I explicitly spelled out your straw man argument. Your refusal to admit it doesn't make it not true.
It just highlights why my "ad hominem" is truthful.
Going for it on 4th and 5 early in 4th
- Thread starter johncockroach
- Start date
It just highlights why my "ad hominem" is truthful.
Not taking the time to ready every comment for this thread so if I repeat something I apologize. My take and I thought this in real time was the two fourth down attempts were bad decisions. I think the first one was 4th and 2 or 3, we definitely should have kicked the FG. If you're not gonna kick don't run a play that Kentucky has stuffed every other time you tried to run it. Kevin Harris to the left side was not working at all up to that point. On the 4th and 5 Beamer should have played field position, it was clear the only way we were really stopping them was due to their fumbles so make them drive the entire field. That being said I really like CSB and think he will be a good coach but those two decisions prevented us from having a real shot at winning the game. Hopefully he learns from it.
I disagree with you. We had a TD and they had a FG at that point in the 2nd half. We had an INT in the 1st half and had just forced a fumble before the 4th and 5, so you were WRONG. I’m not saying we could score another TD, but I don’t think Kentucky was going to score a TD either. Again. I say take the points, because you can count on Parker White. Get him in range.....that’s your best opportunity to score points. Statistically, our tired defense is better than our wildly inconsistent offense. I don’t really trust this team, but Parker White and the defense are our strengths.
Last edited:
I'm going to ask you the same question I asked another poster.
Even if we take your argument in the most favorable light, we still lose 16-13. Do you really feel better today about that?
How does this not address your argument? (your highlights)
Alternatively, going for it on 4th down from the 25 doesn't significantly increase your odds of getting a TD....unlike it would if you were inside the 15. And when down by less than a TD, you kick a FG which increases your odds of tying or winning with another FG. Getting into position to kick a FG is a much higher percentage than getting a TD.
That’s assuming Kentucky scored again. It’s a different scenario if it’s 13-10 vs 13-7, squandering an opportunity to put points up. As far as being the better team, I think you play to your strengths. Find the range for Parker White. Don’t take enormous risks with the weakest part of your team, putting massive pressure on a QB trying to build confidence with this fragile offense. By the way, we did force a fumble before the 4th and 5, plus the INT in the 1st half. That’s 2 turnovers we had forced up to that point, so you were WRONG.
The first one should be obvious. You're comparing the likelihood of scoring a TD from the 25 yard line and the 15th yard line. How is that relevant when comparing a FG vs. going for fourth down?
The last one is even more laughable. If you're down 3 points, a FG literally can't win the game for you.
My bad. I did get the second fumble timing. (I can admit when I'm wrong unlike others in here).
So your argument is that if we made it 13-10, our defense would have stopped Kentucky from scoring?
Do you honestly not see how you can't assume every single thing in your favor. Is it not possible that Kentucky may have changed their play calling and scored a touchdown instead of a FG if they were only going up 6 versus going up 9 points?
No. What I’m saying is that it puts a little more pressure on Tucky. They’re a little less comfortable with 13 min to go. That can change a team’s mentality. I’m not assuming anything. I’m saying that we should play to our strengths and not take unnecessary risks with that much time left in the game. That was a blown opportunity to score points. Points that aren’t easy to come by. It’s not worth the risk when you have shown that you can’t convert 4th downs. Hell, they were 3 of 12 on 3rd downs. You put Connor Shaw and Bruce Ellington on the field......it’s completely different situation. I don’t trust this offense under that kind of pressure and I don’t feel that it’s necessary with 13 min to go.
Pretty convenient you didn’t respond to another post in this thread.
But that’s to be expected when you argued a field goal was worth 4 points.
Reading is fundamental....you read what you wanted not what I said.
And the whole "risk-reward" point about the post obviously went over your head, thus talking to a tree stump.
Not taking 3 there made no sense. It is as simple as that. KY didn't score another TD. Given our offensive output on the day, there was very little chance that we would have scored a TD even if we had converted that 4th down. It wasn't like we were siting on the 10 yard line.
Maybe he recognized his mistake. Taking the 3 at that point was the prudent thing to do. We certainly had a far better chance of making that field goal than driving another 25-35 yards for a TD if we had gotten the first.
Last edited:
Based on our offensive output on Saturday, do you actually believe we stood a better chance of scoring a TD from the 25-35 than getting back into field goal range in the remaining 13 min.?
Last edited:
Yes and it was the WRONG decision based on any reasonable metric.
I agree. Had it the conversion succeeded AND we went on to score a TD, it was still the wrong decision. Lucky, but wrong.
