|
Post by Mike84 on Nov 28, 2021 12:47:50 GMT -8
On the 2021 play where Gebbia was hurt, I originally argued that the play by 23 was just a football play. It was a long time before I saw the replay from the different angle. Totally dirty play by 23. And totally targeting yesterday. That play that resulted in Gebbia getting hurt was the action of a player who is either stupid or malicious. You don't pull on a leg like that after the play is over if you have any brains or decency. Targeting is a split second thing that I often feel is accidental, but I've come to accept it as part of the rules. Or at least so I thought. To realize that it was the same duck player makes it all the more infuriating and frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Nov 28, 2021 14:36:18 GMT -8
How does anyone argue it wasn’t targeting when cristoball was clearly showing his player (via the video board) that it was. ee1990 has always been a s%#t fan. I have never figured out if he's just a troll, or if he hates being a beaver fan. Either way, he does nothing but crap on the beavs. Troll... his latest posts seemed to be purposely trying to incite and while trying for some needed attention.
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Nov 28, 2021 17:00:07 GMT -8
No problem. Trent’s a two strike hitter. Nothing like being a coach, last week he’s a genius and this week he’s a bum. Never the player’s fault. But when Tibesars D played the same way it was all his fault right? I think it's mostly due to not having the horses, just like with Tibesar.....coupled with no pressure. All I'm saying is we reverted back to that.....and maybe it's mostly because hole just has more talent, I dunno. Bottom line, we got outplayed and our defense didn't have an answer for the offense, and Brown prolly looked better than he has all season.......some of that is on coaches and scheme. Tibesar had control of the D for three or four years….yeah, he deserved it. Bray has been in control for three or four games, and we’ve seen improvement. Relax.
|
|
|
Post by flyfishinbeav on Nov 28, 2021 18:38:42 GMT -8
But when Tibesars D played the same way it was all his fault right? I think it's mostly due to not having the horses, just like with Tibesar.....coupled with no pressure. All I'm saying is we reverted back to that.....and maybe it's mostly because hole just has more talent, I dunno. Bottom line, we got outplayed and our defense didn't have an answer for the offense, and Brown prolly looked better than he has all season.......some of that is on coaches and scheme. Tibesar had control of the D for three or four years….yeah, he deserved it. Bray has been in control for three or four games, and we’ve seen improvement. Relax. Calmer'n you are dude.... Look, I said it's prolly mostly do to not havin the horses.....my main point was a lot Tibesars problems were related to that.....and the inability to change. I'm not bailing on Bray, but it wasnt a good performance, and Brown looked like a borderline Heisman hopeful...
|
|
|
Post by bennyorange on Dec 2, 2021 12:27:31 GMT -8
I'm in no way an expert like many of you but I watched the 60 minute reply last night and had the following observations:
1. We got f%#*ed all night long on spotting the ball. Seems like we always got cut half a yard to a yard short while it went the opposite way for the phucks. 2. I get his fascination with the "metrics" but going for two after every TD was a stupid move in my opinion. Changed the metrics against us in my opinion. I'd like to see a stat that shows how successful these and the going for it on 4th down played out this year. Didn't feel like it worked in our favor that often. 3. Our defense gave WAY to much cushion - seems like a 5 yard pass was there for taking most of the game and plenty of room for Brown to take off if he wanted to. Similar to prior year complaints and something I thought we corrected since Bray took over. Not sure what they saw there but it killed us - especially in the first half. 4. We never really got any serious pressure on Brown or certainly not enough of it. Our defensive line never dominated and Avery had an average game at best though I assume his injury was part of that. 5. If I was Harrison I would have punched the motherf%#*er too. The targeting reversal was truly egregious and when added to Thibidicks slam to the ground and McKinley's cheap shots all night I'm surprised it took this long.
Pretty entertaining second half and we were nearly right there to challenge for the victory but the deep hole make it a tough task. I thought Nolan looked pretty damned good in the second half though he certainly could have been better. Wasn't as one sided as it felt watching it live but that's because the first half was so horrible and dashed your hope as a fan that we could make a game of it.
I think Jonathan needs to re-evaluate his gambling nature for next year and we DEFINETLY need to find some big, strong defensive lineman if we want to seriously challenge for the PAC12 title. Looking forward to next year though I have no idea where the heck I'll be sitting. Go Beavs !!!
