forums

FG was the right call

E1k said:
Thats the point

If you know we suck so bad on defense why wouldn’t u try to score and tie knowing its unlikely we even get the ball back?


If they go down there and win the game ok but u basically put the trust in the defense to get you the ball back with at best 1 minute or less with zero timeouts and now u STILL will have to score a touchdown to win
Click to expand...
So the three other times this season that Mario used the same thought process and analytics and worked out well were good decisions to you b/c they worked out. Got it

If we stopped their first two runs and forced a pass we would have gotten the ball with nearly two minutes left with a TD winning the game.
 
Advertisement
We kick. We need a stop. We get 7, we need a stop. We go for it and fail, we need a stop.

Im not comfortable in any of those situations.

The only one I would've been comfortable with is running hurry up and scoring 7 with 5+ mins left on the clock. And the ball/game ends in cams hands.
 
ssvir said:
So the three other times this season that Mario used the same thought process and analytics and worked out well were good decisions to you b/c they worked out. Got it

If we stopped their first two runs and forced a pass we would have gotten the ball with nearly two minutes left with a TD winning the game.
Click to expand...
What other decisions are u referring to? Kinda moving the goalposts here

And you literally just said the defense sucks so bad we couldn’t stop them so why would u trust them to get a stop and get u the ball back? Thats why it was a bad decision, you should trust the offense
 
Advertisement
Rellyrell said:
FINALLY, a logical answer. U go for the TD b/c 3 does nothing for u, & u would still need a TD anyway. It’s no different than y a team goes for a 2-pt conversion v. an extra point. If an extra point requires u having to score another TD anyway, what’s the difference between being down 4 or 5 while attempting to bring the deficit to 3?

This is situational football 101, & no lie, I was completely thrown off going for the FG w/ only 2 T.Os left, & the game clock being around 3:30ish at this time. It made zero sense. U go for the TD, & if it fails, so what, u’re going to need to score a TD regardless.
Click to expand...
How is this so hard to understand lol, i think people are fighting against common sense here

Yes the defense is terrible and probably give up a game winning drive but if u believe that then why wouldn’t u try to tie the game and defend a touchdown or long fg drive instead of them just needing 20 yards and burning clock?
 
E1k said:
How is this so hard to understand lol, i think people are fighting against common sense here

Yes the defense is terrible and probably give up a game winning drive but if u believe that then why wouldn’t u tie the game and defend a touchdown or long fg drive instead of them just needing 20 yards and burning clock?
Click to expand...

U know y, & I know y.

If this was Manny Diaz, on God he would be blasted. Like if we’re going to talk about it, let’s talk about it, but justifying this type of bull **** is mind numbing. If we had all 3 T.O’s “maybe” I can rationalize it, but again, if we were going to need to score a TD regardless, y not just try to score the TD? Cam was cooking on that drive, too. A FG literally does nothing for u besides take more time off the clock.
 
Advertisement
The FG. The Rivers Penalty. The Moten Penalty. The George Penalty. None of it ******* matters

We gave up 42 to a team that lost to Stanford in their own building.

We fielded a catastrophic defense over and over and over again and the meathead was helpless for the 3rd yr in a row
 
MiamiCanesFan77 said:
Honestly the only realistic path to a win was to go for the 4th down, get a TD and go for 2.

Trailing would have put a little pressure on Syracuse’s offense… with an unproven kicker.
Click to expand...
With how the defense was playing we needed to use like 540 of the 556 seconds that were on clock when we got the ball, score, then go for 2. Legit think we shoulda went even slower and run #6 much more on that drive. 1 drive to win or lose the game and dont give them the ball back with more than a minute left
 
E1k said:
What other decisions are u referring to? Kinda moving the goalposts here

And you literally just said the defense sucks so bad we couldn’t stop them so why would u trust them to get a stop and get u the ball back? Thats why it was a bad decision, you should trust the offense
Click to expand...
Not moving any goalposts. We used analytics all season and most of the time it worked in our favor and every close game we won we had analytics dictate favorable plays .... the Cal comeback alone had 2 or 3.

If we trust the offense to score at 4th & goal from the 9 and happen to tie the game doesn't the defense still have to get a stop with Syracuse having 3 minutes and 3 timeouts needing only a FG?

Syracuse murdered us all day passing so also by kicking the FG it essentially forced them to run instead of pass which should have been to our advantage. Of course we proceeded to give up the edge, get physically beat up-front, and commit a stupid penalty.
 
U2Cane said:
If the argument is “ the defense can’t stop them” ( which i agree with ) then we would have had to convert a 4th and goal from the 10 ( not easy ) and then cuse simply moves downfield for a td to win late.
The move was correct- take the points - but then we should have gone for an onside kick. If we get it, great and if not then cuse has a short field where maybe we force a fg.
The real back breaker was the idiotic George penalty which was coming all season long and he chose the biggest drive of the season to be a selfish petulant child.
Click to expand...
Agreed it was the right call. At some point the defense needed to step up.
 
Advertisement
The only part people are missing is, yes, we still need a TD. But a TD wins the game vs tying it.

It was still the wrong call simply because, by kicking, you’re putting faith in your defense. Which…LOL. But it’s not like it’s the most egregious decision ever nor did it lose us the game. The defense lost us the game, and the season. Should he have went? Yeah. Would it have mattered? Likely not.

But it is a nice and poetic end to the season that we lose on two of our old reliables. #3 getting a completely selfish and moronic penalty, and Mario making a -EV decision.
 
