Late Fourth Q 4th and 1

Any disagreed with the call to go for it? Incredibly gutsy given if it didn't work it probably leads to a tie or a defeat. Fourth Q the Broncos were moving the ball, though and I thought that if they got the ball back the'd be able to move it downfield, especially since there were over 2 minutes left. So I was good with the call. But man that was a huge risk!

I thought it was the right call as well. Not much to lose whether you are 3-4 or 2-5 at the end of the day, with another 5 "exhibition" matches to come.

Sitake just told the defense "I do not trust you" But so what? Ain't nobody actually trusts the defense. I thought that if BYU would punt the ball they would ultimately lose. The only way to guarantee a win would be to make that first down so to that end I agreed with the call.

I agree with ABYUFAN. The defense had regressed to USF levels during the 4th quarter. They couldn't have stopped Boise if they got the ball back. So it really didn't matter if it was 30 yards or 80 yards they had to drive. Glad that it worked out. It would have been a disaster for the staff if it hadn't.

ABYUFAN wrote:

Sitake just told the defense "I do not trust you" But so what? Ain't nobody actually trusts the defense. I thought that if BYU would punt the ball they would ultimately lose. The only way to guarantee a win would be to make that first down so to that end I agreed with the call.

This is somewhat true ...

But it raises a couple of questions in my mind: 1) I read somewhere that KS essentially took over the DC duties for BSU game; is that true? 2) Was the 4th qtr defensive meltdown due to a) going to a "play not to lose" mentality and scheme, or b) lack of adjustments, or c) was our D just no longer executing?



If #1 above is true AND the answer to #2 is a) or b) then the problem with the D in the 4th qtr was KS. In which case, KS's lack of trust of the D reflect HORRIBLY on himself.



If the answer to #1 is false and the answer to 2 is a) or b) then the problem lies with Tuiaki. In which case, KS's lack of trust of the D should instead be clarified to be misplaced "confidence" or trust in Tuiaki ...



If the answer to 2 is c) then there is a team problem (that relates back to coaching). In which case the lack of trust can be overcome.



I"m i the camp of hoping the Cougs win out and KS has figured out how to have that chip on his shoulder and play with aggression, etc. IF he has or is figuring that out ... then I really hope he didn't have control of the D for the BSU game, because the other problems would be easier to fix ...

I Watched the game late on DVR or I would have commented.



I like the call and would not have complained had it not worked... I agree with the comments above. The D seemed to be struggling and that seemed to be the best chance to win.

The other thing to remember is regardless of our trust level in the D, Boise was on a roll. They're a very talented football team, and a good offense is hard to stop. The opportunity to win the game by gaining 1/2 yard was there, and they took it. I was sitting in the stands hoping they would go for it, because I honestly thought that if Boise got the ball, they would find a way.

I like the call. The same with going for 2 in the game with Puketah a few years ago and going for it in one of the Boise games. Ben Criddle said it well when he mentioned that the probability was high to get a few inches. Yes we could have been denied, but honestly, if you can't get a yard in 2 carries you don't deserve to win. I would have been skeptical of defense's ability to keep BSU out of the end zone in the 4th quarter seeing how they had scored.

I never did see who far it was for the 1st down on the 4th and 1. When they measured, the chain-lines indicated we had gotten the 1st down. My understanding is that the chains are the final word, not lines. Lines do get painted and I've never heard of them being wrong, but I did line work earlier in my life on the "chain gang" and I've never seen that overturned. I don't care if the ball didn't hit the 35 yard line. Also, I didn't see any conclusive shot from the camera showing the spot was wrong. Real questionable stuff there, especially with the game basically being held in the balance.

Less than one yard separated us from victory. If we couldn't get one yard we didn't deserve to win.

My brother and I had a raging argument about this in the stands leading up to and after the play. I was for it. We basically had the first down before the review (possibly because of chain shrinkage?), then they moved it back a little. It was like a foot or so. The decision should be based on the probability of picking up one foot vs. the probability of successfully punting the ball, stopping any return, and then holding Boise out of field goal range. There's a lot more things that have to go right in that second scenario, and I have to think with the scrum package the odds on the first scenario have got to be like 90%. So I was all about going for it. I even suggested scrum as what I would have called*.