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Dec 2, 2021 13:44:51 GMT -8
I'm in no way an expert like many of you but I watched the 60 minute reply last night and had the following observations: 1. We got f%#*ed all night long on spotting the ball. Seems like we always got cut half a yard to a yard short while it went the opposite way for the phucks. 2. I get his fascination with the "metrics" but going for two after every TD was a stupid move in my opinion. Changed the metrics against us in my opinion. I'd like to see a stat that shows how successful these and the going for it on 4th down played out this year. Didn't feel like it worked in our favor that often. 3. Our defense gave WAY to much cushion - seems like a 5 yard pass was there for taking most of the game and plenty of room for Brown to take off if he wanted to. Similar to prior year complaints and something I thought we corrected since Bray took over. Not sure what they saw there but it killed us - especially in the first half. 4. We never really got any serious pressure on Brown or certainly not enough of it. Our defensive line never dominated and Avery had an average game at best though I assume his injury was part of that. 5. If I was Harrison I would have punched the motherf%#*er too. The targeting reversal was truly egregious and when added to Thibidicks slam to the ground and McKinley's cheap shots all night I'm surprised it took this long. Pretty entertaining second half and we were nearly right there to challenge for the victory but the deep hole make it a tough task. I thought Nolan looked pretty damned good in the second half though he certainly could have been better. Wasn't as one sided as it felt watching it live but that's because the first half was so horrible and dashed your hope as a fan that we could make a game of it. I think Jonathan needs to re-evaluate his gambling nature for next year and we DEFINETLY need to find some big, strong defensive lineman if we want to seriously challenge for the PAC12 title. Looking forward to next year though I have no idea where the heck I'll be sitting. Go Beavs !!! I think #4 is directly related to #3. Oregon's OL was solid in pass protection all night, even when we brought pressure, stunted, twisted, and blitzed extra defenders, they did a good job of picking it up. Ultimately I don't think this was Bray going away from what worked, it's just that Oregon is actually pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Dec 2, 2021 15:17:32 GMT -8
I'm in no way an expert like many of you but I watched the 60 minute reply last night and had the following observations: 1. We got f%#*ed all night long on spotting the ball. Seems like we always got cut half a yard to a yard short while it went the opposite way for the phucks. 2. I get his fascination with the "metrics" but going for two after every TD was a stupid move in my opinion. Changed the metrics against us in my opinion. I'd like to see a stat that shows how successful these and the going for it on 4th down played out this year. Didn't feel like it worked in our favor that often.3. Our defense gave WAY to much cushion - seems like a 5 yard pass was there for taking most of the game and plenty of room for Brown to take off if he wanted to. Similar to prior year complaints and something I thought we corrected since Bray took over. Not sure what they saw there but it killed us - especially in the first half. 4. We never really got any serious pressure on Brown or certainly not enough of it. Our defensive line never dominated and Avery had an average game at best though I assume his injury was part of that. 5. If I was Harrison I would have punched the motherf%#*er too. The targeting reversal was truly egregious and when added to Thibidicks slam to the ground and McKinley's cheap shots all night I'm surprised it took this long. Pretty entertaining second half and we were nearly right there to challenge for the victory but the deep hole make it a tough task. I thought Nolan looked pretty damned good in the second half though he certainly could have been better. Wasn't as one sided as it felt watching it live but that's because the first half was so horrible and dashed your hope as a fan that we could make a game of it. I think Jonathan needs to re-evaluate his gambling nature for next year and we DEFINETLY need to find some big, strong defensive lineman if we want to seriously challenge for the PAC12 title. Looking forward to next year though I have no idea where the heck I'll be sitting. Go Beavs !!! The modeling indicates that Smitty was right on each of the two-point calls. The modelling, though, is based on the idea that you will convert at least 45% of your two-point conversions. We did not, so the modelling fell apart. I don't have any statistical basis to support it, but I would hazard to guess that two-point conversions on the road tend to be less successful than two-point conversions at home, because of crowd noise. That has to be especially true at Autzen, which is noted for being a louder than average stadium. We should have kicked that first extra point. There was no point chasing points that early in my opinion. As for fourth down. Let's look at the last five games. (Oregon State punted on 4th and 1 against California. The Bears drove for a field goal.) Colorado: 4th & 1 at Colorado 14. Run for touchdown. 