TrueVol1970
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2021
- Messages
- 89
- Likes
- 217
Now we just have to hope that CJH learns that it's OK to kick field goals at times instead of chasing 1st downs when it's 4th down on the opponent's side of the field.
Honestly, I'm ok with the aggressiveness. Wasn't crazy about the deep shots at the end of the Purdue game (setting up a 40yd FG would have been better) but maybe that's what the defense dictated?
Ask Nick Saban about FGs vs TDs todayField goals matter and it can mean the difference between winning and losing, as demonstrated in the bowl game. I like aggressiveness at times when it's necessary but there were moments when Heupel just seemed to flat out refuse points when they were there for the taking. Yes, TD's are obviously better but it seems to me that odds of making a field goal are much higher than converting 4th downs into 1st downs.
That approach didn't work so well for Pruitt, who thought the way to save his job with a less talented team was to reduce the margin of loss.Now we just have to hope that CJH learns that it's OK to kick field goals at times instead of chasing 1st downs when it's 4th down on the opponent's side of the field.
I'm in the same boat as you. Loved the aggressive play calling this year. And I was frustrated with the deep shots at the end of the Purdue game as well. But then I heard some analysis on it and they mentioned that there was a good chance Purdue was defensively covering the middle short stuff and the deep pass was there, if only we could have hooked it up. You live by the sword, you die by the sword, I suppose. But all in all, this year's team was so much more fun to watch than since I can remember.Honestly, I'm ok with the aggressiveness. Wasn't crazy about the deep shots at the end of the Purdue game (setting up a 40yd FG would have been better) but maybe that's what the defense dictated?
I'm in the same boat as you. Loved the aggressive play calling this year. And I was frustrated with the deep shots at the end of the Purdue game as well. But then I heard some analysis on it and they mentioned that there was a good chance Purdue was defensively covering the middle short stuff and the deep pass was there, if only we could have hooked it up. You live by the sword, you die by the sword, I suppose. But all in all, this year's team was so much more fun to watch than since I can remember.
Field goals matter and it can mean the difference between winning and losing, as demonstrated in the bowl game. I like aggressiveness at times when it's necessary but there were moments when Heupel just seemed to flat out refuse points when they were there for the taking. Yes, TD's are obviously better but it seems to me that odds of making a field goal are much higher than converting 4th downs into 1st downs.
The thing is IF either of those passes had been completed, at the least it is a chip shot field goal or a TD. Then we would have all been talking about what a great call that was.Honestly, I'm ok with the aggressiveness. Wasn't crazy about the deep shots at the end of the Purdue game (setting up a 40yd FG would have been better) but maybe that's what the defense dictated?
I agree with the aggressiveness, but would've liked to seen him get yardage to make the kick easier. The devil's advocate to this is, on the second throw that's probably a TD if Tillman wasn't grabbed (Horrible no call). If they connect on that then other stuff is mute point in all likelihood.Honestly, I'm ok with the aggressiveness. Wasn't crazy about the deep shots at the end of the Purdue game (setting up a 40yd FG would have been better) but maybe that's what the defense dictated?
He sure tried! Go check last year's game against Alabama, when he dutifully kicked it every time it was short yardage. Doing his best to keep down the score, analytics be damned!It seemed every loss under Pruitt was a blowout, so I'm not sure you can say he was effective reducing the margin of loss.
The thing is IF either of those passes had been completed, at the least it is a chip shot field goal or a TD. Then we would have all been talking about what a great call that was.
I would have kicked the field goal on the first 4th down. But, that was not my call. I just am not sure a field goal keeps us in the game. Not whining but Stevie Wonder could see the ball crossed the goal line before the whistle.You don't hand your opponent a win in OT by field goal. You just don't. Also Purdue was one of the worst red zone offenses in the country.
I agree with this 100%. Also, you need a stout defense to bail you out when you don't make the first down. With our defense, it was almost insuring a score from the other team.Field goals matter and it can mean the difference between winning and losing, as demonstrated in the bowl game. I like aggressiveness at times when it's necessary but there were moments when Heupel just seemed to flat out refuse points when they were there for the taking. Yes, TD's are obviously better but it seems to me that odds of making a field goal are much higher than converting 4th downs into 1st downs.