You have 2 plays to gain 1 yard to beat a 7-5 MAC team

[thebadby2]

I agree. Part of me thinks they were more worried about sending Gavin out with a legendary ending than just winning. But the play was there.

The play was there, the players failed to execute it, that's true, BUT....

the decision to trust a critical play to two players who aren't used to handling the ball in the situation and manner asked of them was not a good one, at least not if winning the game was your top objective. Starting on first down at the 3, it should have been Dugger over center with the push as many times as necessary to get in. Nobody else should have even handled the ball.

Maybe you're right, maybe Dooz and Bell just wanted Barth to have a little fun and a cool stat on his way out in a meaningless 3rd tier bowl game.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

It’s closer than people think.

You are exactly right. His play avoids win/loss on one offensive play, and allows the defense a chance too if you don’t make it.

In reality, we wound up scoring on our next play, then needed to defend. So it looks dumb.

Would u rather one play to win/lose from the one, or one play to defend from the 3 where the option is win/game continues? So he probably got us in a slightly better position. We just didn’t defend it. Counterpoint is we already would have won after we scored if we just did it from the one.

I do still line up and punch it in from the one. But once you step back from the frustration of the game - probably a little more nuanced.

No, it's not closer that people think.

You have to completely not understand the math of the situation to think that in any way it's even a close decision. To think that going to overtime gives you a better chance to win than running the ball once (or really, twice if we hadn't outsmarted ourselves on 3rd down) from the one yard line is ridiculous. If you don't think you can score on one play (or really, two) from the one yard line, what do you think your chances of scoring from the three yard line are?

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Gadget play was fine...Pitt has a 22 year old grown man who, unlike 90% of male third graders, cannot toss a four yard pass to someone's mid section.... but I get your point.

Wasn't fine. You need 1 yard vs a MAC team. You don't need to resort to trickery by having a TE throw to a DT. It's 1 yard. Line up and run it twice.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Wasn't fine. You need 1 yard vs a MAC team. You don't need to resort to trickery by having a TE throw to a DT. It's 1 yard. Line up and run it twice.

Like I said yesterday, that was the "we're way smarter than you" play call.

Which is fine when it works I suppose, but when it doesn't what it really shows is that you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

It’s closer than people think.

You are exactly right. His play avoids win/loss on one offensive play, and allows the defense a chance too if you don’t make it.

In reality, we wound up scoring on our next play, then needed to defend. So it looks dumb.

Would u rather one play to win/lose from the one, or one play to defend from the 3 where the option is win/game continues? So he probably got us in a slightly better position. We just didn’t defend it. Counterpoint is we already would have won after we scored if we just did it from the one.

I do still line up and punch it in from the one. But once you step back from the frustration of the game - probably a little more nuanced.

No. You have 1 play to get 1 yard to win the game. That is much easier than getting 3 yards and then stopping them. Honestly, what do you think the chances of these things are? Its not close as you say.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Like I said yesterday, that was the "we're way smarter than you" play call.

Which is fine when it works I suppose, but when it doesn't what it really shows is that you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are.

I'd be somewhat ok with that against a good team. We were playing a team who went .500 in the MAC. I'm hearing people compliment that play and play design but it wasn't needed. We ran the ball all day. We just needed 1 yard.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I'd be somewhat ok with that against a good team. We were playing a team who went .500 in the MAC. I'm hearing people compliment that play and play design but it wasn't needed. We ran the ball all day. We just needed 1 yard.

If we were playing, say, Ohio State, and we had something like 50 yards of rushing all game then sure, bring out a trick play to try to get that last yard that you are going to have trouble getting by just lining up and knocking them off the ball. But we were playing Toledo. We ended up with 300 yards of rushing. Line up and knock them back a yard and go home with the trophy. And if it doesn't work the first time, do it again the second time.

 

[NKSplitter]

It’s closer than people think.

You are exactly right. His play avoids win/loss on one offensive play, and allows the defense a chance too if you don’t make it.

In reality, we wound up scoring on our next play, then needed to defend. So it looks dumb.

Would u rather one play to win/lose from the one, or one play to defend from the 3 where the option is win/game continues? So he probably got us in a slightly better position. We just didn’t defend it. Counterpoint is we already would have won after we scored if we just did it from the one.

I do still line up and punch it in from the one. But once you step back from the frustration of the game - probably a little more nuanced.

No it's not closer than what people are thinking. Your asking if you would rather defend from 3 yards out vs. have to score from one yard out ignores that you still need an unanswered score at that point to win.

