LSU had stopped then on consecutive drives and the tigers had scored on consecutive drives… cbk was playing percentages… he’s won lots of games, more than anyone else in d1 I think…. he deserves a mulligan…
Easy to say this now but I did bring up going for two while sitting in front of my TV. The rational was that we would not have won in OT. I know we had just stopped them with a 3 and out. But they were playing so conservative on that drive after the fumble. However, I trust that BK knows more about football percentages than me and accept his decision. Plus I would not have felt that much better about the game if we had won. That was ugly play by the Tigers.
I disagree. I think it gives the opposite message for option 3 or 4. Going for two as the "almost home team" tells your players that the coaches don't trust your team to beat them in the OT. Especially after the come back that they had just engineered. Go for one.
I feel like you always make decisions with the thought of keeping yourself in the game. For example, if you're down 10 with 3:00 left and facing a 4th and goal from the 2, you kick the FG and make it a one-score game. You go for the TD and fail, you virtually eliminate the chance of getting the 2 scores you need. In the case of Sunday night, the percentages say take the XP and extend the game to OT; better odds of converting the XP than a 2-point conversion. Of course, that also assumes the fact that you BLOCK ON THE EXTRA POINT!
he did the right thing. LSU had the momentum and was playing better than Fla. St at the end. They had stopped them and the offense was clicking. 2 pt play is less reliable than a extra point usually is. LSU was getting better as game went on and i have no problem taking our chances in overtime.
I'm goin with yes, but every situation like this that's what I'm gonna say. We had the momentum, the crowd was in it, and special teams was already a failure in the game at that point... In that situation you keep the guys on the field that just built a 97 yard drive to get us there... At the very least I would have faked the extra and played for the 2...
A surprising amount of "play for OT" folks. Respect. - I want my coach to have balls and swing the sword when he holds it. I want him to say, "Two-pointer to win the game? I have prepared for this!" ($10 million doesn't get a us a great goal-line play?) - If the math is: ~50% chance of converting a 2PT, or ~50% of winning in OT (plus a nonzero chance of more injuries) - this is easy for me - You'd have trouble finding a single football player cheering for the PAT - One offensive play for the binary win/loss is so much better than volunteering for the random madness that is CFB OT
Go for one. Going for two against FSU in NOLA is embarrassing. We are here to play football, not be cute, if we can’t win playing football, better to lose.
The two point conversion has been a part of "playing football" since 1958. It is there for men who are brave and cool. Men who understand when to take a calculated risk. Men who know that playing it safe has never resulted in glory. Men who take a chance at seizing victory over calling heads or tails. "Playing football" to me is attacking an opponent when they're tired and just gave up 99 yards. Kicking, letting the other team rest and recover, and throwing your team's chances to the whims of overtime is passive, cowardly.
I disagree. I think they should’ve gone for 2 and don’t think they would’ve won in OT. That being said, as disheartening as the loss was as a Tiger fan, I was never under the illusion of us having a great year this year. Anyone that expected BK to come in and be the savior his first year is delusional
