ADVERTISEMENT

BC's Punt with 1:57 Left in 4th

I was thrilled they punted because it was a dumb move. The best case situation was what happened - force RU to go 3 and out and punt. If they didn't run into the punter they get the ball back with 15 seconds to go. How is that a better position to than converting a 4+25?
Best case situation was that we muff the punt and they recover, or we fumble an exchange on the first three downs. They prevented the worst case scenario of us getting a first down, but what they got was not their best case scenario.
 
I was thrilled they punted because it was a dumb move. The best case situation was what happened - force RU to go 3 and out and punt. If they didn't run into the punter they get the ball back with 15 seconds to go. How is that a better position to than converting a 4+25?
Only hope would be two decent passes that allow receiver to go out of bounds to stop the clock and attempt a long field goal for the win
 
Sorry if this was elaborated on elsewhere...but I don't see why punting here was good idea for BC. Obviously it was going to take a miracle one way or another at that point. Unless something really weird happens like a fumble, at 1:57 with punt if you figure (as happened) that the punt and each of Rutgers 3 runs will take 5 seconds each for 20 seconds and then the two 40 second run offs between plays, it takes the clock down to 17 seconds. The Rutgers punts it down and there's about 12 seconds left with no timeouts (even if they had not run into kicker). At that point, you basically are facing a situation similar to 4th and 25 because you have one play to get into field goal range from your own 20 or worse.

While it feels weird to go for it on 4th and 25 with that around 2 minutes left, you have a chance at a defensive holding or pass interference even if you don't complete it. And if you don't convert, the game is not technically over. a Rutgers punch it in TD there would leave it 29-21 and sort of like the late game UNC-Appy State situation today. And if Rutgers kicks the field goal to 25-21 then a few seconds left to try and get a TD with the few seconds remaining.

And to take a timeout after the sack instead of rushing on punting team and saving timeout for when Rutgers has ball.

Makes very little sense.
It makes a lot of sense if you take into account that they couldn't protect Jurkovec for more that 2 seconds.

In that scenario, converting 4th and 25 probably had a lower chance of success than getting the ball back with decent field position and having a couple of chances to get into FG range
 
I can see a justification for going for the win with a 2 point conversion late when your defense just can’t stop the other team, and your offense is scoring but it is taking a lot of things to fall the right way for you to score.

The best example I can think of this is Boise State’s 2 pt conversion against OU in the Fiesta Bowl.

I only saw that both teams in the UNC/App St game scored a ton in the 4th quarter, but I didn’t see the game. Did you get the sense that both teams were unable to stop the other by the end?
I still don't think it's a good idea in high scoring games because when you say a defense "can't stop" the other team, it usually means the opposing offense is either making big plays or putting together scoring drives. A two-point conversion reduces it to just one play. Additionally, if their defense isn't stopping you, then why take the unnecessary risk when you can just tie it and live to fight another day and probably score on your next drive or in overtime?

I mentioned this in another thread but how about intentionally fumbling in the end zone? Sounds nuts but BC would still be down just 1 possession with 1:30 ish and a kickoff to receive and some time to get their thoughts together. But as smart as our guys are maybe they don't just fall on it and let the clock run out right then and there...
The problem with that is if Rutgers gets a touchdown, that puts them up 7, so then you go for 2 because the reward outweighs the risk--if you convert you make it a two-score game with time winding down, and if you don't convert you're still up a touchdown. Intentionally giving up a touchdown gives Rutgers a chance to put the game away with a 2-point conversion. Additionally, if they don't get the 2-point conversion, BC is still in the game and has a new set of downs to start a drive with, but they would then have to go the length of the field instead of just getting into field goal range. I still think you're better off just trying to get the 25 yards, but intentionally giving up a touchdown and then having to stop them on a 2-point conversion to get a new set of downs might still be better than punting the game away.
 
I remember other teams converting critical 3rd or 4th down and 30+ on us in the past. Louisville, and before them WVU. Both late game to beat us.

That’s the play. Can’t punt with so little time left. Hope for PI or a catch. Highly unlikely to work, but still better than punting.

A Hail Mary worked there before😉, for a TD instead of a first down, but you never know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: robcac26
It makes a lot of sense if you take into account that they couldn't protect Jurkovec for more that 2 seconds.

In that scenario, converting 4th and 25 probably had a lower chance of success than getting the ball back with decent field position and having a couple of chances to get into FG range
They weren't going to get the ball back in decent field position though, unless something crazy happens (which is probably less likely than converting the 4th and 25), Rutgers was always going to punt the ball right back to deep in BC territory. Then you have the same battered QB with the same offensive line that couldn't protect him now needing to go 60 yards in 15 seconds with no timeouts--I don't see how that is better than attempting to get 25 yards on one play.
 
