How-to: Out-Stoops a Stoops
by PaulSF on Nov 17, 2008 11:00 AM PST
in Oregon Ducks Football
Email
PrintThe Stoopseses have a tumultuous history at Autzen, and a very suspect call by little brother Mike to go for it on 4th-and-3 with just under five minutes to play from his team's own 45 in Saturday's shootout between Oregon and Arizona only adds fodder to the farce known as Mike Stoops's tenure in Tucson.
As you may recall, older brother Bob and his Oklahoma Sooners are 0-1 in their only visit to Eugene, losing controversially to the Ducks on what some have argued was a blown call in the final minute and a half of the 2006 contest. (I, like many Oregon fans, think it's pretty hard to blame a loss on a blown call that occurred while the Sooners were clinging to a 6-point lead. I'd probably blame the touchdown and the blocked field goal. But that's just me. And probably every other rational football fan.)
But, all things considered, Bob probably has a legitimate gripe. Mike, on the other hand? Not so much.
With just under five minutes left in the game, Arizona faced a 4th-and-3 at their own 45.
Now, you play head coach for a moment (and, quite frankly, most of you could probably do a better job than Stoops has done in his four seasons at Arizona): Your team has scored 28 straight points; your opponents have punted four times and fumbled a kickoff to end their last five possessions; and, although down by three, you've successfully taken the notoriously raucous home crowd out of the game. Would you, under any circumstances, go for it in this situation? Would you put undue pressure on your offense, even if you were a defensive-minded coach whose D had successfully brought its opponent's offensive attack to a screeching halt? Ignore the obvious fact that home crowds tend to suddenly become interested again when the visiting team decides to go for it on 4th down. How about if it meant throwing a swing pass to an 18-YEAR-OLD TRUE FRESHMAN RUNNING BACK?!
Yeah, didn't think so.
But, apparently, the brilliant and resilient Mike Stoops did! And the result was, well, not surprising. A well-thrown Willie Tuitama pass to a wide-open Keola Antolin (who, having grown up in Vegas, probably wouldn't have bet on HIMSELF to make that play) hits the youngster in the hands and rolls out of bounds, all but eliminating Arizona's chance for a wild, come-from-behind win in one of college football's toughest environments, not to mention dashing its hopes for the school's first-ever Rose Bowl bid.
And the rest is now history: The Ducks took over on downs, quickly added another score with LeGarrette Blount's 40-yard TD dash, and held on to win, 55-45.
Nice work, Mike. The other Mike probably appreciates it. Now, back on the hot seat you go!
73 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
ummm
You could easily take the same facts and make it an excuse for Stoops. Sure the play went to an 18 year old, but that’s only because Tuitama made a good read and checked down to the receiver the Duck D left WIDE OPEN! Sure the kid dropped it, but the play call was solid, and Tuitama’s execution and decision making was solid.
I’m not saying that it wasn’t a bad decision to have the Freshman in the game, but I don’t think it is an indictment on Stoops.
On "On the Hot Seat"
The temperature of his seat is entirely dependent on how he does against ASU this season
I definitely disagree with you on this. Those same facts could not be an excuse for Stoops under any circumstances. Why would you ever put that kind of pressure on your offense, especially taking into consideration that Oregon hadn’t passed the 50-yard-line since the middle of the third quarter? Why wouldn’t you punt it away and let your defense continue to do what it’s been doing, get the ball back in a minute or so, and give it another shot with a full set of downs?
To be honest, it is moments like that that I’m thankful to have a bit more conservative coach like Bellotti. Because that was an egregious mistake on the part of Stoops. No question about it.
i agree with
brad, if he was so open the call was correct, its a coaches job to put the players in a place too succeed, its the players job to succeed. not to mention had they punted they would’ve had to stop blount, did they on the next play? no
by joffthedeckk on Nov 17, 2008 11:54 AM PST up reply actions
also
our d was on the field for how long in that game, i would think arizona would consider how tired our d must’ve been
by joffthedeckk on Nov 17, 2008 11:56 AM PST up reply actions
I would have gone for it, but I don’t know if I like the play calling. I would need to see the replay though before I am sure on that. In that situation, you need to give yourself choices. Tuitama is a good decision maker, and a play maker. In that situation, you need as many of those as you can get.
