Narduzzi kicking was the right call...here is why...

[cpc247]

The defense stop them on the next position just has he planned them to before making the call to kick it. Second, even if we score the TD we lose 17-16. The real failure was 3 straight runs for no first down. I also am not against the 3 straight runs because we ran the ball well. I am against straight up the middle after we had so much success off tackle. If you want to be really picky 1st half intercept leads to TD otherwise the game is still 9-3 and it doesn't matter we win 12-3 or 12-11.

Other places to blame this week. PSU I agree should have went. Tonight HCPN got it right.

 

[UPitt '89]

The defense stop them on the next position just has he planned them to before making the call to kick it. Second, even if we score the TD we lose 17-16. The real failure was 3 straight runs for no first down. I also am not against the 3 straight runs because we ran the ball well. I am against straight up the middle after we had so much success off tackle. If you want to be really picky 1st half intercept leads to TD otherwise the game is still 9-3 and it doesn't matter we win 12-3 or 12-11.

Other places to blame this week. PSU I agree should have went. Tonight HCPN got it right.

We don't lose 17-16. We either lose 17-15 or tie 17-17 and go OT.

If Pitt gets the TD with 7 mins to go, they go for 2.

Secondly.... if Pitt is up either 17-10 or 15-10 (as they would be with a TD)... the final Miami drive plays out differently. If Miami needs a TD instead of a FG to win, the defense can play a little softer up top and keep the play in front of them. Then Miami maybe doesn't get a TD, because when the receiver gets past Mathis then Hamlin or Ford are there.

 

[BFo8]

We don't lose 17-16. We either lose 17-15 or tie 17-17 and go OT.

If Pitt gets the TD with 7 mins to go, they go for 2.

Secondly.... if Pitt is up either 17-10 or 15-10 (as they would be with a TD)... the final Miami drive plays out differently. If Miami needs a TD instead of a FG to win, the defense can play a little softer up top and keep the play in front of them. Then Miami maybe doesn't get a TD, because when the receiver gets past Mathis then Hamlin or Ford are there.

That all makes sense, the one option you didn’t include was Narduzzi inexplicably kicking the XP.

You wouldn’t think that would happen, but I wouldn’t have been shocked.

 

[Weavedog469]

Let’s be honest though on the last touchdown Miami scored there was piss poor tackling

 

[UPitt '89]

That all makes sense, the one option you didn’t include was Narduzzi inexplicably kicking the XP.

You wouldn’t think that would happen, but I wouldn’t have been shocked.

Nah.... I refuse to believe (despite all evidence to the contrary) that he is *THAT* bad at math.

But you may be right.

 

[wbrpanther]

We don't lose 17-16. We either lose 17-15 or tie 17-17 and go OT.

If Pitt gets the TD with 7 mins to go, they go for 2.

Secondly.... if Pitt is up either 17-10 or 15-10 (as they would be with a TD)... the final Miami drive plays out differently. If Miami needs a TD instead of a FG to win, the defense can play a little softer up top and keep the play in front of them. Then Miami maybe doesn't get a TD, because when the receiver gets past Mathis then Hamlin or Ford are there.

Imagine this scenario. After struggling all day to mount an offense and looking up at Miami on the scoreboard, Pitt finally gets in position to grab a lead with a FG. But Duzz decides that a 5 or 7 point lead if much better. So he goes for the TD, even though we had just lost 2 yards back to the 3, and gets stuffed. Then Pitt goes on to lose 10-9.

I don't think there would be one person, including you, who wouldn't have the pitch forks and torches out today. The way that game was playing out it was imperative that Pitt got a lead. I'll complain all day about the 3 preceding play calls. But not the call on 4th down.

 

[BFo8]

https://triblive.com/sports/kevin-gorman-pitts-pat-narduzzi-gets-it-wrong-on-fourth-and-goal-again/

I’m feeling a little vindicated this morning as obviously there has been discussion as to whether or not kicking the FG was the right move or not.

I still say going for it gives you a better chance to win, but also understand the argument of those who disagree.

However the people saying kicking the FG was the only possible move and going for it shouldn’t even be discussed are wrong.

 

[BFo8]

Imagine this scenario. After struggling all day to mount an offense and looking up at Miami on the scoreboard, Pitt finally gets in position to grab a lead with a FG. But Duzz decides that a 5 or 7 point lead if much better. So he goes for the TD, even though we had just lost 2 yards back to the 3, and gets stuffed. Then Pitt goes on to lose 10-9.