My brother was thinking more along the lines of conventional wisdom, and that the only reason they would go for it is that their jobs were on the line and they had nothing else to lose. He continued to complain about the call even after we got the first down (again). And I get where he's coming from, but I think as we do more Moneyball-type analysis about play calls, we're going to see more going for it, and less kicking it---and hopefully better play calls to go with that. A lot of times I think the conventional, conservative approach is just wrong. Kicking on 4th and short, prevent defenses



*Now, Grimes was aggressive at all the right times in the 3rd quarter. Like, awesomely aggressive. He was seriously channeling his old boss, Les Miles. The 4th and 1 fake sneak seam route? The reverse flea flicker? That stuff was awesome. So, when I saw us try scrum close to the endzone and Boise just pack 11 players into the box, I knew there was one more thing that package needs to become truly awesome: a little fake dive jump pass to an end or Dayan Ghanwoloku or someone, who sneaks out into the open. If you call that on the 4th and 1 at the end of the game, you've truly embraced your inner mad scientist. You're either going to score a touchdown, or lose the game. I'm glad we just ran it, but at some point we've got to call that so that the opposing team has to keep some DBs in the formation and we can just push the pile.

EM_Puma wrote:

I never did see who far it was for the 1st down on the 4th and 1. When they measured, the chain-lines indicated we had gotten the 1st down. My understanding is that the chains are the final word, not lines. Lines do get painted and I've never heard of them being wrong, but I did line work earlier in my life on the "chain gang" and I've never seen that overturned. I don't care if the ball didn't hit the 35 yard line. Also, I didn't see any conclusive shot from the camera showing the spot was wrong. Real questionable stuff there, especially with the game basically being held in the balance.

Boise challenged the spot, not the measurement. The spot was over turned and the ball moved back.

I wanted them to go for it and end the game, I was shocked that he actually went for it. That was the gutsyest call I have ever seen and it worked. All of the announcers both Greg Wrubell, Riley Nelson and both the ESPN announcers could not believe it was happening, and it worked.

frdbtr wrote:

I never did see who far it was for the 1st down on the 4th and 1. When they measured, the chain-lines indicated we had gotten the 1st down. My understanding is that the chains are the final word, not lines. Lines do get painted and I've never heard of them being wrong, but I did line work earlier in my life on the "chain gang" and I've never seen that overturned. I don't care if the ball didn't hit the 35 yard line. Also, I didn't see any conclusive shot from the camera showing the spot was wrong. Real questionable stuff there, especially with the game basically being held in the balance.

Boise challenged the spot, not the measurement. The spot was over turned and the ball moved back.

Thanks, but no, I understood that. There were actually 2 issues on this play. The spot and the fact that even though the ball wasn't touching exactly the 35 yard line that if the ball were on that spot and the chains deemed it a first down, then it was a first down. The TV announcers were saying that if the ball didn't touch the 35, then it couldn't be a 1st down. Theoretically, that is true, but regardless, whatever the chains say is the final word.



It's simply crazy that it was believed that they could change the spot from what was being shown on TV, because we were talking mere inches. Regardless, the next play put us over and won us the game and took it out of the hands of the MWC officials.

I'm not talking about what the TV announcers said, I'm talking about what the refs announced. The ref said "Boise is challenging the spot" which was reviewed and the ball moved backwards, which made it 4th down. The chain ruling was not over turned,

ABYUFAN wrote:

Sitake just told the defense "I do not trust you" But so what? Ain't nobody actually trusts the defense. I thought that if BYU would punt the ball they would ultimately lose. The only way to guarantee a win would be to make that first down so to that end I agreed with the call.

Maybe it was more, "Offense you've done nothing in the 4th Q, here is your chance to redeem yourselves and win the game for us...." ;)

If anyone still has the game on DVR, I want to get some additional opinions on the second down spot. It looked to me that we passed the line to gain but we got a bad spot. Maybe his knee was down and I couldn't see it, but I could have sworn on second down we easily passed the marker. My theory is since they gave us a bad spot on second, they tried to help us out before the challenge. Had we received a good spot on second down, there wouldn't have been all of this drama.

lucfish wrote:

If anyone still has the game on DVR, I want to get some additional opinions on the second down spot. It looked to me that we passed the line to gain but we got a bad spot. Maybe his knee was down and I couldn't see it, but I could have sworn on second down we easily passed the marker. My theory is since they gave us a bad spot on second, they tried to help us out before the challenge. Had we received a good spot on second down, there wouldn't have been all of this drama.

I went to BYUTV.org and watched the play . to me it looks like a pretty good spot, Finau rolls past the line but it looks like his head is just short of the 35 yard line when it looks like he is down - although we only get one angle of the play so at best it's inconclusive. In any event I don't see anything in the replay that leads me to believe that it was a bad spot.

I didn't realize the game was available, thanks for pointing that out. Yeah, it looked like he rolled a couple yards, so it made it look like he was further than I expected.