Statistically, going for it with less than 4 yards is more successful than not.
It's spelled "S-h-u-t-a-b-r-i-c-k".
But, statistically, odds were in favor of Arizona getting the ball back and having another full set of downs. Why risk it? That dropped pass was the game. As soon as that ball hit the turf, Arizona had singlehandedly spoiled its own comeback.
I think I would have gone for it too
With the clock changes this year, it really favors the team that is ahead. All we would have needed was a first down to essentially run out the clock without giving them back the ball. Syria punting would have hurt them field position wise and they have been moving on us all second half. It was an aggressive move, that’s for sure but Arizona’s offense was rolling and Oregon’s D was on their heels. If the clock rules were the same as last year, I would have punted the ball
--Dominic
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
Glad I read this before I posted
The clock changes have really changed coaches decisions. Plus their D has been doing so well, it doesn’t seem like that much of a risk. In the end the 40 yard run would have been a 80 yard run if they had punted.
Going for it
I thought it was a poor decision because it took a lot of the pressure of our offense. Rather than being backed up deep into our own territory and needing a first down to (potentially) avoid punting from our own end zone, our offense now just had to avoid fumbling and would be able to (in the worst case), pin UA deep in their own territory. I just don’t think the risk was worth the reward. I also agree with your point that it re-energized the crowd which, I am assuming, was pretty shell-shocked.
You NEVER go for it when momentum’s on your side, because failing to convert on 4th down is the BIGGEST momentum killer in all of football. It’s a self-inflicted turnover.
He ment
Nico (personally) never punts.
Besides Stoops drew up a play that took advantage of our defense. We are Lucky they didn’t get the 1st down, not that Stoops went for it
You’re going to tell me that you don’t take certain factors into consideration, like, I don’t know, throwing the ball might lead to a guy being overwhelmed with the pressure of the situation, causing him to DROP THE PASS?
C’mon, people. Stoops is a joke, and we all know it. There’s a reason Bellotti has like a .800 winning percentage in close games.
As I said before
It was a bad idea to have a true freshman out there, I said that before. But that is not enough to say Stoops is a bad coach. If you would read people’s post instead of falling in love with your caps lock you would know that no one is saying that it was a good idea to have a true frosh in there.
Also this thread isn’t about the comparison between Stoops and Bellotti – Bellotti is a better coach (in my opinion, and there are numerous stats to back it up). So I’m not sure what your last sentence has to do with anything.
I hate the guy, he’s a little bitch who complains to refs and media. Also he pulls out victories against the Ducks more then he should, but if he beats ASU then this will be the most successful UofA season sense Tomey (sp?; that’s off the top of my head, I may be wrong).
What it has to do with Bellotti
My comments that mention Bellotti are actually pretty relevant. I believe the general consensus among Ducks fans is that Bellotti can sometimes be too conservative strategically on offense. He’s been chastised by Oregon fans for past decisions to run the ball and eat up the clock in order to hold on for a win, rather than continue doing what the offense had been doing successfully the entire game.
I think, and it’s obviously my opinion, Bellotti punts that ball away in the same situation, and therefore, based on what I’ve outlined, has a better chance of winning that game. It’s merely a comparison of ideology. Bellotti has gotten to where he is because he makes conservative, sound decisions late in games. Mike Stoops will never get there, because of bad decisions like that one.
I would say more like you ALWAYS go for it when momentum's on your side.
At least in short yardage situations at midfield, as opposed to 4th and 9 on your own 26.
F*ck you Shufelt you're gonna spend the night... OUT-SIDE!
I never punt...
Right…what I do in a video game must reflect what I think should happen in real life.
Plus, very few defenses can shutdown my offense like UA did in the second half. In the last title game against Brad, I did punt.