I don't think there would be one person, including you, who wouldn't have the pitch forks and torches out today. The way that game was playing out it was imperative that Pitt got a lead. I'll complain all day about the 3 preceding play calls. But not the call on 4th down.

As teams are relying more and more on analytics (that say going for it is the right move percentage wise) you will see less coaches kick there.

 

[UPitt '89]

So he goes for the TD, even though we had just lost 2 yards back to the 3

This is 100% false. The ball was a right at the 1-yard line on 4th down.... *NOT* the 3.

 

[Slick Manager of Champs]

Let’s be honest though on the last touchdown Miami scored there was piss poor tackling

true, but the point was kind of mute then. They would have had the ball at around the 10 yard line if Hamlin makes the tackle, a pretty make able FG. Most likely Miami would have ran the clock down to zero and kick if they didn't score the TD and then we had no chance to drive at the end.

 

[Weavedog469]

true, but the point was kind of mute then. They would have had the ball at around the 10 yard line if Hamlin makes the tackle, a pretty make able FG. Most likely Miami would have ran the clock down to zero and kick if they didn't score the TD and then we had no chance to drive at the end.

Except for the fact all game they talked about how terrible Miami’s kicking game has been. Stop him and make them make the kick

 

[President Stache]

The defense stop them on the next position just has he planned them to before making the call to kick it. Second, even if we score the TD we lose 17-16. The real failure was 3 straight runs for no first down. I also am not against the 3 straight runs because we ran the ball well. I am against straight up the middle after we had so much success off tackle. If you want to be really picky 1st half intercept leads to TD otherwise the game is still 9-3 and it doesn't matter we win 12-3 or 12-11.

Other places to blame this week. PSU I agree should have went. Tonight HCPN got it right.

Obvious to any intelligent football fan. I can’t believe the outrage if we went for it and didn’t get it and lost 10-9

 

[Slick Manager of Champs]

Except for the fact all game they talked about how terrible Miami’s kicking game has been. Stop him and make them make the kick

true, I'm not excusing the poor tackling. I just think chances are the way the day had gone even a terrible kicker would have nailed the short kick for a walk-off winner.

 

[superstein61a]

Imagine this scenario. After struggling all day to mount an offense and looking up at Miami on the scoreboard, Pitt finally gets in position to grab a lead with a FG. But Duzz decides that a 5 or 7 point lead if much better. So he goes for the TD, even though we had just lost 2 yards back to the 3, and gets stuffed. Then Pitt goes on to lose 10-9.

I don't think there would be one person, including you, who wouldn't have the pitch forks and torches out today. The way that game was playing out it was imperative that Pitt got a lead. I'll complain all day about the 3 preceding play calls. But not the call on 4th down.

you are correct, the haters and trolls would have been out in full force if the other scenario occurred. That is what they do

 

[BFo8]

you are correct, the haters and trolls would have been out in full force if the other scenario occurred. That is what they do

What would’ve been the reaction if Kessman missed the FG or it was blocked?

 

[cpc247]

https://triblive.com/sports/kevin-gorman-pitts-pat-narduzzi-gets-it-wrong-on-fourth-and-goal-again/

I’m feeling a little vindicated this morning as obviously there has been discussion as to whether or not kicking the FG was the right move or not.

I still say going for it gives you a better chance to win, but also understand the argument of those who disagree.

However the people saying kicking the FG was the only possible move and going for it shouldn’t even be discussed are wrong.

Cause local sports media is a great place to reference about PITT football....

 

[BFo8]

Cause local sports media is a great place to reference about PITT football....

No they’re not, sportswriters in general are clueless. Their job is to discuss what’s already happened, most are woefully lacking with their knowledge of game strategy or what is going to happen next.

That being said the call wasn’t so obvious that it’s not even a topic of discussion, which was my original point. There are pros and cons on both sides of the decision, don’t understand why some fans don’t realize that.

 

[Franb]

No they’re not, sportswriters in general are clueless. Their job is to discuss what’s already happened, most are woefully lacking with their knowledge of game strategy or what is going to happen next.

That being said the call wasn’t so obvious that it’s not even a topic of discussion, which was my original point. There are pros and cons on both sides of the decision, don’t understand why some fans don’t realize that.

I would suggest that the percentage of clueless sports fans is much higher than the percentage of clueless sports writers.

 

[President Stache]

you are correct, the haters and trolls would have been out in full force if the other scenario occurred. That is what they do

ANd I’d be one of them in that situation asi was with the psu game when Narduzzi made an actual bone head call

 

[JokePa]

I would suggest that the percentage of clueless sports fans is much higher than the percentage of clueless sports writers.

true... although most sport writers aren’t exactly geniuses either. Sure you got some great ones but the vast majority make 40k to be in locker rooms of naked millionaires asking them how they feel. Hardly Mensa activity

 

[USN_Panther]

In the end, the results determine the correctness of the decision. It is a difficult metric to be judged by, but this is why coaches make millions and why they frequently get fired.

1. Make FG, win game--decision correct.
2. Make FG and lose game by 1. Decision incorrect.
3. Miss FG or FG blocked. Decision incorrect.
4. Go for TD, unsuccessful. Miami scores on 99 yard run or pass or drive (Recall Syracuse had a 94 yard TD recently against us). Decision incorrect.
5. Go for TD, successful. Decision correct.
6. Go for TD, unsuccessful. Get defensive stop and punt. Kick game winning FG from 48 yards and win. Decision correct.
7. Go for TD, unsuccessful. Get defensive stop and punt. Miss potential game winning FG from 48 yards and lose. Decision incorrect.

There are many other permutations of this. Point is that there is a lot of football still to be played at that juncture and a lot of different things can happen. Overall success metrics are taken over a large sample and not corrected for confounding factors through regression analysis, so individual results may vary. It comes down to what the likelihood of scoring the TD is for that particular team in that particular situation, and what is the likelihood of the defense getting a stop. The fact that they didn't score on the first three downs influences the confidence in scoring on the 4th.

And applying NFL metrics to NCAA likely isn't valid. There is far less variation in skill levels between NFL teams/players than NCAA teams/players. A metric valid for Auburn vs Alabama isn't going to hold true for Rutgers vs Alabama.

 

[BFo8]

I would suggest that the percentage of clueless sports fans is much higher than the percentage of clueless sports writers.

Debatable

 

[BFo8]

In the end, the results determine the correctness of the decision. It is a difficult metric to be judged by, but this is why coaches make millions and why they frequently get fired.

1. Make FG, win game--decision correct.
2. Make FG and lose game by 1. Decision incorrect.
3. Miss FG or FG blocked. Decision incorrect.
4. Go for TD, unsuccessful. Miami scores on 99 yard run or pass or drive (Recall Syracuse had a 94 yard TD recently against us). Decision incorrect.
5. Go for TD, successful. Decision correct.
6. Go for TD, unsuccessful. Get defensive stop and punt. Kick game winning FG from 48 yards and win. Decision correct.
7. Go for TD, unsuccessful. Get defensive stop and punt. Miss potential game winning FG from 48 yards and lose. Decision incorrect.

There are many other permutations of this. Point is that there is a lot of football still to be played at that juncture and a lot of different things can happen. Overall success metrics are taken over a large sample and not corrected for confounding factors through regression analysis, so individual results may vary. It comes down to what the likelihood of scoring the TD is for that particular team in that particular situation, and what is the likelihood of the defense getting a stop. The fact that they didn't score on the first three downs influences the confidence in scoring on the 4th.

And applying NFL metrics to NCAA likely isn't valid. There is far less variation in skill levels between NFL teams/players than NCAA teams/players. A metric valid for Auburn vs Alabama isn't going to hold true for Rutgers vs Alabama.

What the heck happened to the All Blacks, not even the loss so much but only 7 points?

 

[USN_Panther]

What the heck happened to the All Blacks, not even the loss so much but only 7 points?

They lost to a better team. They got behind early and could never get into a rhythm. They made roster adjustments to affect the line-outs and if had a major effect on other aspects of the team. The coach openly admitted this was a tactical error, and it didn't really help defend the line-out anyway (England stole many, but the only All Black try was an errant England line-out toss right to Savea at 5 meters).

The other line-up changes that I questioned was playing Beauden Barrett out of position at fullback and having Mo'unga at first 5/8. I thought that having Ben Smith in with Barrett at the first 5/8 would have been better. That and Aaron Smith played absolute trash. They gained some energy when they brought Perenara in but it was too late.

England had two tries taken off the board after TMO. I thought they both were justifiably reversed, but the outcome of this match was way worse than the final score.

England-NZ was essentially the final. England should have no trouble beating South Africa in the final.

Do you follow the rugby?

 

[BFo8]

They lost to a better team. They got behind early and could never get into a rhythm. They made roster adjustments to affect the line-outs and if had a major effect on other aspects of the team. The coach openly admitted this was a tactical error, and it didn't really help defend the line-out anyway (England stole many, but the only All Black try was an errant England line-out toss right to Savea at 5 meters).

The other line-up changes that I questioned was playing Beauden Barrett out of position at fullback and having Mo'unga at first 5/8. I thought that having Ben Smith in with Barrett at the first 5/8 would have been better. That and Aaron Smith played absolute trash. They gained some energy when they brought Perenara in but it was too late.

England had two tries taken off the board after TMO. I thought they both were justifiably reversed, but the outcome of this match was way worse than the final score.

England-NZ was essentially the final. England should have no trouble beating South Africa in the final.

Do you follow the rugby?

Not particularly, but am always looking for value on the wagering end and the US books know so little about it sometimes you can find an advantage. I seem to remember you saying NZ was not nearly as strong this cycle and apparently you were right.

I see England as a mere -190 in the final, which seemed a little low to me so I will probably take a shot there.

 

[USN_Panther]

Not particularly, but am always looking for value on the wagering end and the US books know so little about it sometimes you can find an advantage. I seem to remember you saying NZ was not nearly as strong this cycle and apparently you were right.

I see England as a mere -190 in the final, which seemed a little low to me so I will probably take a shot there.

Yes, NZ was very vulnerable this year and I think a bit overconfident. NZ Rugby is bleeding players to overseas clubs where they are making big bucks. NZ requires players to play in the NZ Super Rugby teams to be eligible to play for the All Blacks. The top players going overseas are thus not eligible for the All Blacks. This used to be an enticement to keep them in NZ, but the money is so poor in NZ and so good overseas, that the players now leave. I think that NZ Rugby needs to re-think their eligibility criteria if they are going to continue to be dominant on the world stage.

South Africa is big and strong. That is how they beat Wales. South Africa will be bigger and stronger than England, but not by as much of a margin. England will play faster and cleaner, and I think that makes the difference. The TAB has England @1.45 and South Africa @2.50, FWIW.

 

[PittFamily2]

Go for a TD from the 1.
Score great plan.
If PITT doesn't score, hold them and get the ball back inside the 50 with another scoring opportunity.

By kicking the FG PITT isn't playing to Win, its hoping PITT doesn't lose.
By kicking the FG PITT is relying on Miami to make a mistake rather than taking control of the football game for the Win.

This sent a terrible message to the team and the fans!
PITT isn't a winner yet!

But:
Players have to learn how to catch footballs a basic football skill.
The OB should focus on throwing the football to players with the same Uniform as his.
Other players should a fair catch when necessary.
Still others need to learn how to Hang onto the ball- don't fumble.

 

[USN_Panther]

Go for a TD from the 1.
Score great plan.
If PITT doesn't score, hold them and get the ball back inside the 50 with another scoring opportunity.

By kicking the FG PITT isn't playing to Win, its hoping PITT doesn't lose.
By kicking the FG PITT is relying on Miami to make a mistake rather than taking control of the football game for the Win.

This sent a terrible message to the team and the fans!
PITT isn't a winner yet!

But:
Players have to learn how to catch footballs a basic football skill.
The OB should focus on throwing the football to players with the same Uniform as his.
Other players should a fair catch when necessary.
Still others need to learn how to Hang onto the ball- don't fumble.

I agree. But it comes down to having confidence that the O scores on the 4th down and if they don't, having confidence that they get into FG range to make the game winning FG. I'm not sure the coaching staff has that degree of confidence in themselves, let alone the team. I think they coach scared. Not just at the goal line. The team gives them reason to coach scared BTW. I watch scared.

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

My guess is the advanced stats would say going for it on the 1 is the better decision. It usually is by a wide margin. Though with the particular circumstance here, kicking the field goal was at least reasonable and pretty mainstream and it was probably mathematically at least close in terms of expected win %. I'm vaguely OK with the decision in and of itself, unlike PSU game.

The concerning part -- and I had a good view from my seat -- is it looked like Pickett and Whipple were arguing over the playcall, the play clock expired, and Narduzzi was pissed they didn't call a time out. It was weird and made me feel like with Whipple and Narduzzi we are going into battle with two generals, and it's not good.