If my options are:

1 Try from 3 yards out or closer, succeed and win, fail and lose with no chance of the other team getting a possession

or

1 Try from 3 yards out, succeed and the opponent gets a chance to tie and extend the game, fail and the opponent gets a chance to try to win

I'm taking the option where converting, which is an eventual necessity to win at that point, denies the opponent an opportunity to convert.

I just don't see where sending in the play you think is your highest percentage chance of punching it in from 1 yard out isn't also your highest percentage strategy of winning the game at that point.

Too many people are calling Narduzzi gutless not going for it when it was flat out stupid given the scenerio. It doesn't take guts to do the thing that is obviously your highest percentage chance of winning the game.

The only way the decision makes sense is if Narduzzi wasn't aware of the rules or situation and thought kicking the field goal would give each team a new set of 4 down possessions starting at the 25 yard line. If that is the case, it's damming of his abilities as a head coach for an entirely different set of reasons.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

If we were playing, say, Ohio State, and we had something like 50 yards of rushing all game then sure, bring out a trick play to try to get that last yard that you are going to have trouble getting by just lining up and knocking them off the ball. But we were playing Toledo. We ended up with 300 yards of rushing. Line up and knock them back a yard and go home with the trophy. And if it doesn't work the first time, do it again the second time.

We agree on something. You don't need trickery to get a yard vs Toledo.

Also, if you feel the need to resort to some level of trickery, why not run that Tim Tebow fake run up the middle, get the safeties to come up and stop the jump/dive and then do that jump pass to Bartholomew? Toledo had to be very wary of the Dugger run.

 

[PittPanther44]

No. You have 1 play to get 1 yard to win the game. That is much easier than getting 3 yards and then stopping them. Honestly, what do you think the chances of these things are? Its not close as you say.

It is, but you are ignoring the “game continues” element under the second scenario. First scenario game is over if you don’t get it. You don’t lose if you both get stopped.

Like I said. I go for it. It was the wrong call, but it wasn’t some historic blunder. I also run straight ahead twice

 

[BFo8]

There shouldn’t even be any debate about the 4th down decision, it made no sense mathematically or from a game flow perspective. Narduzzi is getting absolutely crushed for it nationally and for good reason.

It’s not like he has no sense of analytics whatsoever, we’ve seen him go for 2 after a score when down 14 so either he or someone on his staff is somewhat aware. That tells me that more than likely he was unaware of the OT rules, which of course he would never admit.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

It is, but you are ignoring the “game continues” element under the second scenario. First scenario game is over if you don’t get it. You don’t lose if you both get stopped.

Like I said. I go for it. It was the wrong call, but it wasn’t some historic blunder. I also run straight ahead twice

I am asking you what you think the percent chances of success are in each scenario because I do believe it's a historic blunder.

1 yard on 1 play: 80%-90%

Getting 3 yards and then stopping them from getting 3 yards: around 50%

Do you not agree with this? He traded almost sure victory for a coin flip. Its historic.

 

[PittPanther44]

No, it's not closer that people think.

You have to completely not understand the math of the situation to think that in any way it's even a close decision. To think that going to overtime gives you a better chance to win than running the ball once (or really, twice if we hadn't outsmarted ourselves on 3rd down) from the one yard line is ridiculous. If you don't think you can score on one play (or really, two) from the one yard line, what do you think your chances of scoring from the three yard line are?

I do understand the math. Which is why I’m saying there is some logic that could support it IF you think your defensive situation is way better than your offensive one. It was the wrong call because both teams were mostly converting at will.

I also understand football, which is why I said it’s still the wrong call. It was a yard to win. You go get it.

 

[whirlybird optio]

I do understand the math. Which is why I’m saying there is some logic that could support it IF you think your defensive situation is way better than your offensive one. It was the wrong call because both teams were mostly converting at will.

I also understand football, which is why I said it’s still the wrong call. It was a yard to win. You go get it.

But you don’t win on defense UNLESS you score on offense. So your offense has to eventually score. Why is this so hard?

There is no logic to it at all. We are a national punchline today because of the decision. It’s 100% indefensible. He didn’t know the rules. It’s the only explanation.

Because, if the ball goes back to the 25, ok…it’s still 95/5 go for it, but it’s not 10000000/0 in terms of what you should do.

 

[Gunga_Galunga]

Like I said yesterday, that was the "we're way smarter than you" play call.

Which is fine when it works I suppose, but when it doesn't what it really shows is that you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are.

