Going for it on 4th and 1
Comments
-
Does Tequilla ever know what the fuck he is talking about?
-
Only when he's talking about how Gary Patterson's dick tastes.greenblood said:Does Tequilla ever know what the fuck he is talking about?
-
We used to make fun of TequillaFS at the old HHB. Seems like this place is trending towards resembling a different site. One where the doog is king.
-
Can't expect the boys in black, chrome, grey, and purple to compete on 4th and 1 with such a young O Line.
-
Well, in defense of the offensive line...
. -
I have thought this site resembled doogman before. And it can at times. Then I went and looked at doogman after the Cal game and saw that I was mostly wrong.ThomasFremont said:We used to make fun of TequillaFS at the old HHB. Seems like this place is trending towards resembling a different site. One where the doog is king.
-
Yeah, cuz all the doogs came over here.RoadDawg55 said:
I have thought this site resembled doogman before. And it can at times. Then I went and looked at doogman after the Cal game and saw that I was mostly wrong.ThomasFremont said:We used to make fun of TequillaFS at the old HHB. Seems like this place is trending towards resembling a different site. One where the doog is king.
-
This site at its worst >>>>> DM.c at its best.RoadDawg55 said:
I have thought this site resembled doogman before. And it can at times. Then I went and looked at doogman after the Cal game and saw that I was mostly wrong.ThomasFremont said:We used to make fun of TequillaFS at the old HHB. Seems like this place is trending towards resembling a different site. One where the doog is king.
Doesn't mean this site hasn't gone down dooghill, don't twist. -
I think a lot of posters actually supported this hire and can't bring themselves to admit just how bad Petersen has done. Many that didn't seem like Doogs a few years ago when Sark was coaching actually are. So we are seeing a lot of the same doogish shit we have read for years... Needs more time. Too young. Highlight individual players as if mediocre programs never have some good players. Blame Sark/Ty/Gilby/Neu.
-
I supported the hire. I still think it was the hire with the best chance of success at the time, non Mora division.RoadDawg55 said:I think a lot of posters actually supported this hire and can't bring themselves to admit just how bad Petersen has done. Many that didn't seem like Doogs a few years ago when Sark was coaching actually are. So we are seeing a lot of the same doogish shit we have read for years... Needs more time. Too young. Highlight individual players as if mediocre programs never have some good players. Blame Sark/Ty/Gilby/Neu.
That said, he has sucked so far, no question. The only thing that separates him from the reign of dreck before him is he has at least eliminated the plunger from our vocabulary (at least until this Saturday). I know, Sark is better than Ty, yadda yadda yadda.
He's not getting fired after this year, I think we all know that. He needs to get this shit figured out. I'd be a lot more confident he would if he had an AD that GAF about football.
In conclusion, TSIFO, but I'm still barely in LIFPO mode on the hire. Uf we look like this this time next year I'll be the one registering www.FirePeterman.org.
SoFuckingIrritating.gif -
The circle of life.RoadDawg55 said:I think a lot of posters actually supported this hire and can't bring themselves to admit just how bad Petersen has done. Many that didn't seem like Doogs a few years ago when Sark was coaching actually are. So we are seeing a lot of the same doogish shit we have read for years... Needs more time. Too young. Highlight individual players as if mediocre programs never have some good players. Blame Sark/Ty/Gilby/Neu.
-
#RIP #fuckyoushellenbergerThomasFremont said:We used to make fun of TequillaFS at the old HHB. Seems like this place is trending towards resembling a different site. One where the doog is king.
-
Considering who did the hiring and who was considered it was a great hire. We were excited. We?. I was. But facts are pesky things. And the facts so far say either Petersen sucks or the systemic rot at UW makes it impossible for anyone to succeed.
I said systemic. Big word. Look it up -
But Pool Boy built Husky Stadium!RaceBannon said:Considering who did the hiring and who was considered it was a great hire. We were excited. We?. I was. But facts are pesky things. And the facts so far say either Petersen sucks or the systemic rot at UW makes it impossible for anyone to succeed.
