Do you agree with Johnson's decision to go for it on 4th and 1?
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
Actually, they should have run it to Idowu's side - he was mesmerized by the option play all day... Hopefully he'll be better now that he's seen it.
Go Pitt.
If Narduzzi was in Johnson's shoes and he punted and eventually lost the game, all hell would've broken loose on the board.
Posters would've said he didn't play to win... Trolls would said he blew another game, etc... It was a gutsy move, but a bad play call. Jarrett and Soto were having a great game. I would not have called for a run up the middle...
Posters would've said he didn't play to win... Trolls would said he blew another game, etc... It was a gutsy move, but a bad play call. Jarrett and Soto were having a great game. I would not have called for a run up the middle...
With our defense, I think you always have to use 4 downs in similar situations. On 3rd and 3 vs Marshall, I was questioning whether or not I would call a 3rd down play in an effort to get 2 or more yards to set up 4th and 1 or get the first with a 3 yard run. I was undecided but I wouldn't have hated using 4 downs there vs Marshall. College football is different now. Its an offensive game. You have to win it with your offense and not force your D to save you. Offenses are so much more advanced than defenses.
Why would we have needed to challenge them much (at all?) with the passing game? We had 1:47 and 3 TOs to get a maximum of 40 yards for a FG attempt. We were running for 5 yards a carry and can easily get off 8 plays in 1:35 with 3 timeouts. We had plenty of time to move into FG range without even throwing a pass. Heck, when they knew we were doing nothing but running the ball after they turned it over on downs we gained 23 yards on 3 plays. Right there we are on the 50 (at worst) and probably have at least 1 minute left, before using any of the TOs.
I think there is a very good chance (60-70%, which is a completely made up opinion percentage) we get into FG range. The difference is it might have been a 45-55 yard FG, instead
Sure. However, the only made up number is my guess at the likelihood we can move the ball 40 yards in 1:47 with 3 TOs. What do you think the likelihood of that is? 50%? 40%? 30%?
I don't know and I refuse to make up numbers. Remember, Blewitt barely made a 31-yard field goal. Were it a 32-yard field goal attempt, it would have been no good.
Again, some people think it was a good decision. All I can say is that I sure am glad Georgia Tech took that risk.
I don't believe we would have won had they punted there. We were having a hell of a time stopping that offense at that point in the game and I would definitely prefer to have to stop them just once than to have to stop them three or four times.
Again, some people think it was a good decision. All I can say is that I sure am glad Georgia Tech took that risk.
I don't believe we would have won had they punted there. We were having a hell of a time stopping that offense at that point in the game and I would definitely prefer to have to stop them just once than to have to stop them three or four times.
You already made up numbers because (somehow) you stated your conclusion that if they punted "worst case scenario for Georgia Tech would've been overtime." You had to have applied some reason and probability to come to that conclusion.
Last edited:
I am not a supporter of "playing not to lose". I wasn't surprised by Johnson decision, and was happy Pitt came up big on the stop. If the roles were reversed, I would want Pitt to take the gamble and go for it. I'm probably in the minority on that if the roles are reversed, but I would rather see a team "play to win".
Yeah, I guess. I'm not interested in debating math concepts or whose completely made up numbers have the most veracity.
I am just saying that when I saw Georgia Tech lineup to go for it, my heart did not exactly sink.
I was not thinking to myself, "Oh, my god, there's a 76.4% chance they are going to get this and then a 61.9% chance that we are going to lose as a result."
That was not my train of thought at all.
I was thinking to myself that a game that I thought we had let slip away was suddenly within our grasp again and all we needed to do was make one emanantly makable play to put ourselves in that position.
Again, I am definitely not a math wizard but those seemed like pretty good odds to me - much better than they were just moments earlier.
In other words, I saw it as an immense opportunity for Pitt and an unnecessarily enormous risk for Georgia Tech.
Other people saw it differently and as I've said repeatedly in this thread, that's fine. All of these things are situational and there are no cut and dried answers.
All I can say is that I sincerely hope that if we are in that same spot next year against Georgia Tech, they make the same poor choice based on the same faulty reasoning.
Similarly, if Pitt is in that position going forward, I hope we make a more sensible and patient choice.
I am just saying that when I saw Georgia Tech lineup to go for it, my heart did not exactly sink.
I was not thinking to myself, "Oh, my god, there's a 76.4% chance they are going to get this and then a 61.9% chance that we are going to lose as a result."
That was not my train of thought at all.
I was thinking to myself that a game that I thought we had let slip away was suddenly within our grasp again and all we needed to do was make one emanantly makable play to put ourselves in that position.
Again, I am definitely not a math wizard but those seemed like pretty good odds to me - much better than they were just moments earlier.
In other words, I saw it as an immense opportunity for Pitt and an unnecessarily enormous risk for Georgia Tech.
