Chase McGrath returning - Definitely good news!

#3

37620VOL

Barely-Known Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
4,613
Likes
6,677
#3
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?
 
#4

Brave Volunteer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
15,184
Likes
14,035
#4
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?
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.
 
#5

mtvols

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
780
Likes
481
#5
Look there are several receivers out on the route so maybe the others were covered and Hooker decided to try the long pass to Tillman. You can’t put it all on the coach.
 
#6

OrangeTsar

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
5,804
Likes
11,783
#6
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.
Ask Nick Saban about FGs vs TDs today 😉
 
#7

kckempf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
690
Likes
778
#7
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.
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.
 
#8

BOC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Messages
67
Likes
186
#8
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.
 
#9

TitanicVolz

SoFaKing AweSome
Joined
May 21, 2013
Messages
1,107
Likes
2,444
#9
Man I still think Heupel being where he was,literally knew that the ref would throw that flag.It was borderline criminal the way Tillman got held that game,and being so obvious Hype had to think they get the flag.Why else go back to that same play in that scenario.Hopefully he learned,like stated that taking the FG is okay in that scenario.
 
Likes: Warriorvol
#10

Brave Volunteer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
15,184
Likes
14,035
#10
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.
My biggest issue with how Heupel handled the game at the end was the fact that we ended regulation with 2 unused timeouts. I don't understand why you don't slow the game down there. At that point, you're not playing the other team. You're playing the clock. Running hurry up there at the end and not using our timeouts cost us plays. I read somewhere that they estimated that Heupel wasted about 14 seconds by not slowing the game down and using his timeouts. 14 seconds could've made all the difference in the world in terms of allowing a much more manageable field goal at the end.
 
#11

VolGee4

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2012
Messages
24,609
Likes
27,330
#11
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.
Depends on where on the field and how many yards to go. I don't recall Heupel going for anything outlandish. College kickers are so inconsistent, too.

I'm not suggesting that he's infallible, and I think even he would say he would take back a few decisions. But the aggressiveness beats what we had the 3 years before that.
 
#12

imw8n4u

RT -WAB-HSHTM--G-O-R-T--RT-TN
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
1,351
Likes
3,059
#12
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.
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.
 
#14

Vol524

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
3,083
Likes
4,697
#14
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?
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.
 
#16

Bassplayer30074

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2017
Messages
199
Likes
262
#16
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.
 
#18

kckempf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
690
Likes
778
#18
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.
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!
 
#19

Brave Volunteer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
15,184
Likes
14,035
#19
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.
And IF Huepel had used his 2 remaining timeouts, it would've given us more time/chances to get closer. Also IF Heupel had kicked the FG in OT instead of going for it on 4th down...TWICE, we might have forced it into a 2nd overtime.
 
#22

VolGee4

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2012
Messages
24,609
Likes
27,330
#22
Sometimes you have to take the points, especially on 4th and long. Not taking 3pts on 4th and long on the 20 against Purdue cost us the game.
It was 4th and 1 on the Purdue 24. This is one that I would say is 50/50 or better. 41 yard FG is no gimmie in college.
 
#24

Vol524

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
3,083
Likes
4,697
#24
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 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.
In my honest opinion, it should have never gone to overtime. We did not play our best game and you factor in the zebras and you get what we got. I do believe Heupel believes in our team and that had more to do with his decisions than anything. Sometimes the coach needs to show you he believes. I can remember once a coach of mine got us together and said it is time to decide who wants this more. We got the message. I do like trying to win much better than trying not to lose.
 
#25

BigBadVol

The MojoMofo
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
3,857
Likes
5,910
#25
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.
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.
 

VN Store




Top