• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2pm on the C-Dub vs. Syracuse

thatguy2016 said:
NFL kickers are 93% - 94% from the longer distance. Matthew Dennis is 76-78 (97.4%) on PATs at WF
Click to expand...

Was more referring to a TD takes the kicker mostly out of the conversation in the event you were down 4 and needed the TD vs needing a FG which a college kicker is less likely to make than the NFL kicker (especially given our shaky kicking lately).

Either way I’d need some pretty solid proof going for 2 when we did was detrimental to our win probability based on what I’ve seen.
 
Let’s just use basic common sense here.

Kicking an XP to be down 1 has a much higher rate of success than going for 2. The benefit of being up 2 vs 3 is not as much as the detriment of being down 4 vs 3.

Regardless of that decision, let’s say Wake gets the ball on the Cuse 20 with under a minute. The odds of making a FG are higher than the odds of getting a TD there.

So Clawson took a huge risk to set up a situation where a FG could win. I can see how that’s reasonable and not giving up. But it was a massive risk that made the game much more difficult to win in regulation or OT.
 
DeacDaddy said:
The move killed momentum and took some air out of the team. I don’t think Clawson always knows how to calculate for that.
Click to expand...
Did it? The defense forced their first (and only) punt of the game immediately after they missed the 2. And then our longest punt return in forever. And then our offense marched all the way to the 3 yard line before missing out on the touchdown.
 
Last edited:
even if we had gone for the extra point and made it, i think you could even argue we should have gone for it on 4th down from the 3 anyway. if you assume an 80% chance of making the FG and a 40% chance of winning in OT, you would have only needed a 32% chance of converting on 4th down for it to be worth it.
 
In fact that’s what’s frustrating. The offense finally received the first forced punt of the day, but knowing that strictly because of their coach they had to march the length of the field. It took a pass interference to bring us into the red zone after we were already in field goal range. I’m guessing a majority here knew there was a better chance, because of his play calling, that we wouldn’t cross the goal line, than that we would.

Likewise, based on their coach’s track record in decision making this year, I think some players can lose confidence, and little things like going for two when you could keep the momentum rolling with an XP are one more piece of evidence they don’t need. I don’t believe he always takes this kind of intangible into account in his choices.

Ultimately it resulted in the loss that many here could see coming from the moment we went for two and failed.
 
One thing I don't doubt at all, is Clawson wanted to win badly. Some of us just disagree with the decision on the PAT or 2pt conversion, but anyone who things he didn't want to win badly is a fool.
 
IAppreciateIt said:
even if we had gone for the extra point and made it, i think you could even argue we should have gone for it on 4th down from the 3 anyway. if you assume an 80% chance of making the FG and a 40% chance of winning in OT, you would have only needed a 32% chance of converting on 4th down for it to be worth it.
Click to expand...
Even at that, I'd rather have to make that kind of decision later in the game.
 
DeacDaddy said:
The move killed momentum and took some air out of the team. I don’t think Clawson always knows how to calculate for that.
Click to expand...
didn't we force a 3 and out and then drive inside their 10?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top