This is the problem with Beamer, he’s a people pleaser so he’s changing his strategy based on the fans. That’s a terrible way to coach.
Going for it on 4th and 5 early in 4th
- Thread starter johncockroach
- Start date
I'm OK with the 4th down calls. I would have been OK with kicking FGs too. They were both close calls, in my opinion. If he had tried for the FGs and missed them, everybody would be questioning the calls as well. At one point, one of the announcers said something like "I'm taking 3 points on the board instead of going for it on 4th down there." Well, we didn't have 3 points on the board. You still have to make the kick and they weren't chip-shots.
I do disagree with kicking it deep at the end. I think you have to go with an onside kick there. Even if the defense had gotten the stop and forced KY to punt, our offense was going to get the ball back with very little time and no time-outs. I can't imagine this offense doing much under those circumstances.
I do disagree with kicking it deep at the end. I think you have to go with an onside kick there. Even if the defense had gotten the stop and forced KY to punt, our offense was going to get the ball back with very little time and no time-outs. I can't imagine this offense doing much under those circumstances.
Well, IF he wants to 'please the people' right now, he will fire or reassign Satterfield. Until Beamer comes to grips with the fact that he made an extremely poor choice by hiring his 'buddy' as OC, we will continue to fall even further into the abyss.
It was a poor coaching decision. You have an outstanding kicker. A FG puts you down by three and with momentum. Your offense has struggled all game and getting a first down in that situation doesn't guarantee anything.
We should have been kicking off with our defense feeling pretty good only down 3 points. Instead we let UK off the hook with nothing to show for it. That call was the turning point of the game, although the other 4th down attempts were pretty pathetic as well.
Our offense has a long way to go. Decision making and excecution have got to improve to win more than 1 or 2 more games.
We should have been kicking off with our defense feeling pretty good only down 3 points. Instead we let UK off the hook with nothing to show for it. That call was the turning point of the game, although the other 4th down attempts were pretty pathetic as well.
Our offense has a long way to go. Decision making and excecution have got to improve to win more than 1 or 2 more games.
Last edited:
Kentucky scored 16 points. Come on, Partner.
Offense struggled. So you’re betting on them driving back down the field and giving you another chance to score. Which at that point was unlikely. 3 points did us not good
Then what happened on all the other drives? How come they only ended up with one TD the entire game?
I assume they are looking at percentages, but I find it hard to believe that with Parker White’s leg a FG was not a better choice than going for it. Being aggressive has its place, but take the points in that situation - Parker is money - and then another FG ties and a TD wins.
The drive to start the 2nd half was a thing of beauty. Doty keeping the ball a couple of times, even though he looks slower than Zeb, opened up the run game a little. And he seemed to have more time to pass on that drive. Then poof, back to doing what wasn't working the rest of the game.
A total of 2 TDs were scored in the entire game by both teams. You take the points in this case. Head Coach has to have a feel for the game and that specific moment.
Its not a one size fits all decision.
It's the only thing you can recruit on, when you're gonna go 4-8. Playing time and you can make difference here immediately.
Spurrier made a lot of head scratching decisions, including failed 4th down tries. He played to win.
Muschamp played it safe and conservative, everyone griped.
Beamer rolls the dice, everyone gripes.
Sometimes you have to give your team a chance to succeed. Does it always work? No. Michael Jordan stated that people always remembered his game winning shots, but forgot the ones he missed.
It didn’t work out. But the team knows he was giving them a chance to win. Eventually, it might pay off big. The team has to know their coach believes in them.
Muschamp played it safe and conservative, everyone griped.
Beamer rolls the dice, everyone gripes.
Sometimes you have to give your team a chance to succeed. Does it always work? No. Michael Jordan stated that people always remembered his game winning shots, but forgot the ones he missed.
It didn’t work out. But the team knows he was giving them a chance to win. Eventually, it might pay off big. The team has to know their coach believes in them.
We scored three more points afterwards, so three points "there" would have covered the margin of defeat. You people.
I'm more convinced, not only by the outcome, but how it came about. That evidence is infinitely more compelling than anyone's contrary arguments.
Nope, his desions during the game are to give his players the best chance to win. Recruits are judging those desions.
He must not have believed in them 10 minutes later when he didn't go for it on fourth and two or three.
And that refutes any argument in favor of the decisions that were made.
You really think we lost the game because we went for it?
The rest of the game may or may not have turned out the same. You have no idea.We scored three more points afterwards, so three points "there" would have covered the margin of defeat. You people.
We’ll never know. What I do know is, in a close game, and your offense isn’t producing much, you always take the points
What the hell kind of sense does that make? Your offense can’t produce points. Hell it had a hard time moving beyond the 50. And you want to get 3 when you need 6 to tie and 7 to lead. You kick it there and you may never get another chance to kick another FG. As it turns out we did, but that was due to another turnover. But with the O playing like it was, and the d forcing punts, you play the game and try to win
Right, their chance of closing a nine-point margin were greater by kicking a field goal in a shorter yardage situation with three minutes (and only two time outs left) than with 13 minutes left and time to possess the ball a couple of times more. And to show how confident the coaches were, after the field goal, they had the team kick it off deep - guaranteeing we would have to use those two timeouts before Kentucky ever had to punt, which it turns out, they never did, rather than trying an onside kick. Riiiight.. You people.
And you still lose. Even if we kick the fg we lose. Y’all complained because muschamp kicked too many fgs. Now Beamer goes for a win and y’all complain. Quit your bitching. Pull your britches up and get over yourselves.
I would’ve went for the FG. But to say we lost the game because he didn't try for the FG. Is completely stupid and is saying the butterfly effect is nonexistent.
Which fg? Kick the first one and you could put it in OT with a second one. You could do better than that with just under 13 minutes to go if you kick the first one. How can people not see the superiority of our chances in that circumstance to what they were after we failed to pick up fourth and five?
Why he's a liar. Ask these other guys on here.
Who said that? I didn't say that. Find a post where I said that. We're talking about heightening our chances to win - not guaranteeing a win. If you're talking about anything I've posted on this subject, you are mis-assigning the stupid label.
And that refutes any argument in favor of the decisions that were made.
Your quote Bro.
I never said that. But the game was more winnable with the points
I'm amazed people are assuming we score a TD if we make the 4th down. The only logical decision was to kick the FG.
Exactly, by anyone defending the decisions of the head coach. Had he done what I and others have advocated doing - and lost doing it - we'd be as wrong as he was. As it is, neither I nor anyone sharing the same views I've stated is impugned.
Nice flip flop. You have no clue what would've happened if we kicked the FG.We scored three more points afterwards, so three points "there" would have covered the margin of defeat. You people.
Because our offense had sucked. The likelihood you get back down there wasn’t really good.
I’m amazed the people who want to kick the fg ASSume we get back down the field far enough to kick another with the CHaNCE of tying the game. Our offense had been terrible. The likelihood we got back down was very low and he played the odds. He fell short. It happens. I’d rather do that than kick a fg and have it blocked and returned for a TD.
But it happened. The one we kicked followed the shorter one we didn't kick. And what "might" have come from a course of action not taken can never be known.
Doesn’t mean it would’ve played out that way if we had kicked the first one. Completely different set of circumstances. And who’s to say the first one is made or not blocked. Two can play at this what if game.