- It was 13-7 at the time
- A fg makes it 13-10
- by not making the first down instead of likely making the fg, a KY fg makes it a two score game which is what happened
- the way the offense had played, we hadn’t gained 5 yards on many plays at all so making it was unlikely…getting two scores now was very unlikely with our offense
- Not taking the fg killed any momentum gained by the turnover
- going down by 9 instead of 6 is a game changer when your O is anemic (plus you could see hope fade which is never good)
- like someone said…..going for it based on what we had seen so far reeks of desperation
- IT was NOT the right call at the time (you might could argue it was the right decision had our offense done anything all day…but it was a long shot)
- and this opinion is not because it failed…..i was yelling at the tv to take the fg before we went for it.
You guys keep ignoring if you make it 13-10, Kentucky still has the opportunity to make it a two score game the next drive.
You can’t admit our offense was going to struggle to score to win a two score game and ignore that fact.
Last edited:
sure they can if they score a TD….they weren’t lighting it up either…..but a couple of first downs put them in fg range which is much easier to do than score a TD.………had we scored a TD, that fg would have won rhe game for them anyway. You have to play percentages in that situation. End of story.
So how does kicking a FG there help you then?
Is your goal just to score points or is your goal to win the football game? Seems like you’re all arguing you would just rather have lost by fewer points.
I'm convinced Beamer went for it because if the recruits that were in attendance.
Maybe, but also he kicks a field goal and we lose we would all be calling him to conservative and the second coming of Will Muschamp.
The reality is, if you go for it on 4th down, call a better play, maybe if you had ran the Jenkins play earlier and seen he can actually catch the ball with ease, you could run it again, with a slight Doty roll out of then pocket on a run or pass option to Jenkins it would of gotten the 5 yards, they need to incorporate Jenkins into the offense more.
What was wrong with the play call? It literally only failed because Brooks couldn’t catch a ball that hit him in the chest.
Don’t forget. It was also a great play call because the Gamecocks have been converting 4th downs like clockwork!
It was literally the same play and route to Jenkins. Perfect play, absolutely brilliant throw, Brooks missed it, didn't make the play.
On another one, Dak short-ran his route; didnt make it to the first down marker. QB's not looking to see if you ran the depth you're supposed to, and the coaches certainly didn't tell him to run short; that was on Dak.
When a football player has a chance to to make a play, he.has.to.make.the.play. You WILL NOT win games otherwise.
Yes, your right, it was a execution issue, Brooks still seems to have a a case of the dropsies, hopefully Jenkins gets more involved in the WR rotation to become a quality option in key situations.
My summary of the last five pages:
Beamer said postgame he had the timeout ready if we didn't get the look we wanted. If you think of this like expected outcomes/game theory, it really comes down to how you feel about the play call. If you have a good play in mind, let them line up on defense and see what they put out there. If you like the matchup, then take the play. That seems like a better idea than automatically trotting the field goal team out there. This isn't just "we decided to go for it instead of kick a field goal", it started with trying to get all of the facts before making the call, which is wise. I don't fault Beamer for that approach, it comes down to what we saw on their defense and how we weighed the matchup. I'll have to go back and watch, but it looked like man coverage and we had brooks on a drag route (someone please correct me if I'm wrong here). Also don't know if they were blitzing or not. That matchup puts the decision right on the border for me.
- Outcomes rarely justify decisions, just because it didn't work doesn't mean it was the wrong decision at the time. I don't have the patience to prove this out, go talk to a philosophy professor.
- Both scenarios (kicking a field goal & scoring a touchdown) have pros and cons:
- A touchdown is better than a field goal and would take pressure off of your team down the stretch, but not converting can easily backfire and put you in a hole. I like our chances of scoring if we convert the 4th and 5, but its definitely not a given that would happen. We could still lose even if we convert and score a touchdown.
- You can still win the game if you take the field goal and it's a high percentage parker makes it, but it puts more pressure on your team (both offensively & defensively) to go win the game down the stretch.
Beamer said postgame he had the timeout ready if we didn't get the look we wanted. If you think of this like expected outcomes/game theory, it really comes down to how you feel about the play call. If you have a good play in mind, let them line up on defense and see what they put out there. If you like the matchup, then take the play. That seems like a better idea than automatically trotting the field goal team out there. This isn't just "we decided to go for it instead of kick a field goal", it started with trying to get all of the facts before making the call, which is wise. I don't fault Beamer for that approach, it comes down to what we saw on their defense and how we weighed the matchup. I'll have to go back and watch, but it looked like man coverage and we had brooks on a drag route (someone please correct me if I'm wrong here). Also don't know if they were blitzing or not. That matchup puts the decision right on the border for me.
Let’s put this whole discussion regarding the call to bed. We can all agree that we don’t know what would have happened had they kicked the field goal. What we do know for a fact is that going for it didn’t help us win. If you could do it all over again, you would have to be pretty darn stupid to do the exact same thing knowing exactly how it is going to play out.
It's really unfortunate you don't realize why this is nonsensical.
Actually it is unfortunate that you don’t seem to understand why it makes perfect sense.