I didn't like the call, but I was ok with it as long as your thinking is we'll just run it in on 4th if we don't make it. Basically a gimmick play to give your senior Bart a chance at a TD pass. Cool and interesting way to win the game, yada yada yada... but only if you plan on punching it in on 4th down. The FG was inexcusable, totally asinine and devoid of any logical strategy discussion.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I do understand the math. Which is why I’m saying there is some logic that could support it IF you think your defensive situation is way better than your offensive one. It was the wrong call because both teams were mostly converting at will.

I also understand football, which is why I said it’s still the wrong call. It was a yard to win. You go get it.

But there isn't any logic in it. IF you think that your defensive situation is way better than your offensive one, you still have to score in overtime. You can't win if you don't score. You chance to win the game in overtime is essentially 50-50. Almost by definition. You can maybe somehow convince yourself that you might really be 55-45 rather than 50-50, but there is no logical reason to think that it would be much higher than that, even if it was that high in the first place. Your chance of scoring from the one yard line, even if you offense isn't any good you have a much higher percentage than 50 or 55 of scoring from the one yard line.

And the fact is that we saw how our offense performed over the course of the game against the Toledo defense with 300 yards of rushing, so in yesterday's game the decision was even more egregious than it would be in some abstract, made up situation.

There is no logic and no math that supports kicking that field goal. And if you think that there is then you either don't understand the math or logic, one or the other. Or I guess maybe both.

 

[whirlybird optio]

I didn't like the call, but I was ok with it as long as you're thinking is we'll just run it in on 4th if we don't make it. Basically a gimmick play to give your senior Bart a chance at a TD pass. Cool and interesting way to win the game, yada yada yada... but only if you plan on punching it in on 4th down. The FG was inexcusable, totally asinine and devoid of any logical strategy discussion.

I think I agree with this. Bart could easily run it in from the 3. And then the play was WIDE open if you need the pass play. And if you miss that, run the QB follow for the TD.

I don’t agree with it, hated it in the moment, but he drew up a play which was wide open.

That being said if Duggar runs it 3 times for the 3 we probably score 97% of the time. Maybe we score 97% of the time on the Bart run/throw and that pesky 3% came back to bite us, but you then just risk looking like you got too cute

 

[whirlybird optio]

But there isn't any logic in it. IF you think that your defensive situation is way better than your offensive one, you still have to score in overtime. You can't win if you don't score. You chance to win the game in overtime is essentially 50-50. Almost by definition. You can maybe somehow convince yourself that you might really be 55-45 rather than 50-50, but there is no logical reason to think that it would be much higher than that, even if it was that high in the first place. Your chance of scoring from the one yard line, even if you offense isn't any good you have a much higher percentage than 50 or 55 of scoring from the one yard line.

And the fact is that we saw how our offense performed over the course of the game against the Toledo defense with 300 yards of rushing, so in yesterday's game the decision was even more egregious than it would be in some abstract, made up situation.

There is no logic and no math that supports kicking that field goal. And if you think that there is then you either don't understand the math or logic, one or the other. Or I guess maybe both.

He wanted to avoid a situation where the do/die play was on the offense. He’s an idiot, but assuming he knew the rules (big if…) I do think that is what he was thinking

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I didn't like the call, but I was ok with it as long as you're thinking is we'll just run it in on 4th if we don't make it. Basically a gimmick play to give your senior Bart a chance at a TD pass. Cool and interesting way to win the game, yada yada yada... but only if you plan on punching it in on 4th down. The FG was inexcusable, totally asinine and devoid of any logical strategy discussion.

This was my thinking too. I was like "why!!! Oh well, we'll just win it now." And then I saw Sauls run out onto the field and everyone was in disbelief.

 

[Black_Man_Panther]

Everyone assumes Narduzzi knows the new rules on OT. That is not a given with his intellectual ability.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

He wanted to avoid a situation where the do/die play was on the offense. He’s an idiot, but assuming he knew the rules (big if…) I do think that is what he was thinking

I know what he was trying to avoid. That doesn't make it any less moronic.

This is "I was trying to avoid paying a lot of taxes, so I tore up my million dollar winning powerball ticket" kind of thinking.

 

[PittPanther44]

I am asking you what you think the percent chances of success are in each scenario because I do believe it's a historic blunder.

1 yard on 1 play: 80%-90%

Getting 3 yards and then stopping them from getting 3 yards: around 50%

Do you not agree with this? He traded almost sure victory for a coin flip. Its historic.

If you agree it’s 80% on the 4th and 1 and 50/50 on the next OT…

You are trading a 20% chance to lose on that play for a 25% chance to lose in the next OT (25% win, 25% lose, 50% continue). You can plug and play whatever % you think is appropriate. I do think we screw up 2 out of 10, so call it 80%, and we have a sample that these two teams are about the same on 2 pt conversions.

