The Oregon Ducks were two seconds, one great play and an overtime drive away from someone making a popular decision which I just don’t get. No sooner than the Rose Bowl ended, the Fiesta Bowl kicked-off and would later end as a result of two coaches trivializing a complicated play, while complicating the no-brainer.
A field goal attempt is not without risk. It requires a good snap, a good hold, and then a good kick by a teammate which most players since the onset of the kicking position contest isn’t a player at all. It can be physically missed, mentally influenced, not to mention successfully defended via a block, yet recent history suggests that coaches prefer it versus the risk of a highly unlikely turnover.
The end of this year’s Fiesta Bowl between Stanford and Oklahoma State displayed the new age thinking of which I speak. In a tie game, with Stanford driving, Cardinal coach David Shaw chose to put the game in the hands – or dare I say the foot – of a freshman kicker who’d already missed one earlier in the night, opposed to his three-year-starter, second-year-Heisman-finalist and likely number one pick in the upcoming NFL draft. The Pac-12 Conference runner-up had 52 seconds and 3 timeouts from Oklahoma State’s 25 yard line to either move the ball closer, or take the ball out of his kicker’s hands with a late game touchdown. Shaw’s decision: Two plays and a cloud of dust, a quarterback kneel, and a 35-yard field goal attempt.
His team deserved better.
Shaw defended his decision after the game citing their success running the football as his reasoning for not taking a shot. I’m not an expert analyst, nor do I play one on television, but I do understand the difference between “not taking a shot” and running twice into the pile, taking a knee on third down and leaving two of your timeouts in your pocket. David, you have a once-in-a-generation quarterback, arguably the country’s best offensive line, and a roster full of future doctors, lawyers, and CEO’s. You’re playing against a mediocre defense who you’ve bested all night, on the precipice of consecutive BCS Bowl victories, and have a ONCE-IN-A-GENERATION QUARTERBACK. Roll him out and let him make a decision!
At some point, our football experts decided that a field goal tried and missed is better than making a mistake in an effort to do better. I’ve watched enough football to know that these kicks aren’t automatic, and I’ve seen enough missed to worry every time these coaches act as if they are. Even after Stanford missed the kick which sent it to overtime, and missed another to start the overtime period, Oklahoma State chose to kneel in an effort to center the ball for their game winning kick, on first down, from the half-yard-line. Someone please tell me how a kick with multiple variables is a better option than a couple quarterback sneaks from a foot-and-a-half away? Am I the only one that remembers Florida State’s multiple “wide rights,” Boise State’s last two season’s heart breakers, and Oregon’s 37-yard shank versus USC? C’mon, I’ve seen Ace Ventura Pet Detective; Ray Finkle’s showed us what happened when “the laces were out!”
I understand the fear behind making a mistake. If given an opportunity to win a game one certainly wants to at least exercise that option, but to do so in the manner in which Stanford and Oklahoma State did, countless others have and sadly, many others will do, is minimization the odds through fear and insecurity. Could Stanford have made a mistake, turned the ball over and blown a chance to end the game in regulation? Sure, but it would’ve been unlikely to happen and if so, would’ve occurred at the hands of the player most responsible for them being there in the first place. Win or lose, I’d prefer to put it in the hands of a proven commodity, opposed to a fresh fish in a new pond.
“Our kids played hard,” Shaw said. “They just didn’t finish the game.” I’d argue Coach Shaw didn’t give them that chance. By clamming up and settling for a mid-range field goal attempt, Stanford gambled rather than take an educated guess. They didn’t have to clam-up, curl into the fetal position and roll the dice with a freshman kicker, but they and many in their position of late have…far too often.
Would Oregon have made that same decision in overtime in Pasadena? Would Chip Kelly have played not to lose? I’d like to think not and recent history would probably back me on that, but Oregon’s not the norm, Coach Kelly is far from it, and I’d argue it’s their propensity to stray from it which contributes to their success. Maybe something else to be learned from the program in Eugene?
Add The Sports Daily to your Google News Feed!