4th & 2 at Oregon State 41. Incomplete pass. Turnover on downs. Result of drive? Touchdown. Oregon State drove 75 yards for a touchdown on the subsequent drive. 4th & 1 at Oregon State 49. Run for three yards. 1st down. Result of drive? Touchdown. Stanford: 4th & 1 at Oregon State 44. Run for three yards. 1st down. Result of drive? Touchdown. 4th & 3 at Stanford 35. Pass for six yards. 1st down. Result of drive? Touchdown. 4th & 1 at Oregon State 34. Loss of one yard. Turnover on downs. Result of drive? Interception. Oregon State drove 80 yards for a touchdown on the subsequent drive. Arizona State: 4th & 1 at Arizona State 40. Run for two yards. 1st Down. Result of drive? Touchdown. 4th & 8 at Oregon State 27. Luke Loecher dropped the snap, resulting in a 23-yard loss. Arizona State scored a touchdown on the subsequent drive. Oregon State scored a touchdown on the subsequent drive. 4th & 2 at Arizona State 47. Run for touchdown. Oregon: 4th & Goal at Oregon 4. Touchdown pass. 4th & 10 at Oregon 17. 16-yard pass. 1st Down. Result of drive? Touchdown. Oregon State's 4th-down conversions resulted in 14 points each of the final four games. Colorado got a touchdown, which Oregon State immediately wiped out. Oregon State got the ball back three plays later against Stanford and tacked on a touchdown. And the earlier games: Oregon State went for it against Utah on 4th and 5 up 11 with 3:47 left. The pass was incomplete. Utah drove for a field goal. Oregon State recovered the onside kick. B.J. Baylor ran for 12 yards on the first play, which enabled the Beavers to go into victory formation. Against Wazzu, Oregon State was 1/4. Oregon State's defense forced a three-and-out on the first one and lost 44 yards of field position. The Beavers drove for a touchdown on the subsequent drive. The stupid failure was the fake punt. Wazzu went down and scored a touchdown, and Oregon State's next drive resulted on a dropped pass interception, which resulted in another touchdown. The Beavers converted a fourth down on their final drive before Trey Lowe wound up a yard short on the 4th-and-19. Jayden de Laura kneeled once to ice the game. No 4th down attempts against Washington. Against USC, Oregon State converted a 4th-and-3 with a 14 yard run. The next play was a 27-yard touchdown pass. No 4th down attempts against Idaho. Oregon State converted a 4th-and-1 with a nine-yard run against Hawai'i, which resulted in a subsequent touchdown. Against, Purdue, Oregon State was stopped twice on 4th-and-2, which resulted in a field goal and a touchdown. Oregon State converted a 4th-and-10 on the final drive before a 4th-and-6 pass fell incomplete. Jack Plummer kneeled down once to ice the game.
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Dec 2, 2021 15:50:15 GMT -8
I'm in no way an expert like many of you but I watched the 60 minute reply last night and had the following observations: 1. We got f%#*ed all night long on spotting the ball. Seems like we always got cut half a yard to a yard short while it went the opposite way for the phucks. 2. I get his fascination with the "metrics" but going for two after every TD was a stupid move in my opinion. Changed the metrics against us in my opinion. I'd like to see a stat that shows how successful these and the going for it on 4th down played out this year. Didn't feel like it worked in our favor that often. 