So….again….its the incorrect decision unless you really think you are less than 75% to make 4th and 1 and/or your defense is better than 60/40. He was dead wrong as a football decision and also slightly wrong analytics wise. But it’s not trading 80% for 50%. That’s incorrect.

 

[PittPanther44]

But you don’t win on defense UNLESS you score on offense. So your offense has to eventually score. Why is this so hard?

There is no logic to it at all. We are a national punchline today because of the decision. It’s 100% indefensible. He didn’t know the rules. It’s the only explanation.

Because, if the ball goes back to the 25, ok…it’s still 95/5 go for it, but it’s not 10000000/0 in terms of what you should do.

Go back and read my posts. It’s not hard. It wasn’t the right call. I only said that the math portion is a little closer than one might think.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

You are trading a 20% chance to lose on that play for a 25% chance to lose in the next OT (25% win, 25% lose, 50% continue).

But then you have to consider that 50% of the time you are going to have to play another overtime, where you have a 25% chance to lose and a 50% chance that you will just have to play another overtime.

You are trading a 20% chance to lose the game right there (and really, it's probably not even that high) with a 50% chance to lose if the game continues on in overtime. And I think that most logical people would think that a 20% chance to lose is way better than a 50% chance to lose.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

If you agree it’s 80% on the 4th and 1 and 50/50 on the next OT…

You are trading a 20% chance to lose on that play for a 25% chance to lose in the next OT (25% win, 25% lose, 50% continue). You can plug and play whatever % you think is appropriate. I do think we screw up 2 out of 10, so call it 80%, and we have a sample that these two teams are about the same on 2 pt conversions.

So….again….its the incorrect decision unless you really think you are less than 75% to make 4th and 1 and/or your defense is better than 60/40. He was dead wrong as a football decision and also slightly wrong analytics wise. But it’s not trading 80% for 50%. That’s incorrect.

The comparison isn't win/lose in 2nd OT vs win/lose/continue in 3rd OT. Its win/lose in 2nd OT vs win/lose if you extend the game. So it's roughly an 80% chance of victory vs a 50% chance of victory.

I would feel better if Narduzzi admitted he didn't know the rules because you could somewhat understand the thinking that Pitt is the better team during a normal drive series. Still the wrong call but you could at least see where he's coming from.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I would feel better if Narduzzi admitted he didn't know the rules because you could somewhat understand the thinking that Pitt is the better team during a normal drive series. Still the wrong call but you could at least see where he's coming from.

If he admits that he didn't know the rules then he's just telling everyone he's a moron. Just like if a basketball coach would say that he didn't understand the NET ratings and what they meant he would be telling everyone he's a moron.

And people don't like admitting that they are dumb.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

If he admits that he didn't know the rules then he's just telling everyone he's a moron. Just like if a basketball coach would say that he didn't understand the NET ratings and what they meant he would be telling everyone he's a moron.

And people don't like admitting that they are dumb.

Capel said that last week. I get what you are saying but had he said "I apologize to Panther nation, in the heat of the game, I made a mistake in thinking that the game was going to another round of traditional overtime. I am well aware of the rules but I take responsibility for this oversight. We should have gone for it." He's still an idiot but at least that explains it and maybe there's some understanding from the fanbase.

 

[PittPanther44]

But then you have to consider that 50% of the time you are going to have to play another overtime, where you have a 25% chance to lose and a 50% chance that you will just have to play another overtime.

You are trading a 20% chance to lose the game right there (and really, it's probably not even that high) with a 50% chance to lose if the game continues on in overtime. And I think that most logical people would think that a 20% chance to lose is way better than a 50% chance to lose.

You and SMF are right when looking at it this way. Over the very long term, you approach the true W/L probability. And that might be 50/50 or 60/40 us.

He was looking at as “will I lose right now” and trying to minimize that chance. And think he underestimated our ability to convert and overestimated the defenses ability to stop.

(Or he just forgot the new rules)

 

[upj87]

The play was there, the players failed to execute it, that's true, BUT....

the decision to trust a critical play to two players who aren't used to handling the ball in the situation and manner asked of them was not a good one, at least not if winning the game was your top objective. Starting on first down at the 3, it should have been Dugger over center with the push as many times as necessary to get in. Nobody else should have even handled the ball.

