Help Me Understand Going For Two

[Sigmapolis]

Simple.

(1.) "The book" says you go for the win on the road and extend the game at home.

(2.) Our kickers suck. I do not want to rely on them in overtime.

(3.) Campbell is an aggressive ************ and told Purdy to go out and win it.

I agree with the call. It was the right one. Sometimes it just does not work out.

 

[madguy30]

Simple.

(1.) "The book" says you go for the win on the road and extend the game at home.

(2.) Our kickers suck. I do not want to rely on them in overtime.

(3.) Campbell is an aggressive ************ and told Purdy to go out and win it.

I agree with the call. It was the right one. Sometimes it just does not work out.

I commented in the Game thread that Campbell looked possessed when he came out of halftime on the sidelines.

I'd like to think his halftime talking points were similar to what was rumored after the Iowa debacle his first season. Basically an 'enough of this ****' lashing.

My feeling is that this team, while close, has yet to really hit its potential or 'stride' and maybe some things came together last night late that can start that up here the next three weeks.

 

[Sigmapolis]

I commented in the Game thread that Campbell looked possessed when he came out of halftime on the sidelines.

I'd like to think his halftime talking points were similar to what was rumored after the Iowa debacle his first season. Basically an 'enough of this ****' lashing.

My feeling is that this team, while close, has yet to really hit its potential or 'stride' and maybe some things came together last night late that can start that up here the next three weeks.

I can imagine an ass-chewing from Campbell is like Godzilla stomping towards you.

 

[cyrocksmypants]

Simple.

(1.) "The book" says you go for the win on the road and extend the game at home.

(2.) Our kickers suck. I do not want to rely on them in overtime.

(3.) Campbell is an aggressive ************ and told Purdy to go out and win it.

I agree with the call. It was the right one. Sometimes it just does not work out.

Maybe I’m just an idiot, but I don’t think I’d call Campbell, overall, incredibly aggressive. He’s not Ferentz level conservative by any means, but if he gets the ball back with a minute left before halftime on his 30 yard line, he’s going to run it to see how many yards are picked up, then run the clock. You can almost set your watch to it.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Maybe I’m just an idiot, but I don’t think I’d call Campbell, overall, incredibly aggressive. He’s not Ferentz level conservative by any means, but if he gets the ball back with a minute left before halftime on his 30 yard line, he’s going to run it to see how many yards are picked up, then run the clock. You can almost set your watch to it.

That is not exactly a "game on the line" situation, though.

There was a "take no prisoners, we are beating the British to Damascus" attitude and even wildness in the team in that fourth-quarter I have not seen before.

That had to start from Campbell on down.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

I hear you. But the PI challenge rule in the NFL has been a disaster. It didn't really fix anything. A call on the field rarely gets overturned and most coaches have just stopped wasting challenges on them. Anyway, the refs are going to swallow their whistle in that situation every time. It sucks and it's frustrating because I think without contact Pettway catches it cleanly and they win, but that's just the way these things go.

It was a perfect pass. Kolar was open though. Shoulda woulda coulda.

 

[tolfbfan]

Maybe I’m just an idiot, but I don’t think I’d call Campbell, overall, incredibly aggressive. He’s not Ferentz level conservative by any means, but if he gets the ball back with a minute left before halftime on his 30 yard line, he’s going to run it to see how many yards are picked up, then run the clock. You can almost set your watch to it.

Deciding to go for two and your scenario are like comparing apples and oranges. Both of you are correct, but they have nothing to so with each other at all.

 

[jbhtexas]

I liked the call. I could also see playing for OT, as it really looked like OU defense was gassed and having trouble.

Another bold move I thought of during the game was for ISU to go for the 2pt conversion on the first TD of the third quarter. My thinking was that if ISU was going to win, it would probably be on a last possession drive, and at that point they could kick to go take the lead. Also, I was thinking ISU was going to have to score at least 3 more TDs to win, so there would be more chances to make a 2pt conversion and get the point back if that first 2pt was missed.

 

[Win5002]

I like going for 2 if the team having the option is clearly outclassed or gets a lot of breaks to tie it up. I didn't feel that was the case with ISU last night. ISU had all the momentum and the defense had shut down Sooners in the 2nd half. The other negative going for the 2 point play to win was I knew the officials would let the Sooners absolutely rape any WR in a single pass play to end the game which happened, its less likely to happen if ISU has 4 cracks at the end zone and they have the TE's which are a matchup nightmare with 4 cracks at the end zone.

 

[Omaha Cy]

My primary concern about going to OT last night was that OU was really whooping our guys up front on pass plays. Purdy played his ass off to get the production he did. Very few clean pockets, had guys in face all night, or they were chasing him around non stop.

Maybe OU's goose was cooked for the evening, but who knows. I was very concerned that continuous pressure was going to force Purdy into a turnover.