3. Our defense gave WAY to much cushion - seems like a 5 yard pass was there for taking most of the game and plenty of room for Brown to take off if he wanted to. Similar to prior year complaints and something I thought we corrected since Bray took over. Not sure what they saw there but it killed us - especially in the first half. 4. We never really got any serious pressure on Brown or certainly not enough of it. Our defensive line never dominated and Avery had an average game at best though I assume his injury was part of that. 5. If I was Harrison I would have punched the motherf%#*er too. The targeting reversal was truly egregious and when added to Thibidicks slam to the ground and McKinley's cheap shots all night I'm surprised it took this long. Pretty entertaining second half and we were nearly right there to challenge for the victory but the deep hole make it a tough task. I thought Nolan looked pretty damned good in the second half though he certainly could have been better. Wasn't as one sided as it felt watching it live but that's because the first half was so horrible and dashed your hope as a fan that we could make a game of it. I think Jonathan needs to re-evaluate his gambling nature for next year and we DEFINETLY need to find some big, strong defensive lineman if we want to seriously challenge for the PAC12 title. Looking forward to next year though I have no idea where the heck I'll be sitting. Go Beavs !!! There's a new "chart" for 2-point conversions, and honestly, I don't think it really makes sense. It used to be pretty straightforward - If, late in the game, a 2-pointer could put you up by, 7 or 3 (or 10, 14, etc) vs the PAT for a lead of 6 or 2 - go for it. If, late in the game, a 2-pointer got you to within 3, or 8, or 11 as opposed to the PAT leaving you down by 4, or 9, or 12 - again, go for it. In recent years, though, the analytics pushed in and you get people going for 2 in situations that defied the obvious logic of the old "chart". Again, I'm sure the math checks out, but I do think that they're getting into some minutiae here that, while it works out over 1000 iterations, maybe isn't REALLY the best call in real world situations. That said, I've always disliked coaches who start going for 2 before the 4th quarter. Too much game left IMO to understand what that 1-point differential might truly mean to the final score. And I still would need to see the data that says going for 2 when you're down 24-9 is a good idea. I don't see the benefit of being down by 13 instead of 14 while risking being down by 15. I also don't get "doubling down" on the stupid by going for 2 while down 31-15 instead of kicking the PAT to be down by 15 at 31-16. Save your desperation play for the end of the game instead of putting yourself behind the 8 ball of needing to continue to go for 2 if you miss. I hope Coach Smith throws out the "new" chart and takes another look at basic addition in the off-season.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Dec 4, 2021 8:54:22 GMT -8
The analytics work out in its favor but I think the going for two gained a lot of converts when Chip Kelley started doing it down the road with a lot of success. I don’t have an issue with it and think it might be somewhat of a matter of “you gotta do it regularly to get good at it”. We took our lumps this year, hopefully it’ll pay off in the future.
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Dec 4, 2021 10:13:41 GMT -8
The analytics work out in its favor but I think the going for two gained a lot of converts when Chip Kelley started doing it down the road with a lot of success. I don’t have an issue with it and think it might be somewhat of a matter of “you gotta do it regularly to get good at it”. We took our lumps this year, hopefully it’ll pay off in the future. Like 4th down analytics it uses past occurrences that completely ignore the most important aspect. The human factor. In either situation there are in-game data specific to each attempt that can not be quantified. Any coach who only uses a sheet of paper isn't worth his salary. Weather, momentum swings, the current "quality" of play/ execution of your and opponents O and D, play selection, etc. Score, field position, success and failure can analyzed. But, the overall situation of each attempt can't. Plus, my biggest concern for OSU in both situations... play selection! I don't think there'd be much of a debate if the success rate of SEVERAL key 4ths were better. And, the OSU calling has been head scratching at times. Truly bad others. Going for two early, often, forcing your hand to keep going for two is an inane practice. If it was even remotely successful teams would never kick... 50% rate breaks even. You just don't chase points early in a game. Plus... some of the OSU play calls make zero sense vs a particular defense and strengths of each. Over, done with for this season. But, JS needs to decide if this gambling style will actually match his OC's play calling acumen. So far, iffy that's at best.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Dec 6, 2021 7:55:41 GMT -8
In 2020 OSU’s 4th down conversion rate was a tad over 63%, this year it was just over 52. 63 is a very good rate, 52 much more middling. I agree with you on the play selection aspect a couple of times this season, primarily the fake punt vs WSU, still scratching my head over that one.
