The score should never have been close enough to need to worry about going for it on 4th down.
Where's all the risk takers now? I thought you wanted a coach with some balls. He went for it and failed. If he had scored, the pressure was on Vandy, and we would've had the momentum. Now, it's he should kick it. How about the times down on the goal line and he kicks it, but you scream he should have went for it???? Can't have it both ways. Hind sight is 20/20.
Where's all the risk takers now? I thought you wanted a coach with some balls. He went for it and failed. If he had scored, the pressure was on Vandy, and we would've had the momentum. Now, it's he should kick it. How about the times down on the goal line and he kicks it, but you scream he should have went for it???? Can't have it both ways. Hind sight is 20/20.
I see the logic in it. You need a TD either way. Get the first one so you know what you need IF you recover the inside kick.
I'm not defending him. I'm done doing that. It should have never come to that.
You needed both so either one you get first tells you what you need if your able to get the ball back.
Of all of the decisions Butch has made in games that have been questionable, I don't think this one is nearly the worst. If we had been down by 10, then he should have kicked. When you're down by 11, either decision is defensible, because, as has been said, you don't know if you're going to make the 2 later on. My issues with this game are the offense scoring no TDs in the second half and the defense continually getting creamed on 3rd down in the second half.
I know but... in theory.... if you get the TD first and fail on the 2pt try you know you need another TD on the next (unlikely) possession. If you do get the 2pts there is less pressure to only get a FG on the next possession.
Not saying it's the right call, just that I understand the logic. I'm not going to hold Jones' feet to the coals for that one decision. Again... it should have never come to having to make that decision.
No...
You absolutely have to kick the field goal right there.
But you get the FG, you live to play. You don't get the first down, as happened, you're done. I get Medley missed a chip shot, but you should like his chances with another chip shot as opposed to a probable long FG, if we are talking pressure.
Also I'd understand the call more if after a TO they had a better play called, but they do all that to run a play where the ball wasn't even thrown past the first down marker.
100% correct. Also, the throw to Kamara was a check down. But watch the play again in slow mo, Josh didn't even let his receivers make a break on their routes before he took the check down. Boyd appeared to be wide open over the middle. Also, they only rushed 4 and Dobbs could have easily ran for a 1st down or TD.You're right that a made FG extends the game, but another argument is, 'which decision gives you the best chance to win, not extend, win?' I think that one's open to debate. The FG means you have to drive down the field again and reach the end zone twice (TD and 2). You're already in the red zone. A TD plus a 2 here makes the next unlikely drive much easier. And, if you miss the 2 now, there's still time to overcome it, whereas the game is lost if you miss a tying 2 at the end. That said, if you don't feel comfortable about converting the 4th and 4, then I agree - kick the FG. My instinct at the time was to go for it until I saw the play.
It's not about the play call, it's about Clay Travis being flat out wrong. Being down 11 instead of 10 opens up another myriad of options. Down 10 the correct call is absolutely to kick the FG. But Clay doesn't care, he'll more $$, articles, and listeners out of a coaching search.
It was a bad decision because the failed 4th down conversion ended the game right there!
You want to extend the game for the hope something good happens.
Make the FG and you're still alive.