With 6:49 to go, why kick a FG down 16?

Donate To GopherHole
E

El Amin Fan

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
2,987
Reaction score
980
Points
113
I realize converting on 4th down isn't easy, but it seems like percentage wise, we had a better chance to convert on 4th, score two TDs and convert two 2-point plays, then hit the FG, and score two TDs. Obviously both scenarios are remote, but go for the win, which seems like going for it on 4th down. Semantics yes, but curious what others think.
 

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

I was furious at that call. It was a two score game, it stayed a two score game. That told me the coach decided that giving us the best shot to win the game was less important than him reducing the margin of defeat to take the pressure off himself.
 


El Amin Fan said:
I realize converting on 4th down isn't easy, but it seems like percentage wise, we had a better chance to convert on 4th, score two TDs and convert two 2-point plays, then hit the FG, and score two TDs. Obviously both scenarios are remote, but go for the win, which seems like going for it on 4th down. Semantics yes, but curious what others think.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's like Kill is playing some odds like we have a top tier QB. We had some momentum and we needed to play to win. Reminded me of the bowl game last year where he ran out the clock before the half- playing to be close, not win.
 



The call made no sense at all. I realize that 4th and forever is a low percentage play but I would rather take my chances with my offense on the field then kick a meaningless field goal and put all my faith on a super low percentage onside kick. Even if you recover the kick you are still down 2 TD's and now have the ball on your own side of the 50 with even less time on the clock still needing two TD's.

The only thing you gain by kicking the field goal is that you eliminate the need for 2pt conversions but doesn't change the fact that with even less time on the clock you still have to find a way to score 2 more TD's.
 

Can someone explain the holding call that was called a few plays before the field goal. Was it legit? Because Nebraska was holding a good amount and to call it there is ridiculous unless it was obvious.
 

IIRC that holding penalty was legit. Grabbed the DT by the collar and threw him to the ground.

HATED the FG.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 




The biggest play on that drive was that Nebraska should have been called for PI against Eric Carter in the endzone. Their DB ran into him and never turned his head.

At the time of the FG, we were down 38-22 and it was 4th and 15. The chances of us converting 4th and 15, scoring a TD, getting the 2 pt conversion, scoring another TD, and getting a 2nd 2 pt conversion are what? By kicking the FG, it would have at least allowed us to win if (big If) we scored 2 TDs.

If we kicked the FG on 4th and 5 I would have been pissed. Not so much on 4th and 15.
 

Limey is god awful


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I didn't have a problem with it. It was 4th and forever and by going for the FG you made it so you didn't need 2 successful 2xp as well.
 



Two point conversions run around 40 percent. Decent odds. Fourth and long is tough but much higher percentage than recovering an onside kick.
 

Was fine with it, as it made it a two offensive play game instead of 3-4. I might have done the onside right away after the FG.
 

DarrenTheGreek said:
I didn't have a problem with it. It was 4th and forever and by going for the FG you made it so you didn't need 2 successful 2xp as well.
Click to expand...

Here is why I didn't like it.

The chances of us converting the 4th and 19 or whatever it was: 10%

Chances of us making a FG, then getting the ball back two more times and scoring TDs on both of those drives: 1%.

You have to go for the end zone when you have the opportunity, especially when you have our offense, and especially when the NCAA has made it basically impossible to convert a successful onsides kick.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Two point conversions run around 40 percent. Decent odds. Fourth and long is tough but much higher percentage than recovering an onside kick.
Click to expand...

If 2xp conversions are 40pct then the odds of getting two of them in a row is 16pct. The odds of getting two 1xp is about 99 pct. We had them at 3rd and 6 with 5 min left. If we had forced an incompletion our odds would have been much higher than just 2 minutes prior. All a moot point now but at the time I thought it was the right call.
 

Indefensible decision IMO. Not sure how anybody could rationalize it.
 

Call was extra good when it was followed by not using the last timeout before their field goal.
 

How many Gopher pass plays have gone for more than 15 yards this year?
 

RockinRanger said:
Call was extra good when it was followed by not using the last timeout before their field goal.
Click to expand...

