Tracy Claeys - Errors from IL game . . .

Donate To GopherHole
GopherWeatherGuy said:
I think the D being tired has been vastly overstated. Illinois had a couple of 4 min drives in the the 4th quarter. Not 8-9 minute drives. Illinois also only scored 10 points in the second half, fewer than they had in the first half. It's not like they were running up and down the field scoring every possession.
Click to expand...

I think you are underrating it. In OT, you only have to go 25 yards. Only once did we make them go 3 and out all game. The time of possession was largely in their favor. And our defense has had a lot of injuries. I think there is a good chance Illinois wins if we end up going to OT.
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
I understand that other people erroneously feel like that was not an awful call. However, it was. Mathematically, it makes no sense. Strategically, it makes absolutely no sense.

Another poster had a long post about how it made sense at that time, it did not.

You make them have to go for 2, for the tie. It's an absolute no-brainer. If it didn't work out, it would have been as stupid as the Michigan play.

*note, I like Claeys, it was just a putrid call.
Click to expand...

There are too many variables to simply blanket call the 2 point decision a "putrid call." Home game. Crowd going crazy after stretch play. Defense can't afford to call a timeout. Offense feeling confident. Defense reeling and frustrated.

- Late edit: Since you'd like to discuss math, feel free to post your equations. Might help your argument.
 

GophersInIowa said:
I think you are underrating it. In OT, you only have to go 25 yards. Only once did we make them go 3 and out all game. The time of possession was largely in their favor. And our defense has had a lot of injuries. I think there is a good chance Illinois wins if we end up going to OT.
Click to expand...

But then again you have a shortened field, and the Gophers did a nice job of keeping Illinois out of the end zone in this game. Illinois only scored 2 TDs the entire game. I'm totally fine with saying that Claeys made the gutsy call to go for two and put the game away. But it was NOT the mathematically correct call.
 

I would never kneel at the 1 and take points off the board. Maybe if Tom Brady was the other teams Quarterback! But always take the points.

A for going for 2? Id rather have a coach with the cajones to make that call, than one who wimps out and plays for the tie.
 


GopherWeatherGuy said:
But then again you have a shortened field, and the Gophers did a nice job of keeping Illinois out of the end zone in this game. Illinois only scored 2 TDs the entire game. I'm totally fine with saying that Claeys made the gutsy call to go for two and put the game away. But it was NOT the mathematically correct call.
Click to expand...

Help me out with the math here. I'm stuck using simple arithmetic: 30+2= game over. 30+1= chance for OT loss.
 

Otis said:
I would never kneel at the 1 and take points off the board. Maybe if Tom Brady was the other teams Quarterback! But always take the points.

A for going for 2? Id rather have a coach with the cajones to make that call, than one who wimps out and plays for the tie.
Click to expand...

I understand always wanting more points, but you do understand that if Brooks goes down before the end zone, the game is over and the Gophers win, right? By scoring the TD, there was probably a 10-20% chance the Gophers would lose. It's still very likely the Gophers would have won, but why wouldn't you want the sure thing?
 

jonnyganas said:
Going for 2 DOES get the offense jacked up to put the game away, it gives the players confidence in their coach because he has put faith in them, <b>which helps you win games in the future</b>.
Click to expand...

OK now. No matter what side of the debate one is on, can we all agree that this is reading WaaaaaaaaaaaaaY too much into this decision. It is going to help us win future games? Wow. smh
 

Old Goph said:
Help me out with the math here. I'm stuck using simple arithmetic: 30+2= game over. 30+1= chance for OT loss.
Click to expand...

It also sends a strong mesage to the offense players that the coach belives in them.... goes a long way to improving performance...
 



Thing is, it worked. If it didn't, it would have been a terrible call but it worked.

People were on Kill for years for being too conservative. We now know we have a coach that may take a chance, even one that goes against conventional wisdom (perhaps they knew something that made them comfortable going for 2?). Remember if he lost after missing the two, Claeys would have got destroyed. Easy decision is kick the convert and hope for the best. Old college try and all that. But you know what? They converted the 2 point conversion. Really good coaches are able to beat the percentages on the card. Maybe Claeys got lucky but it is hard to argue with success.

For the Gophers to win the Big Ten, they will need a lot of luck and a coach prepared to gamble. They won't win the Big Ten by playing not to lose.
 

Old Goph said:
Help me out with the math here. I'm stuck using simple arithmetic: 30+2= game over. 30+1= chance for OT loss.
Click to expand...

You have about a 40% chance of converting the 2 point, compared to about a 95% chance of converting the 1. So you have a 95% chance you cannot lose in regulation.

The probability of Illinois to drive the field for a TD AND convert a 2 point is much lower than driving the field and only needing to convert an extra point. Mathematically you take the higher percentage points, and force Illinois to convert the lower percentage drive and 2 point, at worse sending it to OT.
 