I still don't think it's a good idea in high scoring games because when you say a defense "can't stop" the other team, it usually means the opposing offense is either making big plays or putting together scoring drives. A two-point conversion reduces it to just one play. Additionally, if their defense isn't stopping you, then why take the unnecessary risk when you can just tie it and live to fight another day and probably score on your next drive or in overtime?


The problem with that is if Rutgers gets a touchdown, that puts them up 7, so then you go for 2 because the reward outweighs the risk--if you convert you make it a two-score game with time winding down, and if you don't convert you're still up a touchdown. Intentionally giving up a touchdown gives Rutgers a chance to put the game away with a 2-point conversion. Additionally, if they don't get the 2-point conversion, BC is still in the game and has a new set of downs to start a drive with, but they would then have to go the length of the field instead of just getting into field goal range. I still think you're better off just trying to get the 25 yards, but intentionally giving up a touchdown and then having to stop them on a 2-point conversion to get a new set of downs might still be better than punting the game away.
Rutgers - or anybody- never in a million years would go for 2 up 7. Why would they do that? You always kick the extra point to go up 8, forcing the opponent to score plus convert a 2 pt attempt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wheezer
What was real puzzling to me was that BC used it's last timeout on that punting situation. Perhaps they were discussing doing what's been suggested here , namely going for fourth down and not punting.
 
Rutgers - or anybody- never in a million years would go for 2 up 7. Why would they do that? You always kick the extra point to go up 8, forcing the opponent to score plus convert a 2 pt attempt.
Or you look at analytics and say, if we go for 2 and get it to go up 9, the game is over. If we go for 2 and miss, the worst they can do is force OT. And for the record, they do that in the NFL these days thanks to Doug Pederson.
 
Rutgers - or anybody- never in a million years would go for 2 up 7. Why would they do that? You always kick the extra point to go up 8, forcing the opponent to score plus convert a 2 pt attempt.
Why would anyone NOT go for 2 when you're up 7, especially with under two minutes left? Yeah if you kick the extra point you force them to go for 2, but if you convert your own 2 the only way you lose is the opponent scores, recovers an onside kick, and scores again (one of the scores being a touchdown) all in under 2 minutes or whatever would have been left, and with no timeouts. If you don't make the 2 point conversion, you're still up by 7. In an era when coaches quite often nonsensically go for 2 at a time when if they don't make it, they lose the game, you're telling me it would be a bad idea to go for 2 at a time when if you make it you win and if you don't make it, you're still up by 7?

EDIT: Well I guess the thinking is if they score a touchdown, BC could then go for 2 to win it, which as I've beaten to death here, would be the wrong move but has become seemingly conventional these days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigmatt718
They weren't going to get the ball back in decent field position though, unless something crazy happens (which is probably less likely than converting the 4th and 25), Rutgers was always going to punt the ball right back to deep in BC territory. Then you have the same battered QB with the same offensive line that couldn't protect him now needing to go 60 yards in 15 seconds with no timeouts--I don't see how that is better than attempting to get 25 yards on one play.
Well, we don’t have to wonder what would have happened. The guy did return the punt to about the 30 with 4 seconds left. Probably not enough time to get into FG range or more than one play. So, its a one play HM at that point.

More evidence that going for it on 4th made more sense. Only need 25 yds as opposed to 70. If the QB/oline were rattled (and IMO - both were) and a hurry up play immediately after those 2 sacks was not gonna happen, then take both your timeouts. Get them rested, get them together, and give it a shot.
 
Maybe they knew that it was Simon’s turn in the rotation to come in even though everyone in the stadium knew that we’d be trying to run out the clock and had two running QBs on the bench, and they felt confident they’d get the ball back.
 
It doesn't matter how confident they were. You don't plan for a freak turnover or a muffed punt, so you're playing for an outcome where you get the ball in similar field position with one play, max. And against an offense that just went 96 yards on the ground against you. Dumb move but I'm happy they did it.
 
I still don't think it's a good idea in high scoring games because when you say a defense "can't stop" the other team, it usually means the opposing offense is either making big plays or putting together scoring drives. A two-point conversion reduces it to just one play. Additionally, if their defense isn't stopping you, then why take the unnecessary risk when you can just tie it and live to fight another day and probably score on your next drive or in overtime?


