End of first half when we went for it on 4th?

by **Insane_Pony_Posse** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 12:31 am

why did we go for it on 4th at the end of the first half?

by **PlanoStang** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 12:35 am

Don't know. Head coach, or OC might've had a brain freeze there. It was
our BONEHEAD move of the night. Kinda like a going for 2 decision last year.

by **mavsrage311** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 2:55 am

We were all wondering that too...I think overrall in my opinion it's hard to evaluate a coach, but the one and only thing (maybe other than recruiting) that is easy to evaluate is in-game decisions, and as far as that goes, coach phil has not impressed me at all throughout the years in that department (hey, do you want to double cover rashaun woods? okay how about after that 7th touchdown?)

by **Caballo** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 9:40 am

It wasn't just going for it on fourth down that was wrong, when it is 4th and what, five, don't run a pitch out to the running back. We really fooled 'em with that one. That decision would have only been right if we were 10-15 yards farther down the field, not on the 50.

We were lucky Baylor only went down and got a field goal instead of going up 10-7 before the half. Maybe we need to get my wife down strategizing the game. She even went beserk when that decision was made.

by **Ponymon** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 9:52 am

I also wasn't thrilled with the quarterback sneak by Romo with 4th and less than a yard to go in the middle of the first half. I HATE quarterback sneaks! They invariable fail because the quarterback doesn't have any forward momentum to get a push into the line. Additionally, our offensive line was getting pushed around by Baylor's and wasn't capable of getting enough push to make it work.

I must say that I have wanted to give Phil the benefit of the doubt for the first 3 years, but his BONEHEADED playcalling just doesn't cut it for me anymore. He doesn't appear to have a CLUE about handling quarterbacks as evident by the constant changes that occur between Eckert and Romo over the course of the game and therefore they don't feel confident because they know they will get replaced with one mistake! This has gone on ever since he has been head coach. He may be a good defensive coordinator, but he doesn't appear to be head coach material, especially if he is getting paid $800 THOUSAND per year, which is the number my sources indicated he is getting!

by **mustangbill67** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:12 am

It's called not giving your guys a chance to win! To me this call and the resulting Baylor field goal defined what was going to happen the last half.

by **Charleston Pony** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:29 am

just put it on the growing list of decisions Bennett has made that have backfired on him. We knew when he was hired that he had no head coaching experience. He's still learning on the job and has proven he's got a long ways to go. Even if we had made that 1st down, think this offense could have produced another score before half? The defense was pretty good in the 1st half. At that point, I doubt Baylor could have done anything starting deep in it's own territory. I doubt they would have even tried to do anything but run out the clock.

by **JasonB** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 12:27 pm

mustangbill67 wrote:It's called not giving your guys a chance to win! To me this call and the resulting Baylor field goal defined what was going to happen the last half.

Actually, to me it shows a lack of confidence. Going for it there was saying "We ain't going to get on their side of the field much, we have to do something now". I don't like that lack of confidence in the first game of the season...

by **Insane_Pony_Posse** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 7:38 am

re: I must say that I have wanted to give Phil the benefit of the doubt for the first 3 years, but his BONEHEADED playcalling

Is Bennett or Rusty Burns making these kinds of calls? :?:

And if Bennett is calling for going for it on 4th at the end of the first half do you think Rusty Burns is a voice possibly trying to steer Bennet away from those kind of decisions? :roll:

by **that's great raplh** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:03 am

that play ruined my weekend

by **EastStang** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:45 am

That was in my view stupid play calling in general. But perhaps Bennett saw his defense was tiring even at that stage and didn't want to put them out of the field for yet another series if he could possibly get the first. Clearly, by the middle of the second half they were out of gas.

by PK » Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:43 am

Insane_Pony_Posse wrote:re: I must say that I have wanted to give Phil the benefit of the doubt for the first 3 years, but his BONEHEADED playcalling

Is Bennett or Rusty Burns making these kinds of calls?

And if Bennett is calling for going for it on 4th at the end of the first half do you think Rusty Burns is a voice possibly trying to steer Bennet away from those kind of decisions?

I heard from someone who talked to one of the QB's after the game that the 4th down call was all Bennett with Burns totally against it.

by **GoRedGoBlue** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:18 pm

Charleston Pony wrote:just put it on the growing list of decisions Bennett has made that have backfired on him. We knew when he was hired that he had no head coaching experience. He's still learning on the job and has proven he's got a long ways to go. Even if we had made that 1st down, think this offense could have produced another score before half? The defense was pretty good in the 1st half. At that point, I doubt Baylor could have done anything starting deep in it's own territory. I doubt they would have even tried to do anything but run out the clock.

The difference in the GAME was this call...it amounted to 3pts for Baylor.

That is the total point differential if you consider that BU went for 2 and made it because of the 14-12 score (so, they wouldn't have, that is), and we went for 2 pts and missed it...

There's your 5 pts (which was really the 1 score Bennett gave BU for free).

Add up our Missed FG and we win the game.

Bennett's coaching decisions are suspect at best...like last year against TULSA, going for 2, which allowed TU to put the game into overtime against us (luckily we won, but it should have happened).

by **GoRedGoBlue** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:20 pm

JasonB wrote:
mustangbill67 wrote:It's called not giving your guys a chance to win! To me this call and the resulting Baylor field goal defined what was going to happen the last half.

Actually, to me it shows a lack of confidence. Going for it there was saying "We ain't going to get on their side of the field much, we have to do something now". I don't like that lack of confidence in the first game of the season...

No, I disagree. It's just a bad call. The probability of failure and the possibility of what could happen was not given the proper credit it deserves. It could have been WORSE.

Yes, we COULD have scored and it been great to be up 14-3 or 10-3, but that's just not likely at your 45 on 4th and 6...

by **JasonB** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 11:33 pm

GoRedGoBlue wrote:
JasonB wrote:
mustangbill67 wrote:It's called not giving your guys a chance to win! To me this call and the resulting Baylor field goal defined what was going to happen the last half.

Actually, to me it shows a lack of confidence. Going for it there was saying "We ain't going to get on their side of the field much, we have to do something now". I don't like that lack of confidence in the first game of the season...

No, I disagree. It's just a bad call. The probability of failure and the possibility of what could happen was not given the proper credit it deserves. It could have been WORSE.

Yes, we COULD have scored and it been great to be up 14-3 or 10-3, but that's just not likely at your 45 on 4th and 6...

I agree that it was a bad call, I am just saying that the call was made because of a lack of confidence. It was a sign of desperation.

End of first half when we went for it on 4th?

End of first half when we went for it on 4th?

yeah

Who is online