Your premise is based on avoiding a loss. I really like the coach playing to win. Especially here where he has to.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
 

2727Gopher said:
I understand always wanting more points, but you do understand that if Brooks goes down before the end zone, the game is over and the Gophers win, right? By scoring the TD, there was probably a 10-20% chance the Gophers would lose. It's still very likely the Gophers would have won, but why wouldn't you want the sure thing?
Click to expand...

No way. There was 1:25 left...I would love to see the numbers but there is no way that over history teams that score a TD to go up 8 (let's assume we just kick the extra point) lose 10-20% of the time. In fact, I bet the percentage of those games that go to overtime are less than the spread given. Also, let's take your buffoonery as fact - that would lead me to believe that going for 2 was the exact right choice. If Claeys was looking at a possible 20% chance of losing the game by scoring, the risk of going for two is a no-brainer. Put the game out of reach, or roll the overtime dice in the (supposedly) inevitable 75 yard drive that Illinois was going to execute in less than 90 seconds.
 



I think Claeys thought we were playing Purdue and didn't want a repeat of that nightmare... put it out of reach! Way to go Claeys! Love it!

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 

kisarazu said:
There are too many variables to simply blanket call the 2 point decision a "putrid call." Home game. Crowd going crazy after stretch play. Defense can't afford to call a timeout. Offense feeling confident. Defense reeling and frustrated.

- Late edit: Since you'd like to discuss math, feel free to post your equations. Might help your argument.
Click to expand...

+1. I had zero problem with going for two. They were deflated and couldn't call timeout. Our chances of converting were much higher than the 50/50 they would normally be. Conversely, if they had gone down and scored, our chances of stopping a 2-point conversion at the end of yet another choke job would have been far less than 50/50, IMO.
 

2727Gopher said:
I understand always wanting more points, but you do understand that if Brooks goes down before the end zone, the game is over and the Gophers win, right? By scoring the TD, there was probably a 10-20% chance the Gophers would lose. It's still very likely the Gophers would have won, but why wouldn't you want the sure thing?
Click to expand...

+1. There's zero dispute over which was right in a vacuum. You go down, take 3 knees, game over. There's 99.999% chance you win. By scoring it went down significantly. But it's not a vacuum. Was Brooks far enough clear to eliminate the chance of getting hit as he went down and fumbling, etc.?
 

GopherHomer said:
No way. There was 1:25 left...I would love to see the numbers but there is no way that over history teams that score a TD to go up 8 (let's assume we just kick the extra point) lose 10-20% of the time. In fact, I bet the percentage of those games that go to overtime are less than the spread given. Also, let's take your buffoonery as fact - that would lead me to believe that going for 2 was the exact right choice. If Claeys was looking at a possible 20% chance of losing the game by scoring, the risk of going for two is a no-brainer. Put the game out of reach, or roll the overtime dice in the (supposedly) inevitable 75 yard drive that Illinois was going to execute in less than 90 seconds.
Click to expand...

There's probably a 20% chance they score, a 50% chance they make the 2, and 50% chance they win in OT, so about a 5% chance of actually losing. That's still much higher than the .0001% if they go down and take 3 knees. Then you have to factor in that this is the Gophers we're talking about, so you can multiply that 5% by about 3 (or 5).
 

I hope next week at this time there's another thread endlessly debating the decisions made at the end of the Gophers 8 point victory over the Badgers.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
You have about a 40% chance of converting the 2 point, compared to about a 95% chance of converting the 1. So you have a 95% chance you cannot lose in regulation.

The probability of Illinois to drive the field for a TD AND convert a 2 point is much lower than driving the field and only needing to convert an extra point. Mathematically you take the higher percentage points, and force Illinois to convert the lower percentage drive and 2 point, at worse sending it to OT.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but tell me the percentage on us missing the two point conversion plus their scoring the TD AND deciding to go for two points and the win rather than playing for OT AND converting for the win?
Never mind. I'm just messing with you. I would only argue this was not a slam dunk decision either way and as the coach, SOMETIMES you have to go with your gut and the feel of the moment and live with the result. If we're just going by some book, who needs to pay big bucks for a coach? Just pay someone to read the book.
 

FireDaveLee said:
I think an interesting way to look at it is from the opposite perspective....

If you were an Illinois fan, would you want the Gophers to go for 2 or just kick the PAT? Clearly, you want the Gophers to kick.

If you were an Illinois coach, would you want the Gophers to go for 2 or just kick the PAT?

I personally loved the call, for the same reason that TC said: if Illinois scores a TD, they're most likely kicking the PAT.

I do wonder if a small part of it also was to bait IL & see if they would use up their last timeout. If they would have, I do think TC probably would have then kicked the PAT.
Click to expand...
I hadn't thought about TC baiting them into using their final timeout. That's a great observation and probably something that went through TC'S thought process!

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 


I can't believe people are even debating going for two. Obviously, you go for two. When you have a chance to END the game, put it out of reach in a single play, you take it. Sure, if you kick the extra point, it slightly increases your odds of winning over not scoring any points at all. Certainly it makes things more difficult for Illinois if they score the touchdown.

But remember, the challenge of converting a two-point conversion (as opposed to an extra point) only exists for Illinois if they come back to score the touchdown in the first place. The naysayers are spouting these conversion percentages as though it were a given that Illinois would have scored. But it isn't - the odds of Illinois going for two and tying/winning the game are strictly contingent upon them marching down the field and scoring a touchdown first, which even against a tired defense is still a bigger challenge than converting from the two yard line. This is why kicking the extra point would only have increased the Gophers' odds of victory by a small amount. If they had failed to convert the two-pointer, a few percentage points is all it would have cost them. Compared to the reward of all but guaranteeing a victory, the risk is minimal.

This is a problem with a lot of conservative sports decision making. People overstate the risk and understate the reward. They get too caught up on what would happen if they fail. It's why teams punt more often than the math says they should. And it's why so many people on this board are insisting that kicking the extra point was the percentage play, even though it wasn't.

(The best percentage play would have been if Brooks had taken a knee, but that didn't happen. We're talking about the decision in the moment here).
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I understand that other people erroneously feel like that was not an awful call. However, it was. Mathematically, it makes no sense. Strategically, it makes absolutely no sense.

Another poster had a long post about how it made sense at that time, it did not.

You make them have to go for 2, for the tie. It's an absolute no-brainer. If it didn't work out, it would have been as stupid as the Michigan play.

*note, I like Claeys, it was just a putrid call.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Go up by two scores or risk a potential tie? Vastly better odds converting the 2-point conversion than Illinois driving the field and scoring with 1:25 left and one time out. Mathematically makes a lot of sense.

No brainer.
 

BBQ Platypus said:
I can't believe people are even debating going for two. Obviously, you go for two. When you have a chance to END the game, put it out of reach in a single play, you take it. Sure, if you kick the extra point, it slightly increases your odds of winning over not scoring any points at all. Certainly it makes things more difficult for Illinois if they score the touchdown.

But remember, the challenge of converting a two-point conversion (as opposed to an extra point) only exists for Illinois if they come back to score the touchdown in the first place. The naysayers are spouting these conversion percentages as though it were a given that Illinois would have scored. But it isn't - the odds of Illinois going for two and tying/winning the game are strictly contingent upon them marching down the field and scoring a touchdown first, which even against a tired defense is still a bigger challenge than converting from the two yard line. This is why kicking the extra point would only have increased the Gophers' odds of victory by a small amount. If they had failed to convert the two-pointer, a few percentage points is all it would have cost them. Compared to the reward of all but guaranteeing a victory, the risk is minimal.

This is a problem with a lot of conservative sports decision making. People overstate the risk and understate the reward. They get too caught up on what would happen if they fail. It's why teams punt more often than the math says they should. And it's why so many people on this board are insisting that kicking the extra point was the percentage play, even though it wasn't.

(The best percentage play would have been if Brooks had taken a knee, but that didn't happen. We're talking about the decision in the moment here).
Click to expand...

You have made the point more clear than any of us. The statistics for a high school football team down south favor never punting. So that coach has won numerous state titles following the math.

Another tangent to this topic: let us be thankful we were able to avoid OT due to the risk of more injuries. Considering it is conceivable (if somewhat unlikely) a team could have to play between 20-30 snaps if the game goes into multiple OTs that's another reason to try and go for the win in regulation.
 

V
GopherWeatherGuy said:
I agree with Brooks scoring, disagree with the going for 2 call. Claeys might need to rethink his math. Kicking the extra point is a higher percentage play and guarantees you cannot lose in regulation. Going for 2 has a much lower rate of success, and not converting it opens up the possibility of losing in regulation.
Click to expand...

Exact on with both points
 

For all the people who liked when Brooks scored a TD:

let's say Brooks breaks off a 10 yard run, stays in bounds, and gets the first down instead of scoring a TD. At this point would you:

1) want the Gophers to try to run more plays with the objective to go down the field and score?
2) take three knees in a row and end the game?

If you chose #2, then why would you have wanted Brook's to score on the long run????

Just curious, has anybody actually ever scene a botched snap when kneeling the ball be fumbled, turned over, and cost them the game? In a crummy bowl game last year (I believe Marshall may have been playing), I did see the snap fumbled, but the defense had already conceded the win and was not trying so the offense jumped on the ball to recover. Also, why do we see a lot of teams concede the final kneel downs in a game? Is there a reason besides eliminating a possible scuffle or fight?
 

GOPHER.NATION. said:
For all the people who liked when Brooks scored a TD
Click to expand...

I liked 6 points on the scoreboard for the Gophers. Kneeling on the 1 would have been ideal, but it's not worth making a fuss about.


Sent from my XT1031 using Tapatalk
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom