Wilsons refusal to take points ....
- Thread starter BayernFan
- Start date
I get what you're doing here, which I find amusing and a little pathetic, but I can play along.
Section 6 . . . Very little movement for several decades. Where are yours? How long have you had them?
You of all people talking about name calling is really ironic, as I said we don't have to agree, that is fine. But the outcome was a "W", so CKW and staff must have done something right.
What they did right was stick to the ball control offense that overwhelmed WKU at the point of attack and featured Howard, Redding and an efficient passing game. Fortunately, that was enough to overcome a really unwise decision on the field goal. Love the win, but Wilson took a dumb risk that could have really cost the team. Not sure how else to lay this out for you. And I'll just ignore the childish stuff from you in the future. Thanks.
On the contrary, we had moved the ball well all day, and the decision was a WINNER attitude of going for the win and putting the game out of reach because you have confidence that your offense will execute. At this point in time, I have more confidence in our offense being able to go out and win the game, as they did, than our defense.
Well, just because you have an opinion doesn't make it correct, and you should really look in the mirror as far as insulting people, you've had a big week ! I'll just choose to ignore you completely in the future.
So, the Hoosiers won a game that they needed to win (which hasn't happened much in the history of the program). That's good, right? Is it possible that we take the 3 points, go up 13 and WKU decides to get really aggressive because they are down 2 touchdowns and proceed to torch the young secondary for big plays and win going away? Did you see the last 2 minutes of the first half? That is just as likely as taking the 3 and winning by 6 instead of 3. We can "what if" this in many ways to make whatever point we want.
When a play/decision is made, the rest of the game is dictated by what has already happened. If we lose a game when we opt to not attempt a field goal, bring the issue up and second guess the coaching staff all you want. The fact of the matter is we got a win we needed. Go Hoosiers!
So everything on the field is Wilson's fault? Doesn't kick it bad call, Does not feel good about kicking it, your player and your fault. All players should be very good at their positions at all times and "slumps" are not allowed? I initially thought take the points, but I have no idea how well Oakes kicked this week or how well he warmed up. Maybe I will give Wilson (who has more information about his players than I do) the benefit of the doubt until it costs us a game this year. Just my opinion.
His kickers have been in varying degrees of slumps throughout his tenure, apparently. If you've followed IU during Wilson's tenure, you'd realize this is not exactly a rarity.
Last edited:
How was the rest of the game dictated by Wilson's decision to not kick the field goal? How do you think that impacted WKU's strategy late in the game? Thanks for your opinion.
My question to all the people stating this is a no brainer, how many Div I football games have you coached in your life?
Monday morning quarterbacks are a dime a dozen and there are no consequences for your opinion. CKW makes decisions he believes is best for the situation based on all the information he has available to him. If those decisions end up being wrong he loses and is fired. I will allow him to do his job and will be happy we have our first four game win streak since 1993. Let's make it five.
Monday morning quarterbacks are a dime a dozen and there are no consequences for your opinion. CKW makes decisions he believes is best for the situation based on all the information he has available to him. If those decisions end up being wrong he loses and is fired. I will allow him to do his job and will be happy we have our first four game win streak since 1993. Let's make it five.
Are Div I level coaches the only ones allowed to have an opinion or are coaches at any level allowed to have an opinion?
I have followed IU since 1981, so yes I have followed his tenure. Some decisions might be strategic and some may be based on player consistency. Still won't complain until we come up short on the scoreboard for his decision this year.
He's improving, but still has a long way to go in terms of efficiently managing games, clock, scoring, etc. I'd love to hear his side of the story as to why he made the decisions before climbing down his throat. I don't know if he's analytical or not when it comes to playing the odds, but if he is, he sure missed it on those two decisions. You never turn down an opportunity for points. Even field goals are moral victories sometimes and keeps momentum going.
Fair enough. I tend to see the result as more secondary to the thought process that leads you to the (proper) result, but I can understand how others might evaluate it differently.
So CKW goes for it and he is showing he has no faith in his defense or kicker; Hugh Freeze goes for it and shows he has supreme confidence in his D..? Having trouble making sense of all your comments in this thread.
Your first paragraph is exactly why I think a FG does you no good in that situation. Instead of being down 10 and playing for a FG/TD, WKU would be down 13 and KNOW they had to get 2 TD's. And 2 TD's gets you beat. So their next possession if they, theoretically, get down in FG range on 4th, they kick it. If they are down 14, they go for it on 4th and who knows what happens. If they score 2 TD's you lose either way. So give them the option for a tie and they may just take it. Then beat em in OT. The only caveat being if you give up 2 TD's, if you took the FG you only need a FG to win.
A coach that has supreme confidence in his defense can act out of choice instead of desperation. I don't think Wilson was desperate, though. I think he was just trying to put the hammer down.
In my view, he took an unnecessary risk based on where they were in the game and the relative strengths of his team. WKU promptly took advantage, drove the length of the field, and scored. Fortunately, IU controlled the ball for the rest of the game and, most importantly, didn't turn it over. Had they done so, WKU would have only needed a field goal to take the game to overtime.
I agree. If it's more than fourth-and-one and you are comfortably inside your kicker's range with a lead, take the points. Every time. In every situation you are better off after a made field goal than you were before. Up by three or less, it makes the other guy score a touchdown to tie/beat you. Up by 4-7, it makes they other team score twice to tie/beat you. Up by 8 or more, the other guy has to now score two TDs once you add the three additional points.