Other people saw it differently and as I've said repeatedly in this thread, that's fine. All of these things are situational and there are no cut and dried answers.
All I can say is that I sincerely hope that if we are in that same spot next year against Georgia Tech, they make the same poor choice based on the same faulty reasoning.
Similarly, if Pitt is in that position going forward, I hope we make a more sensible and patient choice.
I just don't agree that is playing to win. It's definitely aggressive but I think it was a stupid risk in that spot. There's a difference between being aggressive and being reckless.
I also think FAR more games are lost by player or coaching mistakes than are won by daring actions.
Isnt that true!
Heck, we were ripping the staff for not 'playing to win' in the penn state game. I follow along the lines of the dr by saying, if the other team is moving the ball at will and you have a passing game that frankly is weak. Then in my opinion, playing to win is grinding out first downs with your running game that is kicking arse this year. I dont think passing the ball just to say you play to win is intelligent unless you really think it will work like against Marshall.
Agree with Pittmeister. If he punted and then Pitt scored, the argument would've been that Pitt couldn't stop the outside run all day, and all they needed was a half a yard. Why didn't he go for it?
Think of it this way: with the time that was left, Pitt's chances of scoring after a punt, were far greater than the chance that Pitt was going to keep GT from getting that first down.
The real, actual numbers based on what actually happens in football games say that going for it was the correct decision. I don't have the exact numbers, and if I had to guess it was probably a pretty close thing, but the non-made up numbers pretty much say that going for it on fourth and less than a yard is always a better choice than not.
An interesting stat from this year that's related, just something I was curious about:
Georgia Tech this season is 7 for 13 on fourth down. Good for 65th in the country.
Pitt is tied for 16th at 5 for 7.
Last season, Georgia Tech was 13 for 26. Pitt was 11 for 13.
Georgia Tech this season is 7 for 13 on fourth down. Good for 65th in the country.
Pitt is tied for 16th at 5 for 7.
Last season, Georgia Tech was 13 for 26. Pitt was 11 for 13.
Yeah, going for it on 4th and 1 around you 35 or so is not "playing to win." Going for it on 4th down from around your own 35 is a desperation move.
As I wrote yesterday, it is all situational. Maybe the percentages do slide that way? I have no idea. However, I do know that it is extremely unusual to see any team go for it in that situation (less than two minutes left, inside your own 35). I suspect that is for a reason.
Fourth-and-one inside your own 35 yard-line with 10:26 to go in the 2Q is a lot different than the same down and distance with 1:54 left in the game. This isn't baseball and the stakes change the dynamics.
Honestly, I think Johnson was more worried about his D stopping Pitt there than he was confident his team would make it. I think that's also why they ran a dive instead of a pitch. Earlier in the game, in that exact same spot, Georgia Tech ran the pitch and were stopped then too but were given a ridiculously generous spot to get the first down by about a centimeter. In reality he was at least a half yard shy - maybe more. However, the replay was ruled inconclusive.
There is no way Johnson could have been super confident that his team was going to pick up that first down - not with the way our DT's were dominating the LOS. Soto in particular had a really good game.
I'm just saying that if they get off a decent punt there, my bet would have been that Pitt would have been fairly conservative there and may have settled for OT. Had the game gotten to OT I think GT would have had a decided advantage. Fortunately for us, we shall never find that out one way or the other.
This was infuriating. He needed to take the QB to force the toss sooner then the CB or S would tackle the RB. It was horrifying to watch.
Well of course it is for a reason. Football coaches (as a class) aren't all that particularly bright and they do things all the time that decrease their chances of winning but "look right" so they don't have to answer questions about what they did. I mean a couple weeks ago we played a team that punted on fourth and relatively short in our half of the field multiple times, including once in the fourth quarter when down multiple scores. I didn't see anyone questioning those decisions after the game because that's the kind of things that coaches do all the time, and yet each one of those was an absolutely moronic decision, and the last one was so dumb that the coach should have been told before he was even able to walk off the field that if he ever did something so monumentally stupid ever again he'd be fired on the spot. But he did something that coaches do all the time, so most people paid it no attention what so ever.
I said at the time, and I'll say it again, I think it was a horrible decision. The risk to reward was not good. Even if they made the first down there still was no certainty that they'd move down field and score to win the game. So the risk, may have been taken for no reason. And failure to make the play basically was giving Pitt the game.
I do understand the call. I just didn't agree with it then or now. And for the crowd that says you should always coach to win, this is why some coaches get tight and coach not to lose, because sometimes coaching to win, sets you up for the loss. I think a good coach looks at each situation and makes a decision based on many things. Ball position, offensive success, defensive success throughout the game should all be considered.
In the GaTech game the only thing that made it a bad decision to me was the ball location. Had they been 15 to 20 yards further it's a no brainer.
With all due respect, that's a pretty silly attitude. I think it's easier for people to stand safely on the sidelines and criticize that conservatism than it is for someone to actually take that gamble with their professional livelihood on the line.