I said systemic. Big word. Look it up -
My guess is Pool Boy got stars in his eyes over the OKG stuff because he knew it would go down well on campus, told Potato Pete that he wasn't going to be on the hook for championships, and what has happened was just a direct outcome of those two factors. In other words, Pete needs to move into his office last Saturday.RaceBannon said:Considering who did the hiring and who was considered it was a great hire. We were excited. We?. I was. But facts are pesky things. And the facts so far say either Petersen sucks or the systemic rot at UW makes it impossible for anyone to succeed.
I said systemic. Big word. Look it up -
It's easy after the fact to look at any call and say that this should have been done versus that ...
Had Pete gone for it, we got stuffed, then Oregon went down and immediately scored a TD in what turned into a plunger game, I would expect that at least half of you miserable fucks would have been whining that Pete went for it.
It's one of those calls where if it works it's a great call ... if it doesn't you should have done the other ... and if you punt you're immediately in the wrong.
UW didn't lose that game because of punting there. -
UW would have converted it and kicked a field goal a handful of plays later, and would have only lost by 3. 26-23.
Perhaps Smith was relying on the belief that the defense was going to score more TDs than his offense. -
sys·tem·ic
səˈstemik/Submit
adjective
adjective: systemic
1.
of or relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part.
"the disease is localized rather than systemic"
(of an insecticide, fungicide, or similar substance) entering the plant via the roots or shoots and passing through the tissues.
2.
PHYSIOLOGY
denoting the part of the circulatory system concerned with the transportation of oxygen to and carbon dioxide from the body in general, especially as distinct from the pulmonary part concerned with the transportation of oxygen from and carbon dioxide to the lungs.
Origin
early 19th century: formed irregularly from system + -ic. -
Playing not to lose big is always special.Tequilla said:It's easy after the fact to look at any call and say that this should have been done versus that ...
Had Pete gone for it, we got stuffed, then Oregon went down and immediately scored a TD in what turned into a plunger game, I would expect that at least half of you miserable fucks would have been whining that Pete went for it.
It's one of those calls where if it works it's a great call ... if it doesn't you should have done the other ... and if you punt you're immediately in the wrong.
UW didn't lose that game because of punting there. -
Missing the point as usualThomasFremont said:
Playing not to lose big is always special.Tequilla said:It's easy after the fact to look at any call and say that this should have been done versus that ...
Had Pete gone for it, we got stuffed, then Oregon went down and immediately scored a TD in what turned into a plunger game, I would expect that at least half of you miserable fucks would have been whining that Pete went for it.
It's one of those calls where if it works it's a great call ... if it doesn't you should have done the other ... and if you punt you're immediately in the wrong.
UW didn't lose that game because of punting there.
-
What poont?Tequilla said:
Missing the point as usualThomasFremont said:
Playing not to lose big is always special.Tequilla said:It's easy after the fact to look at any call and say that this should have been done versus that ...
Had Pete gone for it, we got stuffed, then Oregon went down and immediately scored a TD in what turned into a plunger game, I would expect that at least half of you miserable fucks would have been whining that Pete went for it.
It's one of those calls where if it works it's a great call ... if it doesn't you should have done the other ... and if you punt you're immediately in the wrong.
UW didn't lose that game because of punting there.
You've already been ass plungered over your "punting was the right call" stance.
Are you doubling down now??? -
It's a difference of opinions ...ThomasFremont said:
What poont?Tequilla said:
Missing the point as usualThomasFremont said:
Playing not to lose big is always special.Tequilla said:It's easy after the fact to look at any call and say that this should have been done versus that ...
Had Pete gone for it, we got stuffed, then Oregon went down and immediately scored a TD in what turned into a plunger game, I would expect that at least half of you miserable fucks would have been whining that Pete went for it.
