First off, boo to the fans who started walking out in the early 4th quarter, and an even bigger boo to the sooner mob in section 117 for being pricks when OU scored to go up 28-10. Now, two things: 1 - after our last touchdown drive, it seemed like momentum had shifted to us. Yeah we had to punt on the next possession, but we stopped OU's stupid and obvious fake FG attempt and then forced them 3-and-out. Then Malcolm Williams' breathtaking catch, followed by 3 boneheaded offensive plays. Typical. So why do we settle for a FG? We were still 8 points down, and needed an onside kick or a quick turnover, then a td and a 2-point conversion. I think I would've gone for the TD on 4th down. 2 - after the FG, 28-20, we lined up for what looked like an onside kick, but OU didn't put anyone deep, so we kick it over their heads and try to bury them close to the goalline. So close!!! But I mean, what was that? Stoops' boneheaded call almost cost them the game! Then there was the sack and near fumble, and OU had to punt from their end zone. If Williams had caught it, we would've had great field position and time to score. Those are questions that I still have from the game. It was tough to lose to a bad sooner team with stupid coaches because of the simple fact that we weren't any better. Still, we made it an exciting last few minutes.
I thought the kick deep over their heads while they were expecting onside was a worthy shot. If we recover, it isn't their ball deep in their own territory. It's our ball, probably 1st and goal. And those choads in section 117 begin to feel their sphincters tighten up. Oh sooo close.
I agree. I noticed that when we lined up for the onside kick that OU didn't put anyone deep, then Mack called Tucker over to the sidelines and you saw him run back out and reset for the deep kick. Stoops called Murray over, and I figured he would scream how worthless he was and tell him to be the deep man, but no, Murray ran right back to the front. It was a good call by Mack, and a really odd call by Stoops. It was within inches of being downed inside the one.
Why didn't Texas go for 2 on their last td? I thought that was stupid 2 years ago and even more stupid this year with very little time left. I'm glad our team fought hard, got close and never gave up but there was never any moment during the game when I or anyone on these 2 teams, coaches included, thought we were going to win that game.
At 28-16 I'm telling my buddy at the game we need to go for 2 here. We try our best 2pt conversion play now. If we make it great, 28-18 and we know we need a FG and TD. If we don't make it, we'll know we can't settle for a FG in either of last drives. I sure didn't want to take a fg to make it 28-20 then score and NOT make the conversion and lose 28-26 knowing we had a chance a few minutes earlier but settled for a FG. I also told him it was rediculously optimistic to be worried about it anyway...
If you have to score twice to win or tie, you kick the field goal. If you don't score, you won't get the ball back 2 more times in the game. Simple logic. More importantly, however, you need to have a better red zone offense than you have this year (need TEs that can catch) and a threat in the running game.
Being the devils advocate: If you have a 2 point conversion play in mind to run, it is either going to be successful or not. It might be beneficial to know if it is not going to be successful with the score 28-16. Then you know you have to go for 2 TDs and that a FG will do you no good in the long run. I know this goes against conventional coaching wisdom and is therefore wrong, I just don't know why it's wrong.
That is a bad situation in Section 117. I guess they moved a small section of OU fans there when they removed some of their seats to install the video screen on their side. Those guys take a lot of abuse, surrounded by thousands of UT fans, but when they get ahead, they start doing the Horns down, and this causes fights. On Saturday, this happened, and the cops came and removed one UT fan. They should have removed the 200 okies as well. They shouldn't be in the UT endzone, that's the bottom line. Please, somebody, fix this before a riot breaks out one year. I think there is a proposal to add some more seats, how about adding a few more to the OU side so their fans sit on their side, our fans sit on our side? The onside kick was preceded by a pop-up kick that went to the OU 30 but was fair caught. That was a good try at a different kickoff, then the last onside kick we kicked over all the okies, I thought it was a good attempt. It did roll pretty much straight down to the endzone unfortunately, but it could have bounced more crazily, or not made it quite so far. Good idea, but it didn't work. Field goal instead of going for it on 4th down near the end? I think you have to take the field goal down two scores. It was a little disappointing to get that close, but our offense just doesn't punch it in down there so far this year-we had to take the three points and hope for a miracle. And we almost got it on the kickoff and the subsequent fumble by Landry. It certainly made the finish exciting, although not satisfying by any means. You just wanted to reach out and pick that loose ball off the turf from your seat, you could just feel it laying there. Agonizing. I guess Landry dove in there and gave it a push towards the out-of-bounds marker, but we should have got it before then.
Sooners talking trash. Some of the good guys went after them. I looked up a little late to miss any fists flying but did see an Okie being restrained by his buds from doing something foolish to a rather large UT fan. One UT fan escorted out by police but later returned to his seat. Guess he explained to the cops that OU sucks and they agreed. Anyone else know more?
And IF Okies could get off their BUTS to get a job, you all might be able to afford a Merry Christmas.
You delay the 2 pointer as long as possible. Mack did a great job of managing that last 5 minutes. My mom sat in that endzone section once. She didn't like it. I agree about givign OU some more seats. However, the only trade off is to give OU more seats at the 50. That's not fair to UT.
Help me out here. After watching our offense in the red zone, does anyone really think that they could: (1) convert a 4th-down for a touchdown AND convert a 2-point try, or (2) assuming Williams doesn't fumble the punt, drive half the field in a minute and convert in the red zone AND convert a 2-point try. Nothing I saw during the game remotely suggests that the zombie offense Davis is calling would ever score more than 17-20 against OU. Once UT gave up 28, it was pretty much a done deal. Exciting end, but short of a MIRACLE, a done deal.
even if we had recovered that last kickoff, we still would have had to score a touchdown. we might have had the ball first and goal, but unfortunately a touchdown would have been far from a sure thing.
Jebus Stat, it's not a flawed analysis. It's not even an analysis. I'd say that's pretty obvious to even the most casual observer. It's a scenario. Most of what you're saying I omitted isn't omitted at all, it's implied. Give it a rest or do an honest to God analysis and stop trying to say I've made a flawed one.
OU Bubba: the only way now would be to give OU more seats at the 50, which wouldn't be fair, but they could have added one extra row at the top of the OU endzone when they built the recent addition. I don't know if the video replay board was there at the beginning of the new upper endzone sections or not, though. DeLoss Dodds when asked about extending the game at the Cotton Bowl recently was quoted saying he would like to see 6 or 8,000 seats added and this was doable. Maybe there could be a few more added on the OU side to get all the OU fans all on their side. After all, the border must be secured.
I'm solidly in the "go for 1" at 28-16 camp. At that point in the game, I'd rather have the option to be able to kick a FG as one of my two scores if necessary as part of a two-scores-are-needed scenario. I think the idea is that if you fail on a two-point conversion at 28-16, some of the air goes out of your team. It's a lot easier for a team to think that they can score a TD and a FG than to think that they have to score two more TDs. As for falling on the Jones fumble instead of trying to pick it up, I think we were just the victims of bad luck. Even though Jones was on the ground and in the arms of the Texas defender, the bouncing ball ended up bouncing to a place that enabled Jones to stretch and just barely alter its path, away from the Texas guy who at that same instant arrived to try to pick it up. If the ball had bounced just a couple of inches in just about any other direction than it did, we would've gotten the ball for either a TD or a 1st-and-goal. I don't know that having the guy try to fall on it instead of pick it up at that precise moment would've made a difference. On to Nebraska...
