Punting from inside the opponent's 35-yard line - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Punting from inside the opponent's 35-yard line (/thread-4070.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Punting from inside the opponent's 35-yard line (/thread-4070.html)
Punting from inside the opponent's 35-yard line - doug - 10-20-2012
is what losers do. I'd rather go for it an fail, and that's true even though Allen just fumbled. It's a bad decision.
Re: Punting from inside the opponent's 35-yard line - JohnR34231 - 10-20-2012
Not that terrible a decision when your defense is better than your offense.
It would be nice if our offense was better, but it is what it is.
Kal is handing us this game on a plate with turnovers, but at least we're capitalizing on them.
Re: Punting from inside the opponent's 35-yard line - Kathy - 10-20-2012
They were looking at a 52-yard field goal attempt by a kicker with VERY shaky confidence. T.edford's TO did us a favor, it seems, as it all worked out. We ended up with 7 instead of maybe 3.
Re: Punting from inside the opponent's 35-yard line - JohnR34231 - 10-20-2012
Shaky confidence is right.
He just blew another easier one.
Nothing personal against the guy, but we really need to find someone else.
Re: Punting from inside the opponent's 35-yard line - Cardinal96 - 10-20-2012
(10-20-2012, 01:20 PM)doug link Wrote:is what losers do. I'd rather go for it an fail, and that's true even though Allen just fumbled. It's a bad decision.
I personally liked the call. Williamson wasn' t going to make it from that range and it plays to our strength which is our D.
Re: Punting from inside the opponent's 35-yard line - doug - 10-20-2012
Wasn't suggesting that we try to a FG -- I have no confidence in JW. I would have gone for it on 4 and 4. But you also have to run a play that will actually make a 1st down.
Re: Punting from inside the opponent's 35-yard line - Roberton3 - 10-20-2012
(10-20-2012, 01:20 PM)doug link Wrote:is what losers do. I'd rather go for it an fail, and that's true even though Allen just fumbled. It's a bad decision.
I didn't like the call either -- I would have gone for it. But saying punting "is what losers do"? Come on. Your relentless negativity is getting really tiresome.
Re: Punting from inside the opponent's 35-yard line - Farm93 - 10-20-2012
We need to embrace the SEC in all of us. UCB was not going to score 21 points without help. Punt the ball, lengthen their field and move on. I suspect we will see a similar strategy for every team not from Eugene. The D is just so much better than the Pac-12s Os that it make sense to let thenm dominate.
21 points. Was definitely enough to just let the D do their thinng and get the W
Re: Punting from inside the opponent's 35-yard line - doug - 10-20-2012
maybe saying that's what losers do was harsh, but the last Stanford guy who always punted from inside the opponent's 35 was Walt Harris, who to me was the embodiment of a loser.
Re: Punting from inside the opponent's 35-yard line - washingtonismoney - 10-20-2012
(10-20-2012, 04:49 PM)doug link Wrote:maybe saying that's what losers do was harsh, but the last Stanford guy who always punted from inside the opponent's 35 was Wlat Idiotface, who to me was the embodiment of a loser.
Well, Shaw went for it the trip before and got stopped. Next time around he decides to reduce variance,* which is not the craziest thing to do up 18 and with a dominant defense. Facts, and knowing them: they tend to help.
* In general teams need to go for it more on 4th down. However people should recognize the role that variance plays. Often a choice that's best in an EV sense of maximizing points -- the usual math that justifies the 4th down decisions -- may increase variance. If you're Stanford, up 18 and with a dominant defense, the only way you lose is through crazy stuff happening. Going for it increases the "crazy stuff %age." On balance I'd probably go for it, but the decision is often not quite as obvious as people make it out to be, I think.