The problem with that is if Rutgers gets a touchdown, that puts them up 7, so then you go for 2 because the reward outweighs the risk--if you convert you make it a two-score game with time winding down, and if you don't convert you're still up a touchdown. Intentionally giving up a touchdown gives Rutgers a chance to put the game away with a 2-point conversion. Additionally, if they don't get the 2-point conversion, BC is still in the game and has a new set of downs to start a drive with, but they would then have to go the length of the field instead of just getting into field goal range. I still think you're better off just trying to get the 25 yards, but intentionally giving up a touchdown and then having to stop them on a 2-point conversion to get a new set of downs might still be better than punting the game away.
Boise St had got then to that point by converting an improbable run of trick plays, and their coach rightly knew that the longer things went on the more chance they failed at one of those than that of his defense stopping Oklahoma.

That’s what you don’t take into account. There can be a great difference in depth between college teams, and a coach would know better than you whether his team is likely to stand up to overtime (or more overtones). In some cases, the best shot is one play right now rather than going toe to toe for OT.
 
After the punt they could have allowed us to score on first play.
They’d be down 8 with a chance to get a return and more than a minute left

Hopefully Gleason and Greg would have anticipated that and told the kids to get down once they made first down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GSGS
It makes a lot of sense if you take into account that they couldn't protect Jurkovec for more that 2 seconds.

In that scenario, converting 4th and 25 probably had a lower chance of success than getting the ball back with decent field position and having a couple of chances to get into FG range
Taking the TO and then punting made no sense to me. You want to use the TO when your opponent controls the clock.
 
Anywho, BC's only chance was to get positive yardage on 1, 2 and 3rd downs on their last drive and they couldn't do it. I don't think the coach is 'bad' because of the punt.
 
Why would anyone NOT go for 2 when you're up 7, especially with under two minutes left? Yeah if you kick the extra point you force them to go for 2, but if you convert your own 2 the only way you lose is the opponent scores, recovers an onside kick, and scores again (one of the scores being a touchdown) all in under 2 minutes or whatever would have been left, and with no timeouts. If you don't make the 2 point conversion, you're still up by 7. In an era when coaches quite often nonsensically go for 2 at a time when if they don't make it, they lose the game, you're telling me it would be a bad idea to go for 2 at a time when if you make it you win and if you don't make it, you're still up by 7?

EDIT: Well I guess the thinking is if they score a touchdown, BC could then go for 2 to win it, which as I've beaten to death here, would be the wrong move but has become seemingly conventional these days.
For the exact reason I already mentioned. Can you give me 1 example of a coach ever going for 2 when up 7 with less than 2 min left in a game???
 
For the exact reason I already mentioned. Can you give me 1 example of a coach ever going for 2 when up 7 with less than 2 min left in a game???
Depends on whether you more trust your offense or defense in my opinion
 
For the exact reason I already mentioned. Can you give me 1 example of a coach ever going for 2 when up 7 with less than 2 min left in a game???
I don't have an example in mind, but I don't need an example to understand math. It's one of the few times when the reward for going two outweighs the risk involved. Like I said, you have coaches going for it in scenarios where if they make it they win and if they fail they lose. In this case, if they make it they win and if they fail, they're still up a touchdown. You really don't have anything to lose.
 
Last edited:
Agree.... at 4th and 25, they had pretty much exhausted their chances. Their OLine was spent and overmatched at that point, and their QB was battered. Their chances boiled down to a) a muffed punt, b) a fumbled exchange or carry, and c) a hail mary with under 20 seconds left after getting the QB/OL a chance to regroup.

Wasn't the worst plan in the world. Might a safety have given them a hair's width more hope? Possibly - but an onsides kick after a safety is a bit different than a normal one after a kickoff, and likely not something that gets a lot of practice. The other options end up being roughly the same, just with even fewer seconds on the clock if you do get the ball back.

End of the day, they had the ball with over two minutes and two timeouts, and they went backward 15 yards instead of forward. They were out of time and out of answers at 4th and 25.

With the recent-ish changes to the Onside Kick rule they are now very hard to accomplish.
 
