PonyFans.com

Next time have a little faith in the Offense and go for it. A FG or TD would have changed the whole game. A TD would have been a mental dagger for Navy.

Navy faced 4th and goal from the 3 and went for it instead of kicking.

It would help in those situations, if our punter didn't kick into the endzone every time. Got to keep that average up, right.

Watching Navy go for it on 4th down more than once got me to wondering if our own FG blocking prowess is haunting us. 4th and 4, 4th and 3, even 4th and 5 usually gets you off the field and hold the opponent to 3 (or less if we block it). Because of the risk of such block, how often are we going to see our opponents look at it as 4-down territory each time inside the 30? With a worn out D that finally gets a stop, I wonder how often we wind up with 7s.

Don't get me wrong...I'll take the blocked kicks and I'm grateful when we stop the 4th down attempts.

RGV Pony wrote:Watching Navy go for it on 4th down more than once got me to wondering if our own FG blocking prowess is haunting us. 4th and 4, 4th and 3, even 4th and 5 usually gets you off the field and hold the opponent to 3 (or less if we block it). Because of the risk of such block, how often are we going to see our opponents look at it as 4-down territory each time inside the 30? With a worn out D that finally gets a stop, I wonder how often we wind up with 7s.

Don't get me wrong...I'll take the blocked kicks and I'm grateful when we stop the 4th down attempts.

That is a great point. We might have been a victim of the Margus Factor.

It's pretty normal for Navy to go for it on 4th and short. PONY UP!

I think you will see more and more teams going for it on 4th. Our FG blocking team is forcing them to reconsider their options.

GO PONIES!!!

ALEX LIFESON wrote:It's pretty normal for Navy to go for it on 4th and short. PONY UP!

I agree and it maybe a factor sometimes, but not at the Navy games as they can get 4 yards anywhere on the field and really puts the pressure on the D to stop their option in those situations.
It easy for us to say on Sunday morning that we should have gone for it but if SMU's offense hadn't of been so friggin inept in the second half, we wouldnt have needed that.

the entire concept of their running game is to get in 3rd and 4th down and short. Didn't have a thing to do with our FG unit. I don't think I've ever seen a Navy game or for that matter a Ken Hatfield game when he ran the wishbone at Rice when the coach didn't do the same thing. Its just what they do. Its also the reason June Jones tried to pin Navy deep rather than go for it on 4th down. Once Navy gets in 4 down territory they are very difficult to stop. That call despite all the experts on the game thread had a negligible effect on the game. Navy executing and jamming the ball 80 yards down our throat was what beat us.

Disagree only as to the the call to punt - I know he was trying to pin them deep - but we needed to take the risk in order to keep the ball - and get points. They play keep away - so you have to put points on the board when you have the chance and you have to have sustained drives vs those guys since they dont very rarely turn it over. Agree their 4th down attempts dont have anything to do with our kick blocking - more to do with our weak run defense.

gostangs wrote:Disagree only as to the the call to punt - I know he was trying to pin them deep - but we needed to take the risk in order to keep the ball - and get points. They play keep away - so you have to put points on the board when you have the chance and you have to have sustained drives vs those guys since they dont very rarely turn it over. Agree their 4th down attempts dont have anything to do with our kick blocking - more to do with our weak run defense.

Wasn't June saying to the players at halftime how they would have to capitalize on their 2nd half possessions to win?

sbsmith wrote:

gostangs wrote:Disagree only as to the the call to punt - I know he was trying to pin them deep - but we needed to take the risk in order to keep the ball - and get points. They play keep away - so you have to put points on the board when you have the chance and you have to have sustained drives vs those guys since they dont very rarely turn it over. Agree their 4th down attempts dont have anything to do with our kick blocking - more to do with our weak run defense.

Wasn't June saying to the players at halftime how they would have to capitalize on their 2nd half possessions to win?

Yes, "stick it in there every possession." TWSS

In our section Saturday, we were forecasting a mere gain of 15 yards on that 4th down on the 35. We saw us kicking it into the end zone and them getting back on the 20, as happened. We should have gone for the 1st down instead of kicking. JJ seemed more conservative in this game (no long downfield throws, the field goal fiasco, etc.)

I just watched this part of the game on replay and found myself wondering if we should have gone for it, too.
But our D was playing well and I'm sure the idea was that if we could stop them as we had all first half our O would take over again.
Hindsite is 20/20. We don't make it and they take it down and score like they did and everybody is wondering why we don't punt.

Arkpony wrote:In our section Saturday, we were forecasting a mere gain of 15 yards on that 4th down on the 35. We saw us kicking it into the end zone and them getting back on the 20, as happened. We should have gone for the 1st down instead of kicking. JJ seemed more conservative in this game (no long downfield throws, the field goal fiasco, etc.)

The cameras never showed the SMU section, how many do you think we had?

From the tailgate and the visitors section...there were also SMU fans sprinkled throughout, we had a very respectable showing for a private school with less than 100k living alumni worldwide that hasn't won a conference title in 25 years. Small steps, we had a good turnout.