Never take the points off the board?

Donate To GopherHole
FreakyDeke

FreakyDeke

picked a dumb moniker
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
1,073
Reaction score
0
Points
36
What if the same thing happened in overtime? If we went first in overtime and we made a field goal and a leaping penalty gave us first down, would you not take the points off the board and go for the touchdown? This came up while playing NCAA 10 just now and I thought it was relavent. It's a little different situation, but some on the board made it sound like under no circumstances should points be taken off the board.
 

OT is different for several reasons:

1) The score would be tied to start rather than us being up 7.
2) It means we'd be taking a three point lead instead of a two score lead, changing the math.
3) The other team starts at the 25 vs. having to drive the length of the field to counter the score.

I don't think "You NEVER take points off the board" is correct, but I don't think you ever take points off the board when they give you a lead of more than 8 points (more than one score).
 

i think theres several way that could work out if it was 1-2-3 qtr i would say brewster takes the 1st down there were only a couple mins to go grab the two score lead you never know whats gonna happen you could got 3 and out sna the ball over the holders hands giving them the ball on the 50
 

I'd qualify the NEVER and say:

"You NEVER take points off the board when they give you a 2-score lead late in the 4th"

If it were the 1st quarter and a 0-0 ball game, try and get 7. The odds are good enough that you at least get the 3 back that you take the chance. In our situation Saturday night, the points were the easy choice. No other way to guarantee a 2-score lead.
 

I, and many other fans quietly boo'd the descision to take the 3 points over another 3 downs. Prior to the field goal, I thought I saw Adam Weber pleading with Brewster to go for it. Many fans agreed.

Kicking the field goal and keeping the points was the right choice. Air Force wasn't going to score 14 points. But years of seeing 14-point leads disapear like drops of water in the desert outside of the Insigt Bowl had me (and others) concerned. This is one of those cases where it is nice to be wrong.
 


"I'd qualify the NEVER and say:

"You NEVER take points off the board when they give you a 2-score lead late in the 4th"

If it were the 1st quarter and a 0-0 ball game, try and get 7. The odds are good enough that you at least get the 3 back that you take the chance. In our situation Saturday night, the points were the easy choice. No other way to guarantee a 2-score lead."

"I, and many other fans quietly boo'd the descision to take the 3 points over another 3 downs. Prior to the field goal, I thought I saw Adam Weber pleading with Brewster to go for it. Many fans agreed.

Kicking the field goal and keeping the points was the right choice. Air Force wasn't going to score 14 points. But years of seeing 14-point leads disapear like drops of water in the desert outside of the Insigt Bowl had me (and others) concerned. This is one of those cases where it is nice to be wrong. "

Both totally right. The years of Mason's prevent D have warped the minds of many in the other thread it seems.
 

Goldmember said:
I, and many other fans quietly boo'd the descision to take the 3 points over another 3 downs. Prior to the field goal, I thought I saw Adam Weber pleading with Brewster to go for it. Many fans agreed.

Kicking the field goal and keeping the points was the right choice. Air Force wasn't going to score 14 points. But years of seeing 14-point leads disapear like drops of water in the desert outside of the Insigt Bowl had me (and others) concerned. This is one of those cases where it is nice to be wrong.
Click to expand...

The thing is...there was no guarantee we'd even score.......
 

It was a weird moment for sure. At the time I reasoned it through and came to the same decision as Brewster but it really felt like the wrong one. And as others have mentioned, probably from our great history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
 

Another Northwestern-Like Scenario could've occured and we'd have a few "Fire Brewster!" threads going on.......
 



wrong!

come on - think about this - it was late in the game - if we take the penalty we get the ball first down on about the 10 yard line - we run valuable time off the clock and then kick the field goal - we need to have more confidence in our kicking game. If you recall we were put in a position to have to handle an on-side kick later in the game because of this. If we keep the ball this never would have happened - everybody likes to think of all the bad things that could happen if we kept the ball - keep posession of the ball and work the clock - although this does remind me of the Michigan game in Ann Arbor a few years ago when we lost yet another heartbreaker - we had the ball first and goal on the 9 yard line late in the game down four points and failed to score - after the game Mason said in the press conference that the nine yard line is a tough place on the field to score from - I laughed
 

People talk about you need to have confidence in the offense not to mess up the situation, or confidence in the kicker not to mess up the second chance kick. But what about confidence in your defense not to give up 10 points in 5 minutes to an offense that had shown all day that if they were gonna score, it was gonna take a while? If you take the penalty and say okay, let's keep the offense out there, aren't you telling your defense, "I don't think you can hold a two score lead to finish this game off"?

All this "what if" stuff is worthless. The right decision was made because it ended exactly how planned, with Air Force taking all the clock and only scoring another 3 points. Why is this still a debate? If this were a 42-35 game, maybe you take a different approach. But a 17-10 game? Not so much.
 

holereader said:
come on - think about this - it was late in the game - if we take the penalty we get the ball first down on about the 10 yard line - we run valuable time off the clock and then kick the field goal - we need to have more confidence in our kicking game. If you recall we were put in a position to have to handle an on-side kick later in the game because of this. If we keep the ball this never would have happened - everybody likes to think of all the bad things that could happen if we kept the ball - keep posession of the ball and work the clock - although this does remind me of the Michigan game in Ann Arbor a few years ago when we lost yet another heartbreaker - we had the ball first and goal on the 9 yard line late in the game down four points and failed to score - after the game Mason said in the press conference that the nine yard line is a tough place on the field to score from - I laughed
Click to expand...

