You do not need to kick a field goal if you score a touchdown!!!

[JH-ATL]

Enough said.


:biggrin2:

 

[TideFan in AU]

 

[crimsontide43]

But we cant even make an extra point either.

 

[kcmusic]

Enough said.


:biggrin2:

So, you think we should have gone for two after the TD?:conf2:

 

[CapitalTider]

So, you think we should have gone for two after the TD?:conf2:

I think he's saying what a lot of people have. With first and goal on the nine yard line you don't play for the FG. A TD even with a missed PAT and the game would have been over in regulation.

Instead we run it three times up the middle losing four yards and still miss the FG and the rest is history.

 

[Houndstooth]

You can keep talking about these things over and over and it's not going to change anything. The fact remains that we were in a position to win the ballgame on at least three occasions and didn't execute. What else can you ask from a head coach than to put his team in a position to win?

 

[kcmusic]

I think he's saying what a lot of people have. With first and goal on the nine yard line you don't play for the FG. A TD even with a missed PAT and the game would have been over in regulation.

Instead we run it three times up the middle losing four yards and still miss the FG and the rest is history.

Oh, I know what he's saying. Instead he should be saying:
-if we would have run the int back for a td, game over,
-if field goal was good, game over,
-if extra point made, game at least extended,
-if defense makes a stop, game over,
-if OL doesn't commit so many penalties.......yada, yada.

Team was in position to win and didn't. Nothing more, nothing less than that.

 

[Willis]

you can't do either if you turn the ball over or take a sack (or 2)...which we have done more consistantly in the red zone than miss kicks...ding!

 

[JH-ATL]

CapitalTider

You are correct.

And this talk of "its been said before and the yada, yada business" doesn't hold much water. The sun comes up every day and people talk about it.


:biggrin2: :biggrin2: :biggrin2: :biggrin2:

 

[CapitalTider]

And this talk of "its been said before and the yada, yada business" doesn't hold much water. The sun comes up every day and people talk about it.


:biggrin2: :biggrin2: :biggrin2: :biggrin2:

To me it's worth talking about because it's a pattern that has continued for four years now. Unfortunately I don't hold out much hope for it changing. Especially as someone pointed out, it almost worked if the kicker could have done his part. So as long as it's almost working, Shula will stay conservative and play not to lose, and a certain portion of the fan base will keep defending him, and blaming losses on the players and sanctions.

 

[NOSty]

Enough said.


:biggrin2:

Yeah, but you do need to convert the extra point! 'Nuff said....

 

[JH-ATL]

CapitalTider

To me, you dance with the one who brought you. The pass was the only thing working..........Plays between the tackles, except for a few yards here and there, had not worked all day whereas passing had(do not tell me you can not pass down there, they won doing it). It was obvious to everyone watching that we were conceding a touchdown to keep the ball in the middle for a field goal.

This type of ultraconservative (some would go so far to say "no gonads") play is disappointing to watch/it hurts, especially for us life-long Alabama football fans.

I can bear loosing, but go down swinging not covering your face!!!!!


:biggrin2:

 

[KrAzY3]

My point of contention in regards to this issue is the fact that going for a TD would have in fact been more conservative.

Technically scoring the TD is more fool-proof. It is bad odds to settle attempting a FG when you are averaging 60% (something Alabama has done for the past two years). The fact is that Shula played bad odds by eliminating one chance to score. You try to score a TD then if that doesn't work you go for the FG. The only time I've ever seen the type of strategy that Shula used so obviously implimented was a team with time running out going for a FG on 3rd down just in case there was some sort of a problem with the snap or something they'd get a second try. What was done, TWICE was just bad fundementals. Shula eliminated a chance to score deliberately, that's not sound. That's playing bad odds. Tiffin could have missed a extra point either of the first two scoring chances and Alabama would still have a W, unfortunately when he stepped up there to kick the game was on the line each time because Alabama has given up on the other way of scoring.

The problem I am others have is not even being conservative per se, it was giving up on trying to score a TD when for all we know a run that wasn't right up the middle could have done the job.

 

[KrAzY3]

CapitalTider

I can bear loosing, but go down swinging not covering your face!!!!!

I'll say this much, I don't care if Alabama gets blown out by Florida as long as they give it all they have. I think some of us know that is capable of happening. What I do care about is how Alabama approaches the game. Use the weapons, unleash JPW, Brown and Hall. If Alabama catches bad breaks, so be it but I can't bear the idea of a game against Florida in which Alabama tries cramming the ball up the middle over and over and over even if it isn't working. They'll need something extra to win that game and I for one won't blame them if they lay it all on the line. That to me is the only way Alabama is likely to beat Florida, UT, LSU or Auburn this year anyway. I want to see some fearless football.

 

[ElkhartTider]

you dont need to worry about kicking a field goal or scoring a touchdown if you turn the ball over..

 

[CapitalTider]

To me, you dance with the one who brought you. The pass was the only thing working..........Plays between the tackles, except for a few yards here and there, had not worked all day whereas passing had(do not tell me you can not pass down there, they won doing it). It was obvious to everyone watching that we were conceding a touchdown to keep the ball in the middle for a field goal.