It's one of those calls where if it works it's a great call ... if it doesn't you should have done the other ... and if you punt you're immediately in the wrong.
UW didn't lose that game because of punting there.
You've already been ass plungered over your "punting was the right call" stance.
Are you doubling down now???
There's a time to take risks and time where exercising patience matters. I don't find myself a big believer in the Chip Kelly school of thinking that you go for it at all times and consistently push the envelope. In what you expect to be a close game, some times these types of decisions can be the difference in winning or losing.
My personal opinion and decision would have been to punt in that situation. I fully understand what the math says.
A similar discussion could be had regarding the decision to go for 2 after a TD like what Helfrich did after the first score. IF you think you can succeed in those situations at a greater than 50% clip, the math would tell you that you should go for 2 consistently. Just because the math says that you should do it doesn't mean that you should do it. -
Chip Kelly's Pac-12 coaching record: 46-7Tequilla said:
It's a difference of opinions ...ThomasFremont said:
What poont?Tequilla said:
Missing the point as usualThomasFremont said:
Playing not to lose big is always special.Tequilla said:It's easy after the fact to look at any call and say that this should have been done versus that ...
Had Pete gone for it, we got stuffed, then Oregon went down and immediately scored a TD in what turned into a plunger game, I would expect that at least half of you miserable fucks would have been whining that Pete went for it.
It's one of those calls where if it works it's a great call ... if it doesn't you should have done the other ... and if you punt you're immediately in the wrong.
UW didn't lose that game because of punting there.
You've already been ass plungered over your "punting was the right call" stance.
Are you doubling down now???
There's a time to take risks and time where exercising patience matters. I don't find myself a big believer in the Chip Kelly school of thinking that you go for it at all times and consistently push the envelope. In what you expect to be a close game, some times these types of decisions can be the difference in winning or losing.
My personal opinion and decision would have been to punt in that situation. I fully understand what the math says.
A similar discussion could be had regarding the decision to go for 2 after a TD like what Helfrich did after the first score. IF you think you can succeed in those situations at a greater than 50% clip, the math would tell you that you should go for 2 consistently. Just because the math says that you should do it doesn't mean that you should do it.
You are what your record says you are. Chip's a winner. -
This site isn't even close to Doogman. Fleenor made a post about how lucky we are to have Petersen after the SC gayme. It might have been before actually.RoadDawg55 said:
I have thought this site resembled doogman before. And it can at times. Then I went and looked at doogman after the Cal game and saw that I was mostly wrong.ThomasFremont said:We used to make fun of TequillaFS at the old HHB. Seems like this place is trending towards resembling a different site. One where the doog is king.
-
Christ, you're a bigger pussy than Peterman.Tequilla said:
It's a difference of opinions ...ThomasFremont said:
What poont?Tequilla said:
Missing the point as usualThomasFremont said:
Playing not to lose big is always special.Tequilla said:It's easy after the fact to look at any call and say that this should have been done versus that ...
Had Pete gone for it, we got stuffed, then Oregon went down and immediately scored a TD in what turned into a plunger game, I would expect that at least half of you miserable fucks would have been whining that Pete went for it.
It's one of those calls where if it works it's a great call ... if it doesn't you should have done the other ... and if you punt you're immediately in the wrong.
UW didn't lose that game because of punting there.
You've already been ass plungered over your "punting was the right call" stance.
Are you doubling down now???
There's a time to take risks and time where exercising patience matters. I don't find myself a big believer in the Chip Kelly school of thinking that you go for it at all times and consistently push the envelope. In what you expect to be a close game, some times these types of decisions can be the difference in winning or losing.
My personal opinion and decision would have been to punt in that situation. I fully understand what the math says.
