Crazy

Hated the decision. To me, the Chips - after that genuinely miraculous comeback - deserved a 50-50 chance to win in OT.

At all levels of football, 2-pt tries succeed only about 30%.

I hated the decision, too, but keep in mind that Enos knows his team, and he knew their state, physically and mentally, and that goes into the decision, and that's why I hesitate to 2d guess the coach in that situation. To me it was the wrong call because his team had the momentum, and you'd think they would be the favorite in OT. On the other hand, if that comeback had left them emotionally and physically spent, perhaps going for 2 was the better call.

In the NTSU case, Ohio was on the road, and in bad weather (if I recall correctly), both of which probably favored NTSU in overtime.

wasn't going for 2 at N Texas a defining moment for our program? I like the call.

I turned it on when it was 49-28 with about five minutes to go. Never thought they had a chance, especially when they were taking so much time to run plays on that first drive. The only thing missing on that last play was the Stanford band.

I hated the decision too. CMU's defense forced three-and-outs twice in the last three minutes. I would've taken it to OT and put my trust in the defense.

I hope that is sarcasm.

VERY VANILLA play call on the 2-point try. Apparently they consulted the OHIO play book on that. A whole staff of coaches full time year round--and that's the best they had?

Unprepared.

That looked like a team that hadn't beaten a winning record MAC team or won a MACC in forever.

Bad call. Very bad call.

Did the coaches all turn to each other and ask, "who's got a really bland, mediocre play that's not surprising in any way and that's not particularly geared to work?"

I am happy to provide public service

That is a great name. But the play is tired, unoriginal and carries no deception, doesn,t put the D off balance in any way.

Not good call.

This thread is an interesting reminder that plays should only be viewed in the retrospective, and that any play that didn't work was a bad play call while any play that did work was a great call. The reminder comes from the fact that not so long ago, after Florida State used it effectively a year ago, we had a thread dedicated to Ohio's need for really tall receivers so that we can execute this very same play.
http://www.bobcatattack.com/messageboard/topic.asp?FromPa...
Since it won a game for Florida State, it was effective and necessary. Since it lost a game for CMU, it was tired, boring, bland, not particularly geared to work, etc.

Myself, I'd rather guess that execution had something to do with play success or failure. Even when you are trying to take advantage of a 6-3 receiver against a 5-10 defender, the QB still needs to put the ball on the correct side of the receiver, so that the receiver has a better play on the ball than the defender.

That's certainly possible, Monroe, but I can only go based on what is posted here, and draw conclusions from that, and from what is not posted. I have only seen praise for plays that worked, and criticism of plays that didn't. I have never seen criticism of plays that worked, nor praise for plays that didn't work, and that isn't just from you, it's a universal phenomenon.

The other thing that seems significantly absent from the running commentary on play calling is any sort of analysis of the defensive alignment. Obviously there is no way to know if a play is a good or bad call without knowing what defense the other team is in, and their tendencies. What might be a good call in one instance would be a terrible call in another.

For example, the play that you mention, the direct snap to AJ worked primarily because of the defense the other team was in, and not because of deception, though the deception helped. As I recall, Ohio was lined up with 4 wide receivers, so the defense had only 5-6 players in the box. If Ohio called the same play with 8 defenders in the box, obviously it would fail.

In the case of CMU's call, I didn't like the decision to go for 2, since they had the momentum, and since it was on a neutral field, but I did like the play call. They lined up and snapped quickly. They got the exactly the matchup they wanted, one on one, their tall WR against a short DB. All the QB needed to do was put the ball up where the WR could take it away from the DB, just as he had on the long TD the play before. Even when you have a good play, poor execution spoils everything. The QB needed to throw the ball either directly to the receiver, or to his right, giving him a better than even chance of making the catch, but instead, he threw it to the receiver's left, right where the DB was. The result was that the defender had an easy pass breakup, and the receiver couldn't even jump for the ball. I like the call, I hate the execution.

I wouldn't say mugged but there was certainly enough arm grabbing to warrant a flag there. They should have gotten another crack there. Then they could have run the uber creative double reverse flea flicker statute of liberty hook n ladder that Monroe thinks is appropriate in every situation

I could not disagree more. That play worked because we had a HUGE ADVANTAGE FOR A MOMENT...a moment long enough to get into the endzone.

Compare: During the Brown's Kardiac Kids days of success, bars throughout Southern California were loaded on Sunday morning with Browns fans (pre-'net home video) when they showed Browns games.

On one play, Kosar handed off to a running back for a dive up the middle--no, the rb turned back toward Kosar--at which point one of your favorite people beat everyone else to their feet and yelled TOUCHDOWN!--and ptiched the ball back to Kosar who tossed to a wide open receiver for a long td.

The conception of the play gave the Browns a huge momentary advantage--which meant an easy six. It was a td from the moment the rb stopped going forward and began to turn back to Kosar. It was the conception of the play--the surprise element--and the odds of any defense on earth stopping the play were extremely low.

Sometimes, there are great calls.

I know it's difficult for fans of OHIO FOOTBALL to understand that given the situation. the situation.


SCBBA...SoCalBrownsBackersAssn...what a boon to bars which were otherwise closed on Sunday mornings. If the Browns won/were winning a game, the food and drink orders were bountiful. On the above-described td, everyone jumped up and screamed--and the temperature of the bar that I was in IMMEDIATELY went up about seven degrees.