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Dec 6, 2021 9:58:12 GMT -8
I'm in no way an expert like many of you but I watched the 60 minute reply last night and had the following observations: 1. We got f%#*ed all night long on spotting the ball. Seems like we always got cut half a yard to a yard short while it went the opposite way for the phucks. 2. I get his fascination with the "metrics" but going for two after every TD was a stupid move in my opinion. Changed the metrics against us in my opinion. I'd like to see a stat that shows how successful these and the going for it on 4th down played out this year. Didn't feel like it worked in our favor that often. 3. Our defense gave WAY to much cushion - seems like a 5 yard pass was there for taking most of the game and plenty of room for Brown to take off if he wanted to. Similar to prior year complaints and something I thought we corrected since Bray took over. Not sure what they saw there but it killed us - especially in the first half. 4. We never really got any serious pressure on Brown or certainly not enough of it. Our defensive line never dominated and Avery had an average game at best though I assume his injury was part of that. 5. If I was Harrison I would have punched the motherf%#*er too. The targeting reversal was truly egregious and when added to Thibidicks slam to the ground and McKinley's cheap shots all night I'm surprised it took this long. Pretty entertaining second half and we were nearly right there to challenge for the victory but the deep hole make it a tough task. I thought Nolan looked pretty damned good in the second half though he certainly could have been better. Wasn't as one sided as it felt watching it live but that's because the first half was so horrible and dashed your hope as a fan that we could make a game of it. I think Jonathan needs to re-evaluate his gambling nature for next year and we DEFINETLY need to find some big, strong defensive lineman if we want to seriously challenge for the PAC12 title. Looking forward to next year though I have no idea where the heck I'll be sitting. Go Beavs !!! There's a new "chart" for 2-point conversions, and honestly, I don't think it really makes sense. It used to be pretty straightforward - If, late in the game, a 2-pointer could put you up by, 7 or 3 (or 10, 14, etc) vs the PAT for a lead of 6 or 2 - go for it. If, late in the game, a 2-pointer got you to within 3, or 8, or 11 as opposed to the PAT leaving you down by 4, or 9, or 12 - again, go for it. In recent years, though, the analytics pushed in and you get people going for 2 in situations that defied the obvious logic of the old "chart". Again, I'm sure the math checks out, but I do think that they're getting into some minutiae here that, while it works out over 1000 iterations, maybe isn't REALLY the best call in real world situations. That said, I've always disliked coaches who start going for 2 before the 4th quarter. Too much game left IMO to understand what that 1-point differential might truly mean to the final score. And I still would need to see the data that says going for 2 when you're down 24-9 is a good idea. I don't see the benefit of being down by 13 instead of 14 while risking being down by 15. I also don't get "doubling down" on the stupid by going for 2 while down 31-15 instead of kicking the PAT to be down by 15 at 31-16. Save your desperation play for the end of the game instead of putting yourself behind the 8 ball of needing to continue to go for 2 if you miss. I hope Coach Smith throws out the "new" chart and takes another look at basic addition in the off-season. Just another example of the seemingly bizarro new 2-point chart - Chargers return a fumble for a TD to go up 30-22 in the 4th quarter. Now, this seems like a "no-brainer": kick the XP to go up 9 points (2 scores) late in the game. The 2-point alternatives are be up by 10 or up by 8. It seems quite obvious that going up by 10 isn't much better than being up by 9, but being up by only 8 is a MUCH worse situation, and a risk you shouldn't want to take. The offense committed a false start - so they ended up kicking. Maybe the offense was trying to save their coach from his own stupidity, and intentionally committed the penalty?
