Yes it does. When Kirk decided to go for the td, he was chasing points. I cant believe how stupid that saying is. It rivals "taking points" for dumbest football saying ever. You can never take points and you are always chasing them.
$5 mil a year to bonehead go for 2 early in the game!!!
- Thread starter uihawk82
- Start date
He did think ahead. And that's why he did it. He finally decided to be aggressive instead of the overly conservative coach we all botched about. Today it scored us 1 extra point. Not quite enough, but still more that pussy Kirk would have scored.
Bigtenchamp
Well-Known Member
Bigtenchamp
Well-Known Member
What? how did it score us one extra point?
We never converted a two point conversion....
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
The two point attempts weren't the reason we lost. But if you wanna go there, Stanley badly missed B Smith in the back of the end zone. He had him and overthrew (as in too hard) the ball. Purdue also could easily have punched it into the endzone on that last drive...they played for the FG. Moot point.
The Stanley-NFL talk seems kinda funny. He throws way too many bad balls. With an NFL defense coming at him he'll fall apart. He seems to have the physical tools, but the QB coaching under KFz is a joke
The Stanley-NFL talk seems kinda funny. He throws way too many bad balls. With an NFL defense coming at him he'll fall apart. He seems to have the physical tools, but the QB coaching under KFz is a joke
He was grabbing his shoulder pad
Bigtenchamp
Well-Known Member
Oh I see lol... people are trying to throw in going for it on 4th down as the same thing as going for two point conversions.
You don't go for 2 until your in the 4th quarter or late in the 4th.
Going for it on 4th down is another argument all together.
You don't go for 2 until your in the 4th quarter or late in the 4th.
Going for it on 4th down is another argument all together.
You are not listening or thinking. Getting the touchdown is one thing, great guts and play by the players.
Going for 2 early in the 3rd qtr is stupid, it backfires way more than it helps and it is a bad % risk reward decision, totally set up the ending of this game as the hawks were sort of lucky and played their hearts out to get the lead
Bigtenchamp
Well-Known Member
Right he hits a wide open smith and Kirk doesn't look so bad.
It is very obvious you are confused
ok, I was so pissed I thought they called pass interference, wasnt PI the call??
I was wrong, he got us 2 points and possibly 3. The touchdown on 4th netted us 6 instead of 3. That's 3 more points. But we went for 2 the next td because we missed it the time before so maybe that takes one of the three points away. Depends on if we go for 2 the second td if we kick the field goal instead of getting the first td. I think we probably go for 2 there anyway but dont know for sure. So either way, "chasing points" was a net gain tonight.
No TD is a given in almost any play from the 4-5 yard line
Yeah Smith was open, Nate was rolling right , smith moving left, Nate not the most accurate, maybe should have kicked a PAT.
tksirius
HN's Love Doctor
It's more important that Iowa's QB be extra careful to avoid mistakes. He probably worked on bunting all summer.
It's the same exact thing. It's taking a calculated risk to go for more points instead of taking the safer, higher percentage risk of settling for less points.
Bigtenchamp
Well-Known Member
I've honesty never seen anyone say going for it on 4th down is the same thing as going for 2.
Never.
So going for 3 extra points while down 8 is ok, but going for 1 extra point down 5 isn't? If we dont get the td, we are still down 2 scores late. That is way worse of a decision than not getting the 2 and still being down one score regardless. The only reason you think the one is ok is because it worked.