Trust me, if Paul Johnson makes that same boneheaded decision with the same result this coming weekend, Georgia Tech will be looking for a new head coach at season's end.
Maybe that's because most athletic directors are also morons, I don't know?
Personally, I suspect that the coaching profession is a lot like EVERY OTHER PROFESSION on the planet. There are some very bright guys, some guys of average intelligence, and some guys who are not very bright.
The fact that almost none of them have gone for it in that situation, with that much on the line, should probably give you your answer as to the wisdom of that decision.
And if your response to that is that it's all because you are way smarter than every coach who has ever lived, then I don't know what to tell you?
The fact of the matter is that the level of understanding about the game is higher now than it was in the past when many of these coaches learned the game. And way too many people, including coaches of all sports, are reluctant to admit that what they were taught may not actually be the best strategy. It's why, to use a recent example, a baseball team could lose a 14 inning elimination game a week or so ago without putting the best pitcher in their bullpen, indeed the guy who had been the best relief pitcher in baseball over the last four months of the season, into the game. Because, you see, he is the closer. And at no point in those 14 innings did his team have a save situation. So of course the closer didn't come in to the game. That was clearly and obviously the wrong decision, and yet it's one that many baseball managers make all the time.
Oh, and as far as the fact that most teams don't go for it in that situation being some sort of proof that it must be the right decision, I mean surely you can't believe that, can you? Conventional wisdom is never wrong? Conservative coaching, coaching to avoid making a controversial decision rather than making the decision that gives you a better chance to win is always right? The Marshall coach punting in Pitt territory on fourth and short multiple times, including once in the fourth quarter when down multiple scores, is the correct strategy simply because it's something that many (if not most) coaches would have done as well? Please. Those kinds of decisions aren't based on the best strategy to win, they are based on the best strategy for the coach not to get questioned if they don't work.
Punt the ball and Pitt gets a couple first downs and kicks a field goal to win the game? Well hey, what can you do about that, right? How could the coach have anticipated that, right? Hey, it's not my fault we lost.
My gut feeling was fear and sickness in my stomach when they went for it. I was hoping so bad they would punt. My heart sank when they went for it. But our D stepped up for that pivotal play and we won. HTP!!!
See, my heart soared when I realized they were going to go for it. Right up until that moment, I thought we were definitely going to lose.
I knew in that moment that if we made one play – a play that we had already made two quarters earlier in the exact same situation (but were robbed by the officials) – we were going to win the game.
Who knows, maybe I was naive?
I knew in that moment that if we made one play – a play that we had already made two quarters earlier in the exact same situation (but were robbed by the officials) – we were going to win the game.
Who knows, maybe I was naive?
Let me make this simple. Going for it on 4th down at your own 35 with ~2:00 is asinine. You basically assure a loss if you miss it. You've put the entire game on that one play, when you didn't have to.
I just think this is all wrong.
1.) Of course conventional wisdom isn't always right. However, it's not always wrong either and to castigate an entire profession as a bunch of dummies because they don't see things the way you do is not only incredibly arrogant, it is also quite stupid.
2.) Buck Showalter made a poor choice. That has nothing to do with this discussion.
3.) I agree that Doc Holliday was overly conservative against Pitt. I probably would've gone for it on at least two occasions when he chose to punt.
However, there's a HUGE difference between going for it on 4/1 at the Pitt 40 YL midway through the 2Q and going for it on 4/1 from your own 34 YL with less than 2 mins left.
That has been my point this entire time. There is no cut and dried answer. The circumstances change the decision. The circumstances always change the decision – or at least they should if you have a brain in your head.
4.) I don't think conservative coaching necessarily equals giving your team less of a chance to win. I think that's a crazy mentality that will get you beat more often than not.
I do believe that far more games are lost on player or coaching mistakes than are won through daring decisions or plays. And when I say that I believe that, I mean that I believe that in the same way that I believe that tomorrow is Saturday.
Everyone loves a gunslinger – as long as he's alive. However, most gunslingers quickly end up dead.
5.) What if you punt the ball there and Pitt makes a mistake? Is that really out of the question? What if Pitt is conservative with the football because they are afraid to have to punt the ball back to you? Is that really so difficult to imagine?
I'm sorry but I've heard every rationalization in the world for what was quite obviously a very stupid decision that cost his team the football game.
Not maybe. Not might have. DID!
I promise you if they are in the same position going forward this season and he makes the same "revolutionary" decision and they are again stopped, he is going to be fired by someone like me who fails to fully grasp the sheer brilliance of his decision.
Last edited:
I would've never in a million years gone for it from that part of the field. Although with how automatic it had been until then for an opponent to convert a 4th down against Pitt, I would've definitely been tempted. Basically Johnson was thinking that and Pitt threw it back in his face.