Nico only disagrees with me when he’s in Austin. Don’t think there won’t be retribution when you come back.
It would take only 2 or 3 1st downs to run out the clock. You can’t give the ball away.
Game circumstances
Given the way our offense had performed in the second half of this game, I think you punt and trust in your defense which had completely shut down our offense. How many timeouts did UA have at this point?
Game circumstances
Given the way their Defense has performed that half there was little risk of the Ducks moving the ball at all, and little risk of the Oregon D stopping them no matter where they started (evidenced by the wide open RB in the flat)
Sure...
But, in my opinion, the risk v. reward from UA’s perspective did not warrant going for it. If they fail to convert, then Oregon is very close to being in fg range and forcing UA to respond with a TD rather than a FG. That puts a lot of pressure on the UA defense.
Good Point
I agree with you there. Though just to play devils advocate, one could also argue that punting might take momentum away from UofA and give it to UO. Certainly going for it is not as clear cut decision.
0 for nico that is
Background: Joffthedeckk, Nico and I have played 3 player dynasties and Franchises in Madden when ever we could, we’ve done probably 35 total seasons and Nico has won no national championships or super bowls.
This also sheds light on why he’s so bad at the pickems
I just now realized
that the “!” meant factorial – When I think you can’t get any more nerdier you always prove me wrong.
If (brad thinks = nico has reached nerdies point) {
Nico’s nerdness = nico’s nerdness + 1;
}
Top that biatch!
01001001 00100000 01110111 01101001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01100001 01101100 01110111 01100001 01111001 01110011 00100000 01100110 01101001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01100001 00100000 01110111 01100001 01111001 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100000 01101110 01100101 01110010 01100100 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100001
It's spelled "S-h-u-t-a-b-r-i-c-k".
by JShufelt on Nov 17, 2008 1:29 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
the sad part
I took the time to figure this out. :(
--Dominic
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
Yes
It means…
I will always find a way to out nerd you!
--Dominic
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
Tucson Citizen has a different take
By the way, leave it to the local sports columnist to defend the coach under fire.
Sorry dude
I thought it was the smartest call I’ve ever seen Mike Stoops make, actually. Offense scored 28 straight points, Oregon obviously had an explosive offense on that night… your D had held up well lately, and that swing pass was very smart in itself. Nobody even took the back coming out of the backfield, you only need 3 yards…
I voted yes.
F*ck you Shufelt you're gonna spend the night... OUT-SIDE!
It would have been very close....
He probably would have gotten the first down had he caught the ball, but Boyd was in position to possibly stop the play, but at least stop it around midfield. The reward just wasn’t that great.
--www.AddictedToQuack.com, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
At the game, with the vantage I had, it looked like a sure first down.
My entire section saw the the lane and all already had hands on heads until relieved with the ball falling harmlessly to the turf.
F*ck you Shufelt you're gonna spend the night... OUT-SIDE!
Agreed.
I was sitting one section back and higher than butthol, looking almost straight down the AZ sideline. There was a whole lotta green ahead of the running back if catches that ball. It was a good play call. It was poorly executed. Stoops is a douche – cannot be debated. Still, I voted no. He took a gamble and failed. It swung momentum and gave Oregon a lot of breathing room.
With all that time and 3 TOs remaining, I just didn’t see the need to play the desperate card on the wrong side of the 50. I believe punting – albeit the far more conservative move – was the better choice. Pin the Ducks deep. Chip’s playbook becomes about three plays deep and with a decent punt return AZ might end up with great field position if they hold the Ducks to another 3-and-out.
The ATQer formerly known as Seattle Quacker...oh yeah, I hate the wings.
I don't know...
I’m very torn on this issue. I’m usually a go-for-it type of guy, and the math background in me screams go, and that’s what statistics tell you as well…
But, in this case, what does Stoops gain by going for it. Well, he gains a first down, which gives a decent chance at scoring. Or he gives the ball back to the Oregon offense, who has zero momentum, in poor field position.