Maybe you're right, maybe Dooz and Bell just wanted Barth to have a little fun and a cool stat on his way out in a meaningless 3rd tier bowl game.

the decision to trust a critical play to two players who aren't used to handling the ball... so you think they just drew that one up in the dirt on the sidelines before the play? They were probably used handling the ball in that situation from practicing it six or seven times during the week...If Pitt were up big and near the end zone they were going to run this play yesterday to the greater glory of Bartholomew. It was two grown men being unable to play short toss catch with no obstructions. One of the most Pitt-like things ever.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

He was looking at as “will I lose right now” and trying to minimize that chance.

Yeah, I agree, that's what he was doing.

And that's dumb. Really, really dumb. You need to be concerned with your chance to win the game when it is over, not your chance to win or lose the game in this exact moment.

 

[PittPanther44]

the decision to trust a critical play to two players who aren't used to handling the ball... so you think they just drew that one up in the dirt on the sidelines before the play? They were probably used handling the ball in that situation from practicing it six or seven times during the week...If Pitt were up big and near the end zone they were going to run this play yesterday to the greater glory of Bartholomew. It was two grown men being unable to play short toss catch with no obstructions. One of the most Pitt-like things ever.

I have no problem with the play. It was there to be made. It could have been a fun, all time type play that sends a good 4 year player off in style.

But if you were going to do that, you should have been ready to run it down their throat the next play.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

the decision to trust a critical play to two players who aren't used to handling the ball... so you think they just drew that one up in the dirt on the sidelines before the play? They were probably used handling the ball in that situation from practicing it six or seven times during the week...If Pitt were up big and near the end zone they were going to run this play yesterday to the greater glory of Bartholomew. It was two grown men being unable to play short toss catch with no obstructions. One of the most Pitt-like things ever.

Even Ball-handlers make mistakes sometimes. These guys were playing out of position. It wasn't necessary vs Toledo.

 

[upj87]

Wasn't fine. You need 1 yard vs a MAC team. You don't need to resort to trickery by having a TE throw to a DT. It's 1 yard. Line up and run it twice.

no...it was a wide open dude four yards from a grown man with a football who could have underhanded it to him....I'd call that fine. ....you would be here extolling the greatness of it had it worked...

having a TE throw to a DT....aka a grown American man four yards away from another grown American man tossing a football devoid of defensive opposition as they have done their whole lives....if Pitt has such unathletic kids on their squad such that they cannot complete this 5th grade schoolyard task of "catch" then maybe we should look elsewhere for entertainment.

 

[Franb]

the decision to trust a critical play to two players who aren't used to handling the ball... so you think they just drew that one up in the dirt on the sidelines before the play? They were probably used handling the ball in that situation from practicing it six or seven times during the week...If Pitt were up big and near the end zone they were going to run this play yesterday to the greater glory of Bartholomew. It was two grown men being unable to play short toss catch with no obstructions. One of the most Pitt-like things ever.

We have heard for the past 3 years that Pitt needs to get the ball to Bartholomew more, and for the past 3 years they have not done that. Why on earth would anyone think that they ran that play, in that situation, to give him some glory?

 

[thebadby2]

the decision to trust a critical play to two players who aren't used to handling the ball... so you think they just drew that one up in the dirt on the sidelines before the play? They were probably used handling the ball in that situation from practicing it six or seven times during the week...If Pitt were up big and near the end zone they were going to run this play yesterday to the greater glory of Bartholomew. It was two grown men being unable to play short toss catch with no obstructions. One of the most Pitt-like things ever.

You think running that play a couple times—at most— in practice this week means a tight end who has never thrown a forward pass in a game and a a defensive tackle who has never caught one were ready to execute a trick pass play to each other with the game on the line? Did it look like they were well drilled when they ran it?

You ever play this great game of ours?

 

[Upg bobcat]

You think running that play a couple times—at most— in practice this week means a tight end who has never thrown a forward pass in a game and a a defensive tackle who has never caught one were ready to execute a trick pass play to each other with the game on the line?

I'm sure you meant never thrown a pass in a college game, but Bart was a high school QB, right?

 

[thebadby2]

I'm sure you meant never thrown a pass in a college game, but Bart was a high school QB, right?

I did mean college, but I don’t think he was a HS QB. I think he played some QB as a senior due to the starter being injured.

 

[mlvnsmly]

That may (or may not be) true, but both are freshman who have never played while one is a scholarship player you recruited. If you had no intention to redshirt Duggan, that alone should have been reason to start him. I could understand if Lynch had been around awhile and practiced for years. But that wasn't the case. I could understand the intention to redshirt but that wasn't the case.

And if both were very close in practice as your rumor indicates, it should have been a very easy decision to start Duggan.

Isn't everyone going to be scholarship going forward when they go to 105?