That's what I said at the time and everyone around me was saying the same thing. Even before the three running plays I said to the people around me, Shula will try to run the clock and kick a FG. I was begging for a play action pass. The pass was working and if you run the ball so much the opponent should be susceptible to the play action. Ironically we did just that in the second OT and scored. If only we could have thought of that at the end of regulation.

 

[KrAzY3]

you dont need to worry about kicking a field goal or scoring a touchdown if you turn the ball over..

Let's get one thing straight. Alabama has turned the ball over 6 times this year. 4 on rushing plays and 2 on passing plays. For one that makes passing plays a bit safer, which doesn't make rushing it up the middle seem all that safe considering Alabama has fumbled doing that a few times.

Secondly, let's keep that number in mind. 6 turnovers on 272 rushing or passing plays. That means you have a 2% chance of turning it over with each offensive play you run. 2.3% chance on a rushing play and 1.9% chance of turning it over on a passing play.

What about kicking? What are your odds of making a field goal? 61% chance this year going by Tiffin's stats. But ok, that counts the misses. Let's look at last year's kicking stats. Alabama made 64% of their FGs. There is NO WAY! That Shula should consider FGs automatic when they have been anything but.

The reality is that the minimal risk of turning over the ball by attacking the end zone is nothing compared to the risk of attempting a FG. Every play he ran had a chance of turning it over, so why not take what seems like (but by the math isn't) a tiny bit more of a chance, of say 1% more of a chance to turn it over and attack the end zone? You're taking a 1% risk at best to what? To eliminate taking a 30% risk or so. The sound way of doing it is attacking the end zone as best you can (without doing anything crazy) and then if that doesn't work you you try the FG. Bad math, bad odds and it cost the team. Beating a dead horse, it is a broken record but I find it odd that some people can't understand what is relatively simple math and the odds are easy to verify for yourself.

 

[Mamacalled]

CapitalTider

To me, you dance with the one who brought you. The pass was the only thing working..........Plays between the tackles, except for a few yards here and there, had not worked all day whereas passing had(do not tell me you can not pass down there, they won doing it). It was obvious to everyone watching that we were conceding a touchdown to keep the ball in the middle for a field goal.

This type of ultraconservative (some would go so far to say "no gonads") play is disappointing to watch/it hurts, especially for us life-long Alabama football fans.

I can bear loosing, but go down swinging not covering your face!!!!!


:biggrin2:

Much like the pass play where JPW fumbled and they ran it back for a touchdown? Naw, that doesn't happen.

I would bet that most people that are criticizing playing for an easy field goal would be complaining if JPW dropped back for a pass and was sacked or threw an int. If we had just run the ball when JPW fumbled, we wouldn't have gone into overtime. Should we not have attempted a pass play then? Come on, since we are playing the hindsight game.

Fact of the matter is, we should not have had to depend on a field goal. We made critical penalties that kept us from scoring tds. Remember when we got the ball to the two but an unecessary holding call moved it back? The next play we have Jimmy Johns at QB with what would have been a successful play but Britt jump offsides?

 

[KrAzY3]

I would bet that most people that are criticizing playing for an easy field goal would be complaining if JPW dropped back for a pass and was sacked or threw an int.

I can keep a cross-topic discussion up

I have yet to say that he should have drawn up a pass play. I think there are some relatively safe ones they could have drawn up, but the problem isn't "they wouldn't pass". NO! Not at all, the problem is that they WOULD NOT TRY TO SCORE A TD! If even the announcers on second down know the team is settling for a FG, the defense and everyone else in the building knows. They had two good chances to try SOMETHING to score a TD. It could have been a run that wasn't right up the middle. Hell, it could have been a QB sneak. I don't really care what it was or how well it did or didn't work so much as I saw a attempt for a TD. As I alluded to in another topic, the odds of missing a FG are MUCH MUCH MUCH HIGHER than the odds of turning it over.

Do you have anything to refute that assertion?

 

[CapitalTider]

Much like the pass play where JPW fumbled and they ran it back for a touchdown? Naw, that doesn't happen.

I suppose it's all in whose hands you want the game in in crunch time. Sure JPW had that one mistake, but he's a sophmore been in the offense longer and had had a great game except for that one mistake. Trust my QB or a true freshman kicker who has already missed two FGs and barely made (honestly shouldn't have made) a third. I would have chosen the QB and WRs that had made tons of plays all day. Shula chose the freshman kicker, which with him being a QB himself I'll never understand.

I would bet that most people that are criticizing playing for an easy field goal would be complaining if JPW dropped back for a pass and was sacked or threw an int.

A sack wouldn't have been that much worse than running three times for negative yardage.

Fact of the matter is, we should not have had to depend on a field goal. We made critical penalties that kept us from scoring tds. Remember when we got the ball to the two but an unecessary holding call moved it back? The next play we have Jimmy Johns at QB with what would have been a successful play but Britt jump offsides?

Can't disagree with that, but then that begs the question--Why was a team like Arkansas this close? Why have the vast majority of our wins over the past four years required a last second field goal? All back to lack of offensive production, especially in the red zone. Why the lack of offensive production, lack of players, lack of execution, poor play-calling/offensive schemes, or all of the above? Right now only the first doesn't fall squarely on the coach. In another year or two the lack of players excuse should be played out. If we are still having these issues that will definitively answer the question as far as I'm concerned. I guess we'll just have to suffer through the next couple of years to see.