Anyone still questioning the decision watch the LSU-FSU game last night? FSU punts with 1 min left and the LSU guy muffs the punt. Then, FSU just needing to run out the clock, fumbles and gives LSU another chance which they turn into a 99-yard TD drive after doing nothing the first 55 mins of the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redking
Anyone still questioning the decision watch the LSU-FSU game last night? FSU punts with 1 min left and the LSU guy muffs the punt. Then, FSU just needing to run out the clock, fumbles and gives LSU another chance which they turn into a 99-yard TD drive after doing nothing the first 55 mins of the game.
Without looking up the data - my guess would be that RU has historically failed to hold on far more 3rd or 4th and long opponent attempts on a percentage basis relative to turnovers due to muffed punts. If GS was worried about a muff he wouldn’t have had AC field the punt. As others have pointed out, that option was available to us. It was an awful call by BC to punt there. They could’ve thrown up a 50/50 type Hail Mary because an interception would’ve been the same as a punt field wise and maybe their guy actually catches it. If they fail to convert - RU is burning clock and clicking a FG which gives them the same chance to block and take it to the house as us punting from midfield.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GSGS
Discussions like this are why I like this board. You have a thought during the game and can get multiple opinions of it here.

If I were Hafely I would have passed 4th and 25 and thrown it short, having the WR come back and flail, trying for PI. Of the punt, put me in the camp of not fielding. At that stage of the game I would estimate we had a 95% chance of winning as long as no big mistakes, and fumbling a punt would be a big one. It may have rolled but as stated above time would continue to run, and time was the biggest factor in our favor.
 
Without looking up the data - my guess would be that RU has historically failed to hold on far more 3rd or 4th and long opponent attempts on a percentage basis relative to turnovers due to muffed punts. If GS was worried about a muff he wouldn’t have had AC field the punt. As others have pointed out, that option was available to us. It was an awful call by BC to punt there. They could’ve thrown up a 50/50 type Hail Mary because an interception would’ve been the same as a punt field wise and maybe their guy actually catches it. If they fail to convert - RU is burning clock and clicking a FG which gives them the same chance to block and take it to the house as us punting from midfield.

After their line collapsed immediately twice in a row (sandwich sacks in under 2 seconds on 2nd down, and hand on his shoulder in 3 seconds on 3rd down), and after Jurkovec eating turf two plays in a row, how likely do you think BC was to hold off pressure long enough to even get a "50/50 type Hail Mary" into the air?

In a vacuum it makes sense to go for it on 4th and 25 there... but that's assuming a spherical cow. I think the odds of BC completing that 4th and 25 in that moment were far far lower than what the statistical average might be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MoreCowbellRU
Best case situation was that we muff the punt and they recover, or we fumble an exchange on the first three downs. They prevented the worst case scenario of us getting a first down, but what they got was not their best case scenario.
There was another 3rd and long play earlier in the game where we dominated them on 1st and second downs and then they made a big 3rd down conversion. Not exactly the same but it wasn’t like BC had no success throwing the ball in the game. That do or die type play probably succeeds at higher rate than most think because the fear of a pick in that situation is much lower than normal since on a Hail Mary it’s basically the same outcome as a punt.
 
There was another 3rd and long play earlier in the game where we dominated them on 1st and second downs and then they made a big 3rd down conversion. Not exactly the same but it wasn’t like BC had no success throwing the ball in the game. That do or die type play probably succeeds at higher rate than most think because the fear of a pick in that situation is much lower than normal since on a Hail Mary it’s basically the same outcome as a punt.

Not sure what play you're remembering. Their longest 3rd down conversions were:

3rd and 12 for a 22 yard reception, to start the 4th Q
3rd and 10 for a 26 yard TD, with 3 min left in the 1st half
3rd and 10 for an 11 yard TD, with 8 min left in the 3rd Q

None came after sacks... let alone two sacks in a row. Nor were they in the shadow of their own goalposts.

They also faced a 3rd and 14 (incomplete, punt), 3rd and 15 (10 yard pass, punt), and 3rd and 19 (Jurkovec fumble).
 
Not sure what play you're remembering. Their longest 3rd down conversions were:

3rd and 12 for a 22 yard reception, to start the 4th Q
3rd and 10 for a 26 yard TD, with 3 min left in the 1st half
3rd and 10 for an 11 yard TD, with 8 min left in the 3rd Q

None came after sacks... let alone two sacks in a row. Nor were they in the shadow of their own goalposts.

They also faced a 3rd and 14 (incomplete, punt), 3rd and 15 (10 yard pass, punt), and 3rd and 19 (Jurkovec fumble).
Probably the 3rd and 12 that went for 22 yards? We had stuffed them twice I believe for some negative yardage. Granted it went for 22 and not 25. But you just mentioned 2 plays for 20+ in this game on 3rd down alone. How many punt / kick off receptions have we muffed in the last 5 years? I’m not saying it’s not possible but a 25 yard play just seems way more common to me overall.