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Dec 6, 2021 14:44:20 GMT -8
In 2020 OSU’s 4th down conversion rate was a tad over 63%, this year it was just over 52. 63 is a very good rate, 52 much more middling. I agree with you on the play selection aspect a couple of times this season, primarily the fake punt vs WSU, still scratching my head over that one. 52.4% is below average but just barely. One of the fourth down "failures" was when the punter mishandled the snap against Arizona State. If you take that out, you are at a 55.0% conversion rate, which would put you in the top 60 teams. Another was that stupid fake punt against Wazzu. 57.9%. And the difference between the 57.9% in 2021 and the 63.2% in 2020 is one conversion succeeding, where the other failed over the entire season. Two others 2021 failures were desperation heaves at the ends of the Purdue and Wazzu games. 64.7%. When they failed, both Purdue and Wazzu went into victory formation.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Dec 6, 2021 14:55:40 GMT -8
There's a new "chart" for 2-point conversions, and honestly, I don't think it really makes sense. It used to be pretty straightforward - If, late in the game, a 2-pointer could put you up by, 7 or 3 (or 10, 14, etc) vs the PAT for a lead of 6 or 2 - go for it. If, late in the game, a 2-pointer got you to within 3, or 8, or 11 as opposed to the PAT leaving you down by 4, or 9, or 12 - again, go for it. In recent years, though, the analytics pushed in and you get people going for 2 in situations that defied the obvious logic of the old "chart". Again, I'm sure the math checks out, but I do think that they're getting into some minutiae here that, while it works out over 1000 iterations, maybe isn't REALLY the best call in real world situations. That said, I've always disliked coaches who start going for 2 before the 4th quarter. Too much game left IMO to understand what that 1-point differential might truly mean to the final score. And I still would need to see the data that says going for 2 when you're down 24-9 is a good idea. I don't see the benefit of being down by 13 instead of 14 while risking being down by 15. I also don't get "doubling down" on the stupid by going for 2 while down 31-15 instead of kicking the PAT to be down by 15 at 31-16. Save your desperation play for the end of the game instead of putting yourself behind the 8 ball of needing to continue to go for 2 if you miss. I hope Coach Smith throws out the "new" chart and takes another look at basic addition in the off-season. Just another example of the seemingly bizarro new 2-point chart - Chargers return a fumble for a TD to go up 30-22 in the 4th quarter. Now, this seems like a "no-brainer": kick the XP to go up 9 points (2 scores) late in the game. The 2-point alternatives are be up by 10 or up by 8. It seems quite obvious that going up by 10 isn't much better than being up by 9, but being up by only 8 is a MUCH worse situation, and a risk you shouldn't want to take. The offense committed a false start - so they ended up kicking. Maybe the offense was trying to save their coach from his own stupidity, and intentionally committed the penalty? You are supposed to go up 10, when given the opportunity, unless there are generally less than 12 minutes left, then you kick the extra point. There is actually an exact time that the odds flip. No idea when that exactly is. But with 13:43 left, there are more than 12 minutes left. So, going for two is the correct call. You improve your chances to win by going for two. False start made kicking it an easy call, though. The +8 circumstance is the only one that I know of where the switch from two to one is that late in the game.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Dec 6, 2021 15:15:23 GMT -8
Just another example of the seemingly bizarro new 2-point chart - Chargers return a fumble for a TD to go up 30-22 in the 4th quarter. Now, this seems like a "no-brainer": kick the XP to go up 9 points (2 scores) late in the game. The 2-point alternatives are be up by 10 or up by 8. It seems quite obvious that going up by 10 isn't much better than being up by 9, but being up by only 8 is a MUCH worse situation, and a risk you shouldn't want to take. The offense committed a false start - so they ended up kicking. Maybe the offense was trying to save their coach from his own stupidity, and intentionally committed the penalty? You are supposed to go up 10, when given the opportunity, unless there are generally less than 12 minutes left, then you kick the extra point. There is actually an exact time that the odds flip. No idea when that exactly is. But with 13:43 left, there are more than 12 minutes left. So, going for two is the correct call. You improve your chances to win by going for two. False start made kicking it an easy call, though. The +8 circumstance is the only one that I know of where the switch from two to one is that late in the game. Time left matters. with about that much time on the clock, after you scored, the assumption is the trailing team will get one more possession than you. They likely get three possessions to your two possessions from that point in the game forward. The question is if the up 10 is significantly better than the risk of being up only 8 and if 9 good enough. Being up 9 or 10 still leaves you in the situation where you can lose with two scores against. two TDs, or a TD + a FG. going to 10 requires a two point conversion and the FG to lose. This does matter because the trailing team, if they get the TD first, has to make the choice to kick to ensure ability to tie, or go for two to ensure the ability to kick to win. Most teams will likely kick and play to ensure agility to tie or TD to win. because failure at that 2 point conversion now requires a TD to win with no option to tie. flipping the situations around, pushing to 10 then puts the pressure on the other team to make the call if they score a TD next. There is tangible benefit going to 10 over 9. The question is if this benefit really outweighs the risk of failure and being up 8, where the opponent can now tie with a TD + conversion. Failure is loss of a possession. You gave your opponent one less required possession and that is worth A TON. I don't see the risk/reward balance favoring the 10. Not being privy to what modern models says, I'm kicking if I am coach. Obviously in the real world that call comes with information you gathered in the game, based on how it was all going. On paper... I take the kick.
|
|