That was crazy too...letting a full 30 seconds or so run off the clock made little to no sense there. Very frustrating game all the way around.
 


Stan The Caddy said:
What does that matter? As Faux Pelini stated, it turned a 2 score game into a 2 score game.
Click to expand...

Honestly, because I think the chances of the Gophers converting a 4th and 15 are about the same as getting the ball back twice and scoring 13...
 

John Galt said:
At the time of the FG, we were down 38-22 and it was 4th and 15. The chances of us converting 4th and 15, scoring a TD, getting the 2 pt conversion, scoring another TD, and getting a 2nd 2 pt conversion are what? By kicking the FG, it would have at least allowed us to win if (big If) we scored 2 TDs.

If we kicked the FG on 4th and 5 I would have been pissed. Not so much on 4th and 15.
Click to expand...

+1. It was only a 2 possession game if we successfully converted both 2 pt conversions. Like Pompous Elitist said, the odds of converting a conversion are about 40%, so the odds of converting two 2 pt conversions is 16%. Therefore, it is very likely it was already a 3 possession game and the odds of converting 4th and 15 are quite low.
 

DarrenTheGreek said:
If 2xp conversions are 40pct then the odds of getting two of them in a row is 16pct. The odds of getting two 1xp is about 99 pct. We had them at 3rd and 6 with 5 min left. If we had forced an incompletion our odds would have been much higher than just 2 minutes prior. All a moot point now but at the time I thought it was the right call.
Click to expand...

With the way our defense was playing I'd rather only have to get one more stop and be able to run down the clock on the tying score, to force overtime. They were banking on getting two stops and two TD drives in 6 or so minutes. Now that is long odds.

I think the probability of completing a 15 yard fourth down pass is not as low as some of you think. Mitch was playing pretty well, we have some big boys that can get the ball, and their pass D is not the best.
 

If you convert the 1st down on 4th and 15, and you score a TD on that drive, a 2 pt conversion, and do the same again before time runs out, you are only tied.
If you kick the FG, get the onside kick, you're down 13 with the ball and 6 mins left. That's a better scenario to be faced with. Yeah, you're starting 25 yards farther back on the potential scoring drive, but you have a fresh set of downs. Then, 2 TD drives wins the game rather than puts into OT.
 

You can argue the call but settle down if that really upset you. I thought it was the right call at the time. Stop them and get a Td and now down 6 when they felt they'd won and given their problems at the end of games. Could have been interesting.
 

It was a no win situation, in more ways than one. I said kick the field goal before they sent the field goal team in, which in this crowd makes me an idiot. I believe there was almost six minutes left when the field goal was made. I would not have tried the onside kick at that point. Gotta kick deep and get a three and out. At that point you have the ball back with about four and half minutes left. Sure it was a long shot, but so is 4th and 15 trying to score 2 td's and 2 two point conversions. Kill was in a no win situation at this point of the game. Only Mich St. could have pulled todays game out with the situation we were in.
 

If Kill thought he had to onside kick at that point (he did), then there was absolutely zero sense in kicking a field goal.


If he had kicked a field goal and then kicked it deep, I would disagree but understand it. But if kill knew he didn't have time to get the ball back twice without an onside kick it is an absolutely stupid decision to kick a field goal.


The field goal strategy says we still have time.
The onside kick says we don't.
Doing both says we had no strategy in mind.
 

gopher7 said:
Here is why I didn't like it.

The chances of us converting the 4th and 19 or whatever it was: 10%

Chances of us making a FG, then getting the ball back two more times and scoring TDs on both of those drives: 1%.

You have to go for the end zone when you have the opportunity, especially when you have our offense, and especially when the NCAA has made it basically impossible to convert a successful onsides kick.
Click to expand...

Lmao. Reread this. The call was meh for me, i get why he did it, not what I would have done. Jerry operates with a different deck when it comes to time management and I think it's very telling about what he thinks of our ability to score consistently.

That said. You compared the probability of one play to the probability of 3 series of football. Let's quit being strib reporters and admit that the probability of us winning at that point was next to nothing in that situation, regardless of the decision to go for it.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom