The purpose of the chart isn't to argue semantics on the fringe decisions. It's to spotlight the glaring wrongness behind the decisions that were made each of the last 2 weeks.
This is it. I don't mind that we lost in year 1 of Bielema. I mind that the ways we lost are very concerning related to our coach's decision making. Go for a first or go for a field goal could be debated in that scenario. It isn't an opinion that punting is the wrong decision. Punting WAS the wrong decision.
Decide all you want with that chart. But then Peters takes 2 sacks, then in the next game throws 3 incompletions. BB did not lose these games. BP singlehandedly lost them. One wonders what the mood is in the meeting room on Sunday film day when those who laid it all out there on the field see their offensive leader lay ostrich eggs.
). Otherwise, say you're winning by 7, the goal is to be outscored by 6 or fewer.Not about winning or losing, it is about trying to win in positive situations. He was trying not to lose. Big difference!
I would respond that, in almost every conceivable situation, you increase your chances of ending up with more points than the other team in the long run if you outscore your opponent in the short run. If you're up by 7, you're going to greatly increase your chances by scoring a touchdown and going up by 14. You're also going to greatly increase your chances of winning if you keep the ball away from your opponents, so they can't score (i.e. - go for it on 4th and short from the opposing 40 yard line). I think the number of times in which the answer to the question "what increases our chances of winning the game" and the answer to the question "how do we score more points than the other team this quarter/this half/in these last five minutes (etc.)" are the same are about 95% of the time. Just a guesstimate though.Disagree with the bolded. The goal is to end the game with at least 1 more point than the other team. Therefore, if you're winning by N points, the goal is always to do no worse than being outscored by N-1.
That only translates to "score more points than the other team" in situations where you're tied or losing (ok, so for Illini football, maybe that is 95% of the time
I know you probably meant "score more points" taken over the whole game... but still, it's important from a strategy perspective to remember that when you have a lead, scoring more points than the other team (for the rest of the game) is no longer strictly necessary.
S t e p a w a y f r o m t h e l e d g e m i s t e r.
If BB takes the risk to go for it and comes up short, Illini fans would be screaming, "WHY?(!)"
Strongly disagree.
I'm sure some would, but they'd be wrong. This has nothing to do with the outcome. Some decisions are bad regardless of how they ultimately turn out. For example, if you ran the ball on 3rd and 15 from the opponent's 20 yard line, there is a small chance you'd get the 1st down. Even if you did it would be a head-scratcher of a decision. You have to play the odds, and the odds are clear that you have a better chance winning the game if you go for it. For one, if you convert, that's a huge boost to your chances of winning. If you don't convert, your defense can still stop them. It's not like they automatically get the points if you don't make the first down. The difference between giving them the ball on the 40 or the 5 is relatively minor compared to the difference between retaining possession vs giving your opponent the ball.
Not gonna lie, pretty sick of this argument. Most people arguing for BB to go for it understand why he should have done it. It's the people that think what he did was defensible that fail to understand the scenario properly. The difference between going for it and failing and punting it is relatively negligible. In both situations, the other team gets the ball, just with a minimal difference in field position. On the other hand, going for it and succeeding greatly increases the odds you win the game. That's why you do it. The risk is minimal and the gain is substantial. And I mean, come on, the proof is in the pudding the last two weeks.
4th and three from our own 20 and we should go for it? Maybe if we were playing the Green Bay Packers (or some other team that would score a TD no matter where we gave them the ball.)(I see many others had similar issues...)
In my head, I try to factor in the median yardage we're getting in that game on our running plays. (I wish they reported that stat, rather than average yards per play) If I remember right, most of our running plays (at least with McCray) we're picking up more than three yards, suggesting a pretty good chance of converting a 4th and two. On the other hand, if most of our runs were getting stuffed, I would have been OK with a punt.
This is all very true, it's all situationally dependent.
IMO we qualify for the really bad offense exception
| CAR | YDS | AVG | TD | LONG | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joshua McCray | 24 | 156 | 6.5 | 0 | 38 |
Artur, Artur, Artur!
Okay. Blame the losses on whoever it makes you feel better to blame the losses on. But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
A solid 105 minutes of defensive football. But the offense has been down right offensive.
Lovie would’ve definitely punted in those same scenario’s BB faced, but we were always getting killed. Instead we got Peters making life more difficult than it needed to be by running all over the damn place to eventually throw it up for Imatorbehebe. Need to quit acting like Peter’s better than he is just because he came from Michigan