There are no guarantees. Why take 1st and 10 on the 11? Yes you may run time off, but you lessen the chance for a 1st down inside the 1 and shorten the field for the offense to operate. The right choice was made.
 

And if Air Force had gotten the onside kick, people would have been calling for Brewster's head for not taking the penalty.
 




RodentRampage said:
And if Air Force had gotten the onside kick, people would have been calling for Brewster's head for not taking the penalty.
Click to expand...

And then they still would have needed to go back and get a touchdown, something they could only manage when they fooled and went deep unexpectedly, something they weren't going to be able to pull off at that juncture.
 

71376235.BISOnVbQ.beatdeadhorse.gif
 

This "never take points off the board" business is just supersition, right up there with sacrificing chickens.
 

I would align this to playing blackjack. The people who know how to win more often then not, never take points off the board. Those who don't tend to take the points off the board. There is no guarantee what is going to happen on the next card flip, but you're better off following a tried and true practice.
 

I don't see the blackjack analogy. Are there personal fouls in blackjack?
 

He's talking about risk aversion. In general, people who do everything they can to minimize their risk tend to succeed, whether it's football, blackjack, whatever. Of course, there are outliers, but in general, it is true. And this is why you don't take away a 2-score lead, especially with 5 min on the clock.
 


Isn't risk aversion in football generally considered "playing not to lose"? There's no avoiding risk in this situation. There's a risk that if you take the penalty, you might not come up with any points at all. But it is also risky to leave time on the clock.
 

I don't have the statistics right in front of me, but it is obviously far riskier to be up 7 points, with the ball, at the opponents' 11, with 5 min left, than it is to be up 10, your opponent in possession on their own end of the field, 5 min left. This holds even more water when your defense is stout and your opponent runs the ball 90% of time (read: slow-developing offense).

As has already been beaten to death in this thread (and one already on the subject), there are far more things that can go wrong for your team on offense than there are on defense. And forcing AFA to score twice with 5 min left is a far safer proposition than trying to run from scrimmage, which could ensue in a pick-six, fumble taken back to the house, blocked kick taken back to the house, etc., etc. And then the game is tied, which is clearly even riskier still.
 

dpodoll68 said:
I don't have the statistics right in front of me, but it is obviously far riskier to be up 7 points, with the ball, at the opponents' 11, with 5 min left, than it is to be up 10, your opponent in possession on their own end of the field, 5 min left. This holds even more water when your defense is stout and your opponent runs the ball 90% of time (read: slow-developing offense).

As has already been beaten to death in this thread (and one already on the subject), there are far more things that can go wrong for your team on offense than there are on defense. And forcing AFA to score twice with 5 min left is a far safer proposition than trying to run from scrimmage, which could ensue in a pick-six, fumble taken back to the house, blocked kick taken back to the house, etc., etc. And then the game is tied, which is clearly even riskier still.
Click to expand...
+1
:horse:
 

RodentRampage said:
Isn't risk aversion in football generally considered "playing not to lose"? There's no avoiding risk in this situation. There's a risk that if you take the penalty, you might not come up with any points at all. But it is also risky to leave time on the clock.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can bucket that into one group. There are other things that people tend to agree on: Having a quarterback throw the ball out of bonds instead of trying to make a play, kicking away from a dangerous returner, running the ball at the end of the second half as to not give the other team any chance of momentum going into hafltime, etc.

Keeping points on the board is playing to win. Just like not hitting on 16 when the dealer is showing a 4.
 

RodentRampage said:
This "never take points off the board" business is just supersition, right up there with sacrificing chickens.
Click to expand...

If there were 2 minutes left, Brewster would have taken the points off the board.

That said, I believe he made he right decision under the circumstances.

I said this in the other thread, but if you think about it the circumstances were similar to the Vikings in '98 when Gary Anderson missed a field goal. I think Denny would take the points over the penalty if he could have them - and in that case there was only a little over two minutes left.
 

If the situation were different, I would agree. If we had just hit a 47 yard field goal, and there was a 5 yard penalty, I would decline it. You could still cut over 2 minutes off the clock, but the field goal position would still be pretty long.

This situation is different. With the ball on the 11, we could cut over 2 minutes off the clock, and be set up with a 28 yard attempt, even if we gained 0 yards. That's playing to win. Sure, there is a chance that something could go wrong, but in this situation, it is small enough that the 2+ minutes we could eliminate is worth the risk.

I'm not saying that Brewster was wrong to decline the penalty, but taking the penalty would not have been wrong either.
 

badgergopher said:
If there were 2 minutes left, Brewster would have taken the points off the board.

That said, I believe he made he right decision under the circumstances.

I said this in the other thread, but if you think about it the circumstances were similar to the Vikings in '98 when Gary Anderson missed a field goal. I think Denny would take the points over the penalty if he could have them - and in that case there was only a little over two minutes left.
Click to expand...

Why in the world would Brewster forgo a 2 score lead with 2 minutes left if he wouldn't do so with 5 minutes left? The percentages in favor of his call get better the less time there is on the clock! Jeebus!
 

Same situation this week against Cal. and Brew would take the 1st down and try to put 7 on the board. IMHO
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom