TheCatsDomain.Com Message Boards: FG was right call.

This is topic FG was right call. in forum UK / NCAA Football at TheCatsDomain.Com Message Boards.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://www.thecatsdomain.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005767

Posted by eleem (Member # 884) on 09-14-2008, 07:06 AM:

That's the right call. You have to put your team up by 9. I know he'll get second guessed a million times. In years past this team would have gotten beat. When it's all done we're 3-0. Not pretty though.

I respectfully disagree as well. Run clock out. Make them go 70+ yards in 10-20 seconds. If they win, more power to them. If we lose that game on a blocked kick return for a TD, I'd say you wouldn't say that a FG try was the right call.

Link

Posted by bayer (Member # 462) on 09-14-2008, 09:41 AM:

I say it was not the right call, just as it was not the right call to put Randall Cobb in as WR early in the game.

You only have two QBs ready, why take a chance on getting one of them hurt?

Posted by BlueCollarMan (Member # 2114) on 09-14-2008, 09:47 AM:

I would have run for an intentional safety. I was not watching or listing to this game, but I was watching the play by play on the computer.

With :20, I would have lined up for the field goal and then have the holder run like a bat out of hell toward the opposite end zone. More than likely, anyone that would follow would be well behind and he could eat up most of the :20. Then you kick back to them, leaving them only the return to score a touchdown.

Fred

[ 09-14-2008, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: BlueCollarMan ]

Posted by prophet (Member # 2089) on 09-14-2008, 10:57 AM:

I would point out that my first post after game end was that the FGA was the wrong call. Watching a second time and reading all the comments on several sites I've seen nothing that changes my mind. Also after comparing UK's play in this game with previous games I have seen little improvement with the exception of Hartline.
Considering the job Coach Brooks has done improving the program and the fact that Cats are 3-0 this will read as ridiculous perhaps even sacrilegious but IMO the coaching thus far is suspect. Perhaps Coach Brooks rather rosy forecast is the problem but the team just hasn't played as if well-prepared mentally. Far too many errors continue even into the third game. Brooks, Brown and Phillips continue to recognize and complain about them but, at this point, they have been ineffective in correcting them. I really believe the season's success hangs in the balance and will be determined in large degree in the next two weeks and whether coaches can change mindset. Without significant improvement a winless SEC is a distinct possibility.

Posted by bayer (Member # 462) on 09-14-2008, 01:51 PM:

prophet-I totally agree with you regarding lack of improvement. From my viewpoint, I am most concerned about the play calling, particularly inside the 20 yd line. If Coach Phillips is making these calls, I am concerned for the future of the program.

It seems to me that Mike Hartline and the prospective receivers could have gotten a lot of the timing issues learned and out of the way over the summer if they had spent some time working together. It looks to me like many of them are playing like they just met each other the week before the game.

Finally, I still submit it is a very risky and in my opinion ill-conceived idea to play Randall Cobb at any position other then QB until you have another back-up QB ready to take over. It is totally beyond me how you can take a player who made so much happen last week and expose him to an unnecessary injury in the manner they did last night.

Posted by prophet (Member # 2089) on 09-14-2008, 04:10 PM:

I am in total accord, bayer, on the Cobb question. My feeling is that Brooks and Phillips fell prey to the public criticism, even the booing of Hartline contributed, of not playing Cobb more at QB and thus succumbed to the temptation of having his playmaking ability on the field and gambled on their only real QB option getting injured. As for Phillips' play calling I've never been enamored as much as some, there were numerous times last season that were less than innovative. Likewise, although I'm aware and appreciative of the continuity established by naming Phillips as coach-in-waiting and its apparently positive appeal to recruits, I'm much less enthusiastic regarding the decision than most.

[ 09-14-2008, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: prophet ]

Posted by bayer (Member # 462) on 09-14-2008, 05:05 PM:

Maybe Coach Phillips has his eye on some world-beater Offensive Coordinator when he takes over as Head.

Posted by ukcatfannfl (Member # 1425) on 09-14-2008, 07:12 PM:

Or maybe it was because other than Lyons Jr - Cobb is the only wide out who can run a route?

Didn't take very long for the "I'm a better coach than Books" crowd start calling for his head and now even include joker in it.

The talent level on offense is just not there right now!! I believe it will get better and better the next two weeks simply because Coach has said that he will find some WR who know how to run routes and use them only.

edited by ukcatfannfl

[ 09-14-2008, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: ukcatfannfl ]

Posted by samwise2206 (Member # 2340) on 09-14-2008, 08:22 PM:

I believe the FG was the wrong call. just run the ball even if you don't get 1st down Middle would have to go around 85 yards in 15 seconds with no timeouts to beat Cats. Coach Brooks once again not seeing all options on a play just as last year vs Louisville when he went for a meaningless PAT that ALMOST backfired on him. Our field goal kicker thinks he is a pretty boy but it is hold your breath every time he lines up to try a kick.... Oh well we will see how the team plays in three weeks against Alabama.............

Posted by bayer (Member # 462) on 09-14-2008, 08:25 PM:

quote:
"I'm a better coach than Books" crowd start calling for his head and now even include joker in it.

Nobody is calling for Coach Brooks or Coach Phillips' head. We are merely second-guessing which all of us do from time to time.

Posted by KyCat (Member # 146) on 09-14-2008, 09:37 PM:

I think the field goal was the exact right call to make. The odds of making the field goal were much greater than the odds of it being blocked and ran back for a score. Add to that, if the field goal was successful game over.

The larger picture too suggests that not kicking the filed goal would have negative impact down the line on not just the kicker and his confidence but the confidence of the team as well. Coach saw the opportunity to put the game away with authority and demonstrated confidence in his team by chosing the aggressive play.

Had we not kicked a field goal there was the chance of a fumble and return as well but not the likely chance of a score that the field goal should have been.

Someone on the call in show after the game who like many hear did not like the call said that Lonas was 15th in the NCAA in percentage last year. That being true (I cannot verify) and it only being around 30 yards, it should have been a chance for him to redeem himself.

I like the agressive play call here. It seems funny to me that many want to discredit this play call while complain about conservative play call during the game. It just does not seem to be consistent. Say what you will but with the time left on the clock, Middle was getting the ball back. Personally I would rather they got it back down 9 as opposed to only 6. Had the play been a running play and Middle got the ball via four downs and out, they would have had ample time to run a couple maybe even 3 plays depending on time outs they may have had.

I believe we are having high expectations of this team that it is not ready to live up to offensively. Kentucky lost a lot of skill players offensivley from the last two years and it takes time to get others to that level.

As to playing Cobb, again I think the coach was right to play him. He is probably the second best receiver and we need someone to throw the ball to. Not saying he is not a good QB as well, but I do not see him as better than Hartline there. One quarter of great play while nice is not a true measure. He does some great things with the ball under center but has liabilities there too. I say play him wherever he can help. Fielder is a servicable backup if need be.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Posted by prophet (Member # 2089) on 09-14-2008, 10:16 PM:

bayer is correct, no one is calling for anyone's head. To do so would be ludicrous but I'd wager that if you asked Coach Brooks if this thus far has been one of his better years he would agree that it isn't.

As for the FGA decision, listen to Coach Stockstill's comments regarding the likelihood of completing a pass from the post-penalty position versus the position where the player ran out of bounds. Now consider that the ball would have been inside the 15 if UK had run the ball on 4th down. Craddock would have to complete not one but two Hail Mary's to score. Blue Raiders' only chance of winning -- UK's only chance of losing -- was to block the FGA and run it back.

Posted by boomdaddy (Member # 2644) on 09-14-2008, 10:42 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by ukcatfannfl:
Or maybe it was because other than Lyons Jr - Cobb is the only wide out who can run a route?

Didn't take very long for the "I'm a better coach than Books" crowd start calling for his head and now even include joker in it.

The talent level on offense is just not there right now!! I believe it will get better and better the next two weeks simply because Coach has said that he will find some WR who know how to run routes and use them only.

edited by ukcatfannfl

I think that there is plenty of talent. Imho, they are just very young and too lazy to learn their routes. Besides Lyons, everyone else is very even. If a few of them would step up, the rest would also have to perform better to get on the field.

The fg kicking worries me more than anything. There were a lot of points that were squandered. And with Masthay's abiility to kick the ball in the end zone, every score including a fg has the potential to start the opposition back on the 20. Last season, the fg was blocked against UT, but it was a very low kick, so it should be blamed on the kicker or the holder. UK really should go out and pick up the best kicker they can find for next season. Or, maybe they could go get an ex pro, like Pelphry who used to kick for the Bengals, and have him fix what's wrong.

[ 09-14-2008, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: boomdaddy ]

Posted by bayer (Member # 462) on 09-15-2008, 08:23 AM:

quote:
The odds of making the field goal were much greater than the odds of it being blocked

Not on Saturday night last. [Wink]

Posted by BlueCollarMan (Member # 2114) on 09-15-2008, 09:58 AM:

I have a question. When it was 3rd down, is it true (I did not see the game) that Hartline took the snap with 17 seconds on the play clock with the game clock running?

Fred

Posted by bayer (Member # 462) on 09-15-2008, 10:04 AM:

I don't know as I did not see the game either, but I have it on DVD and I will be looking at it tonight or tomorrow night and if no one else posts an answer before then I will let you know.

Posted by m hamilton (Member # 127) on 09-15-2008, 10:53 AM:

BCM, I can't give you an exact time, but as I watched it on ESPN 360 I thought it seemed as though they took the snap with several seconds left on the play clock. But I've been mistaken before.

Posted by Max Beasley (Member # 1320) on 09-15-2008, 04:02 PM:

I believe your right about the 3rd down clock management BCM.
There was more than one person to blame for the blocked FG, imo. High snap, slow placement and low kick...its a team thing! As to it being the right call or not, debate that all you want. I had no problem at all with the call.
From what I have seen from Coach Brooks, he isn't too worried about public criticism, and if I remember correctly didn't Cobb get hurt early in the game....that seems as much a possibility as to why he didnt play more QB as anything. Also, I believe Cobb is going to be a receiver and when Boyd catches up we'll be ok. We are in a QB quandry due to the Pulley fiasco. I understand the questioning regarding Cobb because we are now one snap from Will Fidler and no chance to win in our league....but its a damed if you do and damed if you dont situation-Is he not to play Cobb at wideout. I want that kid on the field all I can instead of protecting him to be a backup QB-but like I said...I can understand the other takes on that issue.
These young and inexperienced players are not near as much a concern for me as our experienced O-Line. I expect the younger guys simply are/were in need of some game time reps but will get better, but the O-line should have been a little better than it has been- dissapointing to me to this point. Look for a big dosage of 8 in the box and going after the QB so the o-line is our key in a lot of ways. I didnt realize it when I looked at the schedule but this open date may have come at a very good time (considering our young skilled position players, their development and injuries)

Posted by EnterpriseCat (Member # 2881) on 09-15-2008, 09:43 PM:

I thought it was the wrong decision at the time and still believe it is.

Posted by KyCat (Member # 146) on 09-16-2008, 07:40 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by bayer:

quote:
The odds of making the field goal were much greater than the odds of it being blocked
Not on Saturday night last.

Actually even on Saturday Night the odds were better. He attempted how many field goals (6) and made how many goals (2)and how many were blocked (1)? In fact going in to that attempt, two field goals were made and none had been blocked. So even on Saturday Night the odds of making it were better than the odds of it being blocked.

What I see here surprisingly is a large number of fans wanting Kentucky to play 'not to lose' as opposed to playing to win. The Field Goal was playing to win--not kicking would have been playing not to lose. In the past it seems we always hated it when Kentucky appeared to play not to lose as opposed to play for the win.

[ 09-16-2008, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: KyCat ]

Posted by BlueCollarMan (Member # 2114) on 09-17-2008, 11:15 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Max Beasley:
I believe your right about the 3rd down clock management BCM.

Can anyone give me the details on this? Because there is a BIG difference between going for it with :20 left compared to :03.

Clock management is a coach/QB issue.