I understand the psychological urge to make the big play and demoralize or bury an opponent but you have to coach with your head and not your heart when you are the head guy. Math is usually a better friend to you than emotion.
Just watching the South Florida-Maryland game and Randy Edsall went for a 4th down on the USF 20 down 7-0 in the first quarter. I've always thought he is a pretty good football coach and I doubt it was an emotional decision.
I still say going for "the kill" against a defense that hasn't really stopped you all day is not a poor decision. We score a TD and it is game over, at least at this point in our season , I would rather try to win the game with our offense than our defense. I doubt against OSU we would have been going for it, but considering the defense we were facing , it was a pretty good gamble.
But this was in the 4th quarter, not the 1st, so the circumstances are quite different. And, by taking the points via field goal, you are winning the game with your offense. Alternatively, he put the defense in a worse spot (than had they taken the points), which WKU exploited with a drive and touchdown).
I'm not against gambling. I just believe you do it when the odds are most in your favor. IU chose a low odds gamble that could have easily bitten them had they made a mistake. Fortunately, the offense was both overwhelming and efficient and WKU didn't get another chance.
Not sure how you figure we put our defense "in a worse spot", I believe WKU took over around their own 20 (honestly I don't remember the exact yard line). If we convert the FG they will likely start at their 25 (unless we kick it out bounds which we did once) So, yes , they drove the length of the field to score and would likely have done the same after a FG.
If we convert the 4th down, at a minimum, we take more time off the clock and if we go on to score a TD, game over. If we are up 13, it really doesn't change a lot if our offense hadn't run out the clock, as I'll guarantee Brohm wouldn't have been looking to tie it up.
Look, I'm not a go for it all the time guy, I have disagreed with CKW going for it on other occasions, just not on this one. Most of the time I want the points, but I think in this situation, against this team (really good O, fairly poor D), going for the throat with your best weapon is the right time to gamble. We'll just have to disagree, as I said before, I see both sides, but was fine with the gamble in this instance.
When the decision was made both choices were for potential points...not points. The decision he made left potential points on the field. Had he kicked and missed he would have left potential points on the field. The play he ran was poorly executed...at least from the basketball guy in section 7.
I would have kicked but it sure is easy to throw stones and call names once the outcome is known.
I would have kicked but it sure is easy to throw stones and call names once the outcome is known.
By the same token, getting either of those would have ended the game early.
It's a cost benefit analysis, and the numbers have been run - it's an easy argument to go for it in both situations.
I wonder what our percentage has been on those fourth down conversions inside FG range. I know each year's team is different, but it feels like we are about 4 for the last 30 with that move.
I do think obviously KW was bothered by drives stalling out without TDs in the FIU game, and that probably influenced his thinking more than a well thought out weighing of the odds. It takes mental discipline to not allow recent history to cloud good judgement.
I do think obviously KW was bothered by drives stalling out without TDs in the FIU game, and that probably influenced his thinking more than a well thought out weighing of the odds. It takes mental discipline to not allow recent history to cloud good judgement.
Where have the numbers been run? I have seen some NFL stats and some info on a high school team, but nothing that seems apples to apples to me.
Where I seem to differ from the go for it crowd is that I put lower odds on IU converting that TD than they do, and a higher value on being up 13 vs. 10 than they seem to be.
It's pretty definitive at this point that a more aggressive fourth down strategy is optimal.
When you're talking about the odds that you put on IU, you're introducing subjectivity into an objective discussion. And I really genuinely don't mean to be rude here, but the "lower odds on IU converting" is nonsense -- IU has a top 25 offense, and was playing against one of the 15 worst defenses in the country. If anything, our odds were *higher*.
Did not see the game, and by the sounds of it I am glad I missed it! Wilson's clock/game management is my biggest complaint about him. I have said numberous times that it routinely costs us a game a year, and we are not in a spot where we can afford that. By the sounds of it, a bad decision (from my POV after reading) worked out with a W in this case, as well as it did in the SIU when we butchered the clock management in the last minute.
I hope the one thing Wilson can do (get better players than previous coaches) is starting to overcome his biggest weakness in my opinion
I hope the one thing Wilson can do (get better players than previous coaches) is starting to overcome his biggest weakness in my opinion
If you think he butchered the last minute against SIU, ask the NY Giants how the "try not to score too soon" approach worked for them against the Cowboys a couple weeks ago. You score a TD when you are able, unless you can run out the clock completely.
The Giants actually did it closer to right, except thier franchise QB did one of only 2 things he could not do in that case, threw an inc pass and stopped the clock (other would be to throw a pick) and did not know how many time outs Dallas had! They thought they could run the time out, but Eli must have let the new $84 million dollars get in the way of knowing the TO situation
Over the years it has cost us games, and when that game(s) is the difference between 4 and 5 or 6 wins and a potential bowl it is a big deal. If that 2 pt conversion by SIU is good and we finish 6- or 5-7 and do not get a bowl invite it gets magnified, we lucked out in that one. Remember the navy game a couple of years back, have a multiple score lead in the 4th and have back to back possessions that last under 20 seconds and we lose by 1? Those things are inexcusable and have a right to be criticized.
It was wrong because the guy making 84 million did not know the time out situation and killed the clock for no reason
Similar threads
