Should a RB take a knee before the goalline in the last 2 min?

[StickUP]

Weisman scores on a 15 yard run or so in the last 2 min of the game. If he takes a knee at the goal line as opposed to scoring a TD, would it be better for the team?

This isn't necessarily meant to bust on Weisman on the play, but in general, I am always surprised to see players score a TD as opposed to taking a knee. Iowa would have had first and goal at the1 with 2 min to play. If Iowa scores on the next play, they at least burn another 20 - 30 seconds. If Iowa never scores, CMU has the ball with less than 30 seconds with 99 yards to go.

I realize the game moves at a very high speed, but scoring a TD was not as important as running out the clock. I'll never understand why more players don't fall at the 1 yard line.

 

[Golfer]

In retrospect things are easy. Not so much when you're running full speed ahead.

 

[CPHAWK82]

In hindsight it would of helped us. But to think of that in the moment would be way too much to think about. The players are focused on doing each play to the best of their ability. Plus nobody predicted giving up another onside kick after they score a quick td. The odds of them winning the way they did were very high.

 

[Hawkstrat]

Unless you are to the point where you can kneel it and win it, go ahead and score.

I'd imagine the chances of a fumbled snap are higher than giving up a score, and an onsides, and another score to lose in regulation.

Saturday was a truly remarkable fail.

 

[cf84]

Well then in hindsight, we should have let them convert the 2 point conversion. Hey, then at least we get into overtime where we could find a DIFFERENT way to miserably lose the game! It was just a series of unfortunate events.

 

[wartknight]

At that point wasn't it a 1 point game? No way is that even a remote thought to take a knee. That is an incredible amount of pressure to put on a team to score AND get the 2 point conversion in under 2 mins...Especially if they don't get the conversion and have to score twice...Play the percentages...Its impossible...IMPOSSIBLE i tell you.

 

[MissouriHerk]

Well then in hindsight, we should have let them convert the 2 point conversion. Hey, then at least we get into overtime where we could find a DIFFERENT way to miserably lose the game! It was just a series of unfortunate events.

I think they would have kicked an onside kick anyway. Why not? They would have been tied with us, we suck at onside kick recovery, why not go for the win in regulation?

 

[Herkeynerd]

I've been over this with you before. As anemic as the Iowa offense has been, you've got to take the points. But yes, on Saturday, the way Weisman was running it, I'd try to get another 2 plays in and maybe it would have been enough make the game out of reach for C. Michigan.
I've been over this in my brain so many times and whatever could go wrong after that touchdown by Weisman, did go wrong. It sure would have been nice to see Hyde actually win the battle for that slant route touchdown scored by C. Mich. to grab it and run down the sidelines uncontested for about a 92 yd. interception return. But no, even though he beat the receiver to the spot, he lost the hands battle and gave up the score. That is one of the first things that went wrong you all know how it goes from there.

 

[GhostofBTT]

Things look different in hind sight OP. And by hind sight, I mean when you shove your eyes into your hind-quarters.

 

[Herkeynerd]

Actually Ghost, I was watching the game at his house. He said, "No, fall down at the 1!" as Weisman punched it in from 12 yards out. With the OP this isn't hindsight, it's strategy.

 

[hawkfan340]

In retrospect things are easy. Not so much when you're running full speed ahead.

I don't think he's asking what to do in retrospect... obviously it would have been better in hindsight. I think he means, given these circumstances, what's the actual best strategy.

Consuming clock gets more and more important relative to scoring more points the closer you get to game-end. However, given there was still a substantial amount of time for a college game and given that CMU had 3 TOs left, I think it's best to score there. Punching it in from the 1 is not a given, and you don't want to be in a situation where a TD beats you outright.

 

[hawkfan340]

Actually Ghost, I was watching the game at his house. He said, "No, fall down at the 1!" as Weisman punched it in from 12 yards out. With the OP this isn't hindsight, it's strategy.

Ghost is not one to let facts get in the way of a good potshot.

 

[GhostofBTT]

Ghost is not one to let facts get in the way of a good potshot.

Believe that.

 

[hawkfarmer]

DUMB. You always score when you can, and count on your defense. If you play like that you will eventually get burned too. They could have easily taken in it 50 yards in 30 seconds and kicked a field goal and then got blasted for that. You have to take the points and show faith in your teammates.

 

[hawkfan340]

DUMB. You always score when you can, and count on your defense. If you play like that you will eventually get burned too. They could have easily taken in it 50 yards in 30 seconds and kicked a field goal and then got blasted for that. You have to take the points and show faith in your teammates.

The bold is wrong. Different situations call for different strategies.

In this particular situation I happen to agree that scoring is the better play, but if there was a little less time or if CMU only had one TO, then it would have been better to go down IMO.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

Well, I still say you take the TD when it's there, particularly in a 1 point game. Unless you're going to play a prevent defense, let your opponent score a TD in 1 minute, fail to recover the ensuing onside kick, commit a personal foul to put your opponent in FG range where their kicker proceeds to make a career-long FG to win the game, that is.

A LOT of things had to go wrong for Iowa to lose the game after Weisman's late TD. Unfortunately, all of those things DID go wrong.

 

[83Hawk]

At the time, I was actually thinking maybe Weisman should not score if given the opportunity...to just down the ball inside the 1 for a first down, then run as much clock as possible for 2 plays (or force them to burn their timeouts).

He scored much to easily on that run...I wouldn't be surprised if CMU let him score on purpose.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

The bold is wrong. Different situations call for different strategies.

In this particular situation I happen to agree that scoring is the better play, but if there was a little less time or if CMU only had one TO, then it would have been better to go down IMO.

This is a strategy so far above KFz's level of comprehension... it's fun to discuss as a hypothetical, but won't happen for our squad.

But...if you're playing "defense" with your offense... you're essentially saying you don't trust the defense to prevent a 75 yard TD drive, onside kick recovery and a game-winning field goal... all in less than two minutes. If your D is that undependable... CMU could probably also get in position for the winning FG within 30 seconds in scenario #2.

So I say... take the points and go up 2 possessions. It requires the opposition to pull off a lot of different things. And only a weak and poorly coached team would allow all that to happen on their home field. Ahem...

 

[eveningnewsteam]

I thought the same thing after he scored. While very happy he scored, the thought kinda settled in, well ****, theyre gonna get the ball back with 2 mins in a one possession game against a team theyve torched through the air all day.

 

[DwayneTwill]

Aside from "What does everyone think of Deace's rules for Stone Cold Upsets and Lead Pipe Locks?" that was the dumbest question ever asked on this board.