If Arizona gets it, it may affect the game, it may not. It could get them going even more, and add to their already great momentum. But by not getting it, it gave the Oregon offense life and spark.
That call, with the momentum and emotion involved, was pretty much the game. If he punts, he keeps the status quo. If he goes and gets it, its not really backbreaking, cause it’s only 4th and 3, and drive continues….
It’s a tough choice. But the risks outweigh the reward in this case, I feel.
--www.AddictedToQuack.com, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
So your saying
Because they lost it was a bad decision
If Arizona gets it, it may affect the game, it may not. It could get them going even more, and add to their already great momentum. But by not getting it, it gave the Oregon offense life and spark.
You don’t know what happens if he punts, I think that 40 yard TD run could have gone a lot farther, there was nobody knocking him down at the goal line. I’m not saying it would happen, but it could,
I'm saying that you don't get it....
I think the game is pretty much over…
You get it…it’s still a toss up.
You punt…it’s still a toss up.
There just isn’t as much to gain in that situation as there is to lose.
--www.AddictedToQuack.com, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I think your right except the 1st point, the Ducks still have to punch it in the end the game. A Fgy doesn’t end it, and up until then we had one drive in the second half to go for more than 10 yards (and it only went for 27). So it is not quite that cut and dry.
Just for sh*ts and giggles lets look at this from a percentages perspective:
Option/Outcome A (go/don’t get): 30 of winning (feel free to argue about the numbers, but I don’t think loosing is a given)
Option/Outcome B (go/get): 50 chance of winning
Option/Outcome c (Punt): 45% chance of winning (B must be greater than C)
Now we have to guess % chance to get it. Lets take the average yards gained per play in the 2nd half (6.2 – taken by computing sum of the length of each drive [from drive chart] divided by number of plays in sencond half [from your post]).
So let’s assume they have a 50 chance of getting 6.2 (if I had unlimited time I’d get the SD so we could talk about what they had an 85 chance of getting), To simplify matters lets say that means they had a %50 of succeeding.
Now how do we augment the %of outcomes (seriously I’m not sure if my logic is correct. Well going for it leads to this equation (.5 [chance of success] X.5 [chance of winning if made]) + (.5 [chance of success]X.3[chance of winning if made]) = ,48
which is slightly larger than Option C .45
Now Obviously we (I say we because I’m basing this on your toss up comment) just made up these percentages, had I used a number less than 30% the analysis would come to the other conclusion. But given the variability of percentages people could come up with I would say it is absolutely understandable why someone would go for it, and I would definitely not say it was a bone headed call
i hate the shloops and they deserve what they get, but if that kid caught the ball he would have scored a td on the play because he was so open . we probably would have lost. with that said i enjoy these type of wins over the shloops because it eats at them.
No...
He would not have scored a TD. Even if he would have caught that, Boyd was in the vicinity and could have made getting the first down tough if he would have slowed for the catch at all. Arizona would have had the ball at about midfield, maybe a little better.
--www.AddictedToQuack.com, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I don't know about puttin gthe 1st down in doubt
Consensus at the bar (drunk people are a good group to ask for their perceptions) was he would have made it
I will add one more thing...
I am a pretty instinctive “go-for-it” type of guy. I almost always think the offense should seriously consider going for it on anything less than 4th and 4.
But this time, I think it’s different, and it’s because of how the possessions at the end of the game play out. In this situation, there are 5 minutes left. If Arizona gets the first down, there is almost no way they are running the full 5 minutes off the clock in that position.
In my mind, each team was going to get one more possession, whether Stoops goes for it or not. So, do you want to give Oregon the ball with momentum if you don’t get it. Do you want to give them the ball with their backs against the wall (and 4 downs to use), when they succeeded the week before (assuming Arizona scores)? Or do you want to give them the ball with little momentum, deep in their own territory?
Because of that, overall, whether or not he got the ball, it seems an unwise choice to go for it.
--www.AddictedToQuack.com, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Addicted To Quack
Related FanShots on Addicted To Quack
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