Stats02 said:
I thought Mario should have gone for it, but I wasn't upset that he kicked the FG. 4th and goal from the 10 is lot more difficult than 4th and goal from the 2 or 3. That 15 yard penalty really screwed us on that drive.

I have no doubt we would have scored a TD if George didn't finally get that unsportsmanlike conduct penalty he's been just itching to get over the last several games. Yeah, we probably don't stop Syracuse from driving down the field and scoring, so it's a mute point anyway.
Click to expand...
Correct, it is moot.

Mario was hoping we’d get the ball last and could possibly muster a stop because they were likely going to run the ball 3 times.

The obsession over this decision is ridiculous if you believe Syracuse would control the clock and score at least 3pts when they got the ball back.

The likelihood of scoring on 4th and goal from the 10 is low, and we would have needed a stop that nobody believed we were capable of.

Fans are beside themselves and looking for any way to blame Mario for yesterdays loss without any credit for the 10 wins. Last year he was an over-involved caveman, now he’s passive and doesn’t inspire confidence. He let his coordinators and players decide the game like he has all season long, didn’t panic or start throwing tantrums when things didn’t go our way. I give him credit for staying even and coaching his guys no matter what the score is.
 
Last edited:
ssvir said:
Not moving any goalposts. We used analytics all season and most of the time it worked in our favor and every close game we won we had analytics dictate favorable plays .... the Cal comeback alone had 2 or 3.

If we trust the offense to score at 4th & goal from the 9 and happen to tie the game doesn't the defense still have to get a stop with Syracuse having 3 minutes and 3 timeouts needing only a FG?

Syracuse murdered us all day passing so also by kicking the FG it essentially forced them to run instead of pass which should have been to our advantage. Of course we proceeded to give up the edge, get physically beat up-front, and commit a stupid penalty.
Click to expand...

After the first possession, Syracuse had success running against us. They didn't run much cause they were getting anything they wanted in the passing game.

They had gotten a push inside, and Guidry kept doing the dumb thing of twisting the weakside end/tackle on run downs (which he did yet again on the 1st down 12 yard carry by Allen). Nothing that had happened in that game suggested that we'd be able to stop them on the ground after the FG.

We score a TD there on 4th down, do we stop them before they get a FG/touchdown? Probably not. But still better odds than us stopping them on the ground then driving 3/4 of the field for a TD.

Going for it on 4th down from 10 yards out gave us a small chance to win. Kicking the FG gave us 0 chance to win
 
Advertisement
😆 On Madden 25 and EA CFB 25 I would have went for it. In real life with ish on the line I would have prayed with my fingers and toes crossed that my defense could muster up one miracle stop and getting the ball back to win with the Offense.

Game was on Guidry and the defense as the whole entire season has been. He couldn’t get his defense to improve at all for 15 weeks. He has to Go!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Bunker Mentality said:
Correct, it is moot.

Mario was hoping we’d get the ball last and could possibly muster a stop because they were likely going to run the ball 3 times.

The obsession over this decision is ridiculous if you believe Syracuse would control the clock and score at least 3pts when they got the ball back.

The likelihood of scoring on 4th and goal from the 10 is low, and we would have needed a stop that nobody believed we were capable of.

Fans are ****ed about the game and looking for any way to blame Mario for yesterdays loss without any credit for the wins. Last year he was an over-involved caveman, now he’s passive and doesn’t inspire confidence. He let his coordinators and players decide the game like he has all season long, didn’t panic or start throwing tantrums when things didn’t go our way. I give him credit for staying even and coaching his guys no matter what the score is.
Click to expand...

100000000000%

It didn't matter. Syracuse's quarterback was lobbing it up to any WR, even with pressure in his face, and our DBs couldn't stop a nosebleed.

Kick the FG or not, we weren't stopping them, and the probability of scoring a TD on 4th a 10 is low.
 
Rellyrell said:
FINALLY, a logical answer. U go for the TD b/c 3 does nothing for u, & u would still need a TD anyway. It’s no different than y a team goes for a 2-pt conversion v. an extra point. If an extra point requires u having to score another TD anyway, what’s the difference between being down 4 or 5 while attempting to bring the deficit to 3?

This is situational football 101, & no lie, I was completely thrown off going for the FG w/ only 2 T.Os left, & the game clock being around 3:30ish at this time. It made zero sense. U go for the TD, & if it fails, so what, u’re going to need to score a TD regardless.
Click to expand...
Finally an island of logic and rationality in an ocean of epic stupidity! Why do you think so many people struggle grasping the concept you laid out above?
 
ssvir said:
Not moving any goalposts. We used analytics all season and most of the time it worked in our favor and every close game we won we had analytics dictate favorable plays .... the Cal comeback alone had 2 or 3.

If we trust the offense to score at 4th & goal from the 9 and happen to tie the game doesn't the defense still have to get a stop with Syracuse having 3 minutes and 3 timeouts needing only a FG?

Syracuse murdered us all day passing so also by kicking the FG it essentially forced them to run instead of pass which should have been to our advantage. Of course we proceeded to give up the edge, get physically beat up-front, and commit a stupid penalty.
Click to expand...
We went against the analytics this time, mario lied to deflect blame imo or they just got some false info

And yea the defense still needs a stop but its a difference between needing to stop a score than it is stopping them from getting two first downs and ending the game

The point is why would you bet on your defense over your #1 offense? Even if u fail the 4th down you are in the same situation of still needing a td so we basically just passed on a chance to tie and possibly go up 2

Think about it..We cut the lead just to still need a touchdown, and we bet on our trash defense for another chance to still need a touchdown
 
Advertisement
Back
Top