Fred

Posted by GA Cat (Member # 642) on 09-17-2008, 12:48 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KyCat:

quote:
Originally posted by bayer:

quote:
The odds of making the field goal were much greater than the odds of it being blocked
Not on Saturday night last.
Actually even on Saturday Night the odds were better. He attempted how many field goals (6) and made how many goals (2)and how many were blocked (1)? In fact going in to that attempt, two field goals were made and none had been blocked. So even on Saturday Night the odds of making it were better than the odds of it being blocked.

What I see here surprisingly is a large number of fans wanting Kentucky to play 'not to lose' as opposed to playing to win. The Field Goal was playing to win--not kicking would have been playing not to lose. In the past it seems we always hated it when Kentucky appeared to play not to lose as opposed to play for the win.

It is all about the amount of time on the clock as far as I am concerned. If there had been 1 minute left, then the FG is the right call because giving them the ball with 1 min to go with 80 yards is a lot different than if there was 20 seconds left. With 20 seconds left, a running play would have eaten at least 3 seconds. That would have left MTSU with the prospects of an 80 yard drive in 17 seconds with no time outs. I believe odds of that happening is a lot lower than the odds of a blocked kick. The point is, that given the situation, the only hope that MTSU had was blocked kick, and we gave them that opportunity. A fumble would have been bad as well, but the odds of a fumble are far lower than a blocked kick. Besides, a lot has to go right for a FG to work. Long snap, hold, etc. A lot of opportunities for a mistake.

I am not saying we play not to lose, but in that situation, being a defensive team, then it makes sense to me that the play to win is go for it on 4th and 8, let the defense win the game. I think that is a play to win, not a play not to lose.

Posted by bayer (Member # 462) on 09-17-2008, 01:58 PM:

quote:
Actually even on Saturday Night the odds were better. He attempted how many field goals (6) and made how many goals (2)and how many were blocked (1)? In fact going in to that attempt, two field goals were made and none had been blocked. So even on Saturday Night the odds of making it were better than the odds of it being blocked.

At least on that kick on Saturday night, the odds were 100%, because it was blocked.

It doesn't matter if you're a .400 hitter, if you struck out the last time at the plate with the bases loaded and two outs in the bottom of the ninth, down by one run. On that at bat you were .000.

[ 09-17-2008, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: bayer ]

Posted by ukcatfannfl (Member # 1425) on 09-17-2008, 03:55 PM:

Odds and what actually happened are two entirely different things!!

Posted by KyCat (Member # 146) on 09-17-2008, 09:26 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by GA Cat:
With 20 seconds left, a running play would have eaten at least 3 seconds. That would have left MTSU with the prospects of an 80 yard drive in 17 seconds with no time outs. I believe odds of that happening is a lot lower than the odds of a blocked kick. The point is, that given the situation, the only hope that MTSU had was blocked kick, and we gave them that opportunity. A fumble would have been bad as well, but the odds of a fumble are far lower than a blocked kick. Besides, a lot has to go right for a FG to work. Long snap, hold, etc. A lot of opportunities for a mistake.
QB]

I disagree with your entire premise. 17 seconds and 80 yards is very doable without timeouts and I think much more likely than returning a blocked punt for a touchdown. As I suspect neither you nor I have actual statistics on the number of hail mary passes winning late games, verses returning blocked punts its probably an 'agree to disagree' situation. I however do know that I can recall several hail mary passes winning a game and just a single blocked punt being returned for a win.

A blocked kick is one thing, recovering the block another, and returning it for a touchdown still another. I have to think the odds of all three of those happening would be much less than going 80 yards in 17 seconds.

Posted by KyCat (Member # 146) on 09-17-2008, 09:32 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by bayer:
At least on that kick on Saturday night, the odds were 100%, because it was blocked.

It doesn't matter if you're a .400 hitter, if you struck out the last time at the plate with the bases loaded and two outs in the bottom of the ninth, down by one run. On that at bat you were .000.

But you are talking the REALITY of what happened AFTER it happened. Anyone can Monday Morning Quarterback if they watched the game. At the time the decision was made that reality was not known so as a Coach you go with the odds, experience or your gut. And at that time, the ODDS were as I previously stated. True, the reality became that the kick was blocked but that WAS against the odds.

[ 09-17-2008, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: KyCat ]