A similar discussion could be had regarding the decision to go for 2 after a TD like what Helfrich did after the first score. IF you think you can succeed in those situations at a greater than 50% clip, the math would tell you that you should go for 2 consistently. Just because the math says that you should do it doesn't mean that you should do it. -
Baseman's Decision TreeTequilla said:
It's a difference of opinions ...ThomasFremont said:
What poont?Tequilla said:
Missing the point as usualThomasFremont said:
Playing not to lose big is always special.Tequilla said:It's easy after the fact to look at any call and say that this should have been done versus that ...
Had Pete gone for it, we got stuffed, then Oregon went down and immediately scored a TD in what turned into a plunger game, I would expect that at least half of you miserable fucks would have been whining that Pete went for it.
It's one of those calls where if it works it's a great call ... if it doesn't you should have done the other ... and if you punt you're immediately in the wrong.
UW didn't lose that game because of punting there.
You've already been ass plungered over your "punting was the right call" stance.
Are you doubling down now???
There's a time to take risks and time where exercising patience matters. I don't find myself a big believer in the Chip Kelly school of thinking that you go for it at all times and consistently push the envelope. In what you expect to be a close game, some times these types of decisions can be the difference in winning or losing.
My personal opinion and decision would have been to punt in that situation. I fully understand what the math says.
A similar discussion could be had regarding the decision to go for 2 after a TD like what Helfrich did after the first score. IF you think you can succeed in those situations at a greater than 50% clip, the math would tell you that you should go for 2 consistently. Just because the math says that you should do it doesn't mean that you should do it.
- Going for it on 4-1: 75% success rate
- Value of going for it over punt: 3.64x higher expected point value
- Value of going for it over FG attempt: 7.2 x higher expected point value
In game factors
1-Successful outcome keeps Oregon's defense on the field and ours off - extremely valuable give. Oregon's rapid pace
2- Gives young offense a mental boost.
3- Confidence in your defense if you fail.
4- it's been 12 fucking years since you've beat Oregon. Have some stones
5- Involve the crowd.
6- show Oregon your going to ram the football up their ass
That's what I would do but what the fuck do I know.
-
Chip "went for it" consistently because it resulted in Oregon consistently scoring more points than the opposition. There's your schematic advantage.
-
Don't compare Helfrich and Chip going for two. Chip made it 80% of the time, Helfrich is about 20%.Tequilla said:
It's a difference of opinions ...ThomasFremont said:
What poont?Tequilla said:
Missing the point as usualThomasFremont said:
Playing not to lose big is always special.Tequilla said:It's easy after the fact to look at any call and say that this should have been done versus that ...
Had Pete gone for it, we got stuffed, then Oregon went down and immediately scored a TD in what turned into a plunger game, I would expect that at least half of you miserable fucks would have been whining that Pete went for it.
It's one of those calls where if it works it's a great call ... if it doesn't you should have done the other ... and if you punt you're immediately in the wrong.
UW didn't lose that game because of punting there.
You've already been ass plungered over your "punting was the right call" stance.
Are you doubling down now???
There's a time to take risks and time where exercising patience matters. I don't find myself a big believer in the Chip Kelly school of thinking that you go for it at all times and consistently push the envelope. In what you expect to be a close game, some times these types of decisions can be the difference in winning or losing.
My personal opinion and decision would have been to punt in that situation. I fully understand what the math says.
A similar discussion could be had regarding the decision to go for 2 after a TD like what Helfrich did after the first score. IF you think you can succeed in those situations at a greater than 50% clip, the math would tell you that you should go for 2 consistently. Just because the math says that you should do it doesn't mean that you should do it.
You like Pete feel it's ok to hold with a 12 while the dealer is showing a face card. Coaches like Chip will sometimes double down on 12 because they've been counting cards for the last 25 hands. You would be what the house calls a sucker, and that punt was a sucker call.
Pete should have already had a 4th and 1 prepared before the game started. Real coaches do that.
-
@RealRhino3 heard fromBaseman said:
Baseman's Decision TreeTequilla said:
It's a difference of opinions ...ThomasFremont said:
What poont?Tequilla said:
Missing the point as usualThomasFremont said:
Playing not to lose big is always special.Tequilla said:It's easy after the fact to look at any call and say that this should have been done versus that ...
Had Pete gone for it, we got stuffed, then Oregon went down and immediately scored a TD in what turned into a plunger game, I would expect that at least half of you miserable fucks would have been whining that Pete went for it.
It's one of those calls where if it works it's a great call ... if it doesn't you should have done the other ... and if you punt you're immediately in the wrong.
UW didn't lose that game because of punting there.
You've already been ass plungered over your "punting was the right call" stance.
Are you doubling down now???
There's a time to take risks and time where exercising patience matters. I don't find myself a big believer in the Chip Kelly school of thinking that you go for it at all times and consistently push the envelope. In what you expect to be a close game, some times these types of decisions can be the difference in winning or losing.
My personal opinion and decision would have been to punt in that situation. I fully understand what the math says.
A similar discussion could be had regarding the decision to go for 2 after a TD like what Helfrich did after the first score. IF you think you can succeed in those situations at a greater than 50% clip, the math would tell you that you should go for 2 consistently. Just because the math says that you should do it doesn't mean that you should do it.
- Going for it on 4-1: 75% success rate
- Value of going for it over punt: 3.64x higher expected point value
- Value of going for it over FG attempt: 7.2 x higher expected point value
In game factors
1-Successful outcome keeps Oregon's defense on the field and ours off - extremely valuable give. Oregon's rapid pace
2- Gives young offense a mental boost.
3- Confidence in your defense if you fail.
4- it's been 12 fucking years since you've beat Oregon. Have some stones
5- Involve the crowd.
6- show Oregon your going to ram the football up their ass
That's what I would do but what the fuck do I know. -
To your point #3, confidence in your defense would be punting the ball. Petersen is making an analytical decision to punt it, pin them deep, and flip the filed position. Now I will write six more paragraphs on why. A lot of it will have absolutely nothing to do with why I think punting was the right decision.Baseman said:
Baseman's Decision TreeTequilla said:
It's a difference of opinions ...ThomasFremont said:
What poont?Tequilla said:
Missing the point as usualThomasFremont said:
Playing not to lose big is always special.Tequilla said:It's easy after the fact to look at any call and say that this should have been done versus that ...
Had Pete gone for it, we got stuffed, then Oregon went down and immediately scored a TD in what turned into a plunger game, I would expect that at least half of you miserable fucks would have been whining that Pete went for it.
It's one of those calls where if it works it's a great call ... if it doesn't you should have done the other ... and if you punt you're immediately in the wrong.
UW didn't lose that game because of punting there.
You've already been ass plungered over your "punting was the right call" stance.
Are you doubling down now???
There's a time to take risks and time where exercising patience matters. I don't find myself a big believer in the Chip Kelly school of thinking that you go for it at all times and consistently push the envelope. In what you expect to be a close game, some times these types of decisions can be the difference in winning or losing.
My personal opinion and decision would have been to punt in that situation. I fully understand what the math says.
A similar discussion could be had regarding the decision to go for 2 after a TD like what Helfrich did after the first score. IF you think you can succeed in those situations at a greater than 50% clip, the math would tell you that you should go for 2 consistently. Just because the math says that you should do it doesn't mean that you should do it.
- Going for it on 4-1: 75% success rate
- Value of going for it over punt: 3.64x higher expected point value
- Value of going for it over FG attempt: 7.2 x higher expected point value
In game factors
1-Successful outcome keeps Oregon's defense on the field and ours off - extremely valuable give. Oregon's rapid pace
2- Gives young offense a mental boost.
3- Confidence in your defense if you fail.
4- it's been 12 fucking years since you've beat Oregon. Have some stones
5- Involve the crowd.
6- show Oregon your going to ram the football up their ass
That's what I would do but what the fuck do I know.