 

[VTXCyRyD]

You don’t play for OT with our kickers

I got to admit I was yelling to go for the tie yesterday, but this explains everything. I'm fine going for two now.

 

[FDCy83]

I have not read all 9 pages. If going for 2 on the road to win is the right call, then why not go for 2 after the first TD so we have time to make it up if we fail? Also, please tell me in the history of ISU football, how many times going for 2 to win the game has worked? I don't like putting the whole game in one play. I would rather take my chances with a full set of downs if I had to match OU scoring a TD. Yes, eventually, both teams would have to go for two.

Another way to say what I am thinking. Pretend next week UT ties us in the last few seconds of the game and we go to OT. We win the toss and play defense first. We hold TU to a field goal. Then when we get the ball, we end up at 4th and goal at the 2 yard line in the center of the field. Are you going to kick the essentially PAT and got to OT number 2 or go for it on 4th down? 99% of the time, it is kick the field go and play the next OT. It is not any different than that.

Also, I was in favor of going for 2 up until the replay review which was essentially a time out for OU to get lined up, players in, and be ready for the play. At that point, I wanted to send the FG unit on after the review.

 

[IASTATE07]

I have not read all 9 pages. If going for 2 on the road to win is the right call, then why not go for 2 after the first TD so we have time to make it up if we fail?

Another way to say what I am thinking. Pretend next week UT ties us in the last few seconds of the game and we go to OT. We win the toss and play defense first. We hold TU to a field goal. Then when we get the ball, we end up at 4th and goal at the 2 yard line in the center of the field. Are you going to kick the essentially PAT and got to OT number 2 or go for it on 4th down? 99% of the time, it is kick the field go and play the next OT. It is not any different than that.

1. No. Take the points until you have to go for two.

2. Definitely not the same situation.

 

[Rogue52]

I liked the call. I could also see playing for OT, as it really looked like OU defense was gassed and having trouble.

Another bold move I thought of during the game was for ISU to go for the 2pt conversion on the first TD of the third quarter. My thinking was that if ISU was going to win, it would probably be on a last possession drive, and at that point they could kick to go take the lead. Also, I was thinking ISU was going to have to score at least 3 more TDs to win, so there would be more chances to make a 2pt conversion and get the point back if that first 2pt was missed.

SMU did this in their game against Memphis. They went for 2 down 14.

 

[cyclones500]

I have not read all 9 pages. If going for 2 on the road to win is the right call, then why not go for 2 after the first TD so we have time to make it up if we fail? Also, please tell me in the history of ISU football, how many times going for 2 to win the game has worked? I don't like putting the whole game in one play. I would rather take my chances with a full set of downs if I had to match OU scoring a TD. Yes, eventually, both teams would have to go for two.

Another way to say what I am thinking. Pretend next week UT ties us in the last few seconds of the game and we go to OT. We win the toss and play defense first. We hold TU to a field goal. Then when we get the ball, we end up at 4th and goal at the 2 yard line in the center of the field. Are you going to kick the essentially PAT and got to OT number 2 or go for it on 4th down? 99% of the time, it is kick the field go and play the next OT. It is not any different than that.

Also, I was in favor of going for 2 up until the replay review which was essentially a time out for OU to get lined up, players in, and be ready for the play. At that point, I wanted to send the FG unit on after the review.

Not to skirt 90% of your statement, but (as others wondered in the game thread), why was the touchdown catch even up for review?

 

[CycoCyclone]

absolutely going for 2 was the right call.

We dont know who was dinged up, or tired, or if the team needed that vote of confidence and adrenaline for ONE LAST play. I like ending it, not sending your defense out to stop Jalen Hurts again or relying on our kicking game

 

[IASTATE07]

absolutely going for 2 was the right call.

We dont know who was dinged up, or tired, or if the team needed that vote of confidence and adrenaline for ONE LAST play. I like ending it, not sending your defense out to stop Jalen Hurts again or relying on our kicking game

I don't like the idea of trying to contain Hurts with a short field.

 

[cyrocksmypants]

I don't like the idea of trying to contain Hurts with a short field.

If you have the chance to win the game and not give the #1 offense in the country another chance to score, you take the chance to winn

 

[CyCloned]

Our kicking game sucks. OU's playcalling the entire 4th quarter was overly conservative. Going for 2 was easily the right call.

This is the right answer. Heck, I would have been sweating the extra point kick with that much pressure on the kicker.

 

[cyclones500]

I know our historic paranoia about ISU place-kicking. Having to rely on FG in OT, I can understand the "fear" of relying on that, although there's no way to know if it would've come to that. As for the PAT, Assalley is 40 of 41 on XPs this season (can't recall which game the miss occurred). Chance at converting was minimal risk, if you decide to play for OT.

Even if does go awry, it's same situation as missing the 2pt -- forced to do onside kick.