertisement
S
SenorCougar
Yes
C
creative45
northerncougar wrote:
Going for two was the worst possible decision Bronco could have made on Thursday. Worst possible.



The hyperbole of worst possible just doesn''t stand up. There are good reasons to go for two and good reasons to go for one. In fact a lot of your reasons not to go for two can be used to go for two.



Reasons:

1. We had no timeouts and a freshman QB. We didn't have the time to put something in place that gave us a great chance to win. Joe Dupaix had to grab Hill and push him out there with 22 seconds on the play clock, as he didn't even know we were going for two. Very, poor handling of this situation by our coaching staff. Huge mistake.



We have a freshman QB, why put him in the overtime situration when we can get two and let our defense stuff boise and win in regulation.



2. We had all the momentum. We had hit 68 straight PAT's to that point. Take the point and ride the momentum. Had we tied it up, we might have even been able to stop them and win in regulation.



We have all this momentum, why give boise a chance to figure it out in overtime. Get the win now in regulation before they adjust.



3. Our Oline was moldy swiss cheese all game. The chance of them holding their ground was very low, which was proven by the RG getting blown up on that play. It had been happening all game. The first three plays were loss of yardage because our Oline couldn't keep the three man front out of our backfield. We had a much better chance to win in OT.



Our Oline has been moldy swiss cheese all game. Instead of starting on the twenty five, lets start on the 2 1/2, win the game in regulation and go home.



4. BSU didn't believe in their kicker. He missed his first and would have no confidence that he could make a FG. Our D stopped them all game in 4th down situations. Put the game on our D's back and let them win it for us.



I'll give you this one.



5. BSU was on their heels trying to stop Hill. Carry that advantage into OT.



Can you really have 3 and 5? Either our offense is moldy swiss cheese and can't hold its ground or bsu is on their heels trying to stop Hill. Of course if bsu is on their heels trying to stop hill why not do it from 2 1/2 instead of the 25?



6. When the offense has been struggling all game, and then finally puts a drive together, you don't put them in a very high risk situation, when there are other, lower risk situations. I understand that coaches talk about going for two on the road to win, but going to OT at home. This was one that should have been the exact opposite. Everything about this situation screamed DON"T GO FOR 2!!!



Actually, I think everything screams get 2 in regulation, let the defense shut down boise and we go home.



I have been very critical of Bronco since this decision and rightfully so. But don't misunderstand me. I am not one who is calling for him to be fired. Just the opposite. Firing a coach means a year or two, at best for the team to recover. Our D is lights out and Bronco deserves all the credit for that, he now needs to fix the issues on offense. I believe he can, but his arrogance and emotions have prevented that so far. Hopefully he can fix it. Hopefully...



It sounds like what you are saying is I don't want Bronco fired as long as he does what I would do.
M
Mingjai
I've enjoyed reading Matt Zemek's breakdown of important coaching decisions at the Monday Morning QB column on CFN. This week, the entire column is about Bronco's decision to go for two--it's an excellent read.



http://cfn.scout.com/2/557921.html



Here's the crux of his analysis:


The heart of BYU's decision to go for two – why it was a justifiable but clearly wrong move – is based on the following contention, then: No matter what the pregame wisdom suggested, BYU faced a leverage-positive situation after its touchdown with 3:37 left. This was not a leverage-neutral position; BYU owned a clear upper hand due to game flow, Boise State's scoreless offense (make it score a point), and the Broncos' absence of a remotely reliable kicking game. Had the teams gone into overtime, for instance, Boise State would have needed at least one first down on its possession to merely gain a half-chance at a field goal.



You can toss around the half-dozen good reasons BYU had to go for two, and weigh them against the half-dozen reasons that militated against the two-point attempt, but they all fade away in terms of significance in the face of the one true consideration that matters: Who owns the leverage, if anyone? Reasonable people can disagree about the extent to which BYU owned leverage with 3:37 left, before Mendenhall's fateful decision, but no reasonable person should dispute the notion that BYU did own a majority of leverage for the remainder of regulation time (overtime is legitimately debatable) after the touchdown and before the conversion attempt.
B
BoiseBYU
Sheesh guys. Engaging in hyperbole does not make your case stronger or more correct. There are good arguments both ways. Even Chris Peterson said he'd have done the same and has done the same, but you guys know more than him too. I know the field goal kicker for BSU and when all is said and done, if we allows both teams five yards in three plays, I'm confident that the likelihood of the BSU kicker making a 37 yard FG is much greater than our guy on the road at that game and in front of that crowd Not very scientific I know, but that is where I come out. I'd do it again
B
BoiseBYU
Sheesh guys. Engaging in hyperbole does not make your case stronger or more correct. There are good arguments both ways. Even Chris Peterson said he'd have done the same and has done the same, but you guys know more than him too. I know the field goal kicker for BSU and when all is said and done, if we allow both teams five yards in three plays, I'm confident that the likelihood of the BSU kicker making a 37 yard FG is much greater than our guy on the road at that game and in front of that crowd Not very scientific I know, but that is where I come out. I'd do it again
Page 1 of 2
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.