I remember a TCU game in 2012. The fans were all pissed at Patterson for punting. I see a lot of similarities between Petersen and Patterson. Some random thoughts after a few walks for perspective and sleeping off a massive hangover ...
1) One thing that I haven't seen much on this board was discussion about how impactful Dwayne Washington's injury and inability to play was. I've seen people talk a lot about our lack of running the football against Oregon, and I don't disagree. However, the fact that you saw such limited snaps from Coleman or anybody else on the depth chart at RB (no carries for Cooper, Dotson, etc.) really speaks to how much painful our depth chart can be at times. This leads into point #2 ...
2) This offense really lacks guys that are game breakers on offense. Gaskin looks like a future all Conference player and is on pace to get to 1,000 yards on the season. Both Pettis and Lenius had 30+ yard receptions, but it doesn't seem like there's enough guys that can pop the top off the defense and/or threaten the safeties to respect the big plays. That's a huge concern. And while Washington can be frustrating as can be, him not being on the field even as an option to catch swing/wheel routes that can outrun their LBs was monumental.
3) On Oregon's 1st drive, Adams hit a 48 yard pass and 36 yard passes off of missed sacks and scrambles ... led to a TD. On Oregon's 5th drive on a 3rd and 12 Adams escaped a sack and threw up a wounded duck that Carrington caught for a 29 yard completion ... led to a TD. Next drive, Adams escapes and hits a 44 yard pass to Addison where our DB tripped on the play leading to a FG. Final big pass was probably Adams' best throw of the game to Carrington over the middle that led to Clay's targeting penalty. These plays were pretty much Oregon's offense for the night.
4) Oregon averaged 5.8 yards per play in the game (442 yards on 76 plays); 3.3 yards on 51 running plays. Washington averaged 6.2 yards per play in the game (385 yards on 62 plays); 6.0 yards on 30 running plays (3.7 yards per play excluding Gaskin's 72 yard TD run). In my mind, this goes back to what was said in previous two points about explosive plays; we don't tend to have guys that make them and Oregon's offense came about by being able to hit some explosive plays (many coming after missed plays by our defense).
5) Losing to Oregon hurts, but what was obvious to me looking around all night was how much more that game means to Oregon than it means to us. That still needs to improve on our end before we consistently beat them.
6) Most disappointing part of the game to me were that on defense we were not able to force a turnover and lost the special teams battle. With the youth on offense (+ Smith) it's difficult for us to win games where we have to go long fields consistently on offense. The drives during the game really weren't that bad (3 3 and outs out of 11 drives):
9 plays for 37 yards
4 plays for 33 yards
3 plays for 7 yards
6 plays for -4 yards
10 plays for 53 yards
8 plays for 47 yards
3 plays for 9 yards
2 plays for 85 yards
3 plays for 7 yards
12 plays for 71 yards
4 plays for 22 yards
7) Clock management has taken a lot of heat here and some of it very well reasoned. Taking a delay of game penalty versus taking a timeout when you are punting anyway needs to be reconsidered ... particularly in a game where you are losing. Taking the timeout on 3rd and goal hurt but in my mind you have to get the TD there and worry about the timeout later. Helfrich deciding to throw the ball on 3rd down with about 1:20 left was way worse.
8) Lastly, I've heard a lot of complaints about going for it on 4th and 1 and I disagree with how this team is set up. It's all about playing to your strengths on defense and special teams while trying to make it as easy as possible on the offense. I'm sure that I'm the minority on this board for saying this, but if you told me that we'd get 385 yards on 62 plays I'd have liked our chances.
Look hindsight is 50/50, but punting was the correct call in my opinion. The playcalling wasn't bad either. There is only so much you can do with a young OL, a freshman QB, and no playmakers at WR. I know that I pumped up Pettis and Lenius before the season, but there is no reason to expect a head coach that has coached offense his entire career to have a competent offense that can score against Cal and Oregon.