Also - there’s a chance we would’ve played bend don’t break to prevent the Hail Mary. Not sure what that means other than that we might’ve thrown a different look at them coming out of the time out if they went for it.
 
Probably the 3rd and 12 that went for 22 yards? We had stuffed them twice I believe for some negative yardage. Granted it went for 22 and not 25. But you just mentioned 2 plays for 20+ in this game on 3rd down alone. How many punt / kick off receptions have we muffed in the last 5 years? I’m not saying it’s not possible but a 25 yard play just seems way more common to me overall.

Also - there’s a chance we would’ve played bend don’t break to prevent the Hail Mary. Not sure what that means other than that we might’ve thrown a different look at them coming out of the time out if they went for it.

Yeah, the defense is also going to be different for a 3rd and 12 than a 3rd and 25, too, because you don't need to defend as much against quick hitters. When they had 3rd and 15+, they didn't have much success during the game. They had three big 25+ pass plays, but 2 were on 2nd and 10 when the whole playbook is open and one was on 3rd and 10 when an in complete pass would have led to a FG attempt.

Not saying punting was a better play call - but I don't think it was the gaffe people are making it out to be. I don't think they'd have been any more successful going for it than they were punting it.
 
After the punt they could have allowed us to score on first play.
They’d be down 8 with a chance to get a return and more than a minute left
was thinking the same thing.. let us score. But maybe our RB would just sit down at the 1... I was hoping to see that situation pop up and see what we would do.
 
Yeah, the defense is also going to be different for a 3rd and 12 than a 3rd and 25, too, because you don't need to defend as much against quick hitters. When they had 3rd and 15+, they didn't have much success during the game. They had three big 25+ pass plays, but 2 were on 2nd and 10 when the whole playbook is open and one was on 3rd and 10 when an in complete pass would have led to a FG attempt.

Not saying punting was a better play call - but I don't think it was the gaffe people are making it out to be. I don't think they'd have been any more successful going for it than they were punting it.
Their choices were between a sh!t sandwich and a sh!t sub at that point. They chose the sandwich.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUChoppin
Their choices were between a sh!t sandwich and a sh!t sub at that point. They chose the sandwich.
If your going to punt, you don’t take the time out. You take a delay of game if you can’t regroup. Burning that time out basically guaranteed them only one snap with a 3 and out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodOl'Rutgers
I don't have an example in mind, but I don't need an example to understand math. It's one of the few times when the reward for going two outweighs the risk involved. Like I said, you have coaches going for it in scenarios where if they make it they win and if they fail they lose. In this case, if they make it they win and if they fail, they're still up a touchdown. You really don't have anything to lose.
You can lose the game if you’re up 7, go for 2 and fail, and then the opposing team scores a TD and goes for 2 to win it.
 
You can lose the game if you’re up 7, go for 2 and fail, and then the opposing team scores a TD and goes for 2 to win it.
Yep. Same idea as a trader. If I'm down I need to create/hope for volatility and then hope things work out. But if I'm up I'm up. No reason to take on silly risks. Take the *near* 100% free point and make the other guy drive the length of the field AND successfully go for 2.
 
You can lose the game if you’re up 7, go for 2 and fail, and then the opposing team scores a TD and goes for 2 to win it.
Ok and then you can also lose if you kick the extra point, keeping it a one-score game, giving up a touchdown and a 2-point conversion to tie it and then it's anyone's game again. Or you can completely eliminate the possibility of losing by converting the 2 to make it a two-score game and secure the win.

Also, your scenario seems to contradict itself in that you think it's too risky for the team up 7 to go for 2, but then you apparently think it makes sense for the team down 1 to go for it even though they have drastically more risk involved. Both teams win if they convert and the other doesn't, but the only team that guarantees a loss by not converting is the team down by 1, but that's the team that should go for it?
 
Last edited:
Ok and then you can also lose if you kick the extra point, keeping it a one-score game, giving up a touchdown and a 2-point conversion to tie it and then it's anyone's game again. Or you can completely eliminate the possibility of losing by converting the 2 to make it a two-score game and secure the win.

Also, your scenario seems to contradict itself in that you think it's too risky for the team up 7 to go for 2, but then you apparently think it makes sense for the team down 1 to go for it even though they have drastically more risk involved. Both teams win if they convert and the other doesn't, but the only team that guarantees a loss by not converting is the team down by 1, but that's the team that should go for it?
I did not contradict myself. The scenario I mentioned has both teams going for a 2-point conversion. The first team risks a win or tie and therefore has more to lose.
 
ADVERTISEMENT