Reverse The Situation: Do We Go For Two?

[bobnurse]

Just curious what you all think.

If we played Defense first and they score and kick a extra point.

AD breaks his run and scores. Do we go for 2 or just kick a XP?

I think we go for the extra point. Stoops has become conservative in those situations.

What do you think?

[achiro]

no, we don't go for it. They were in a whole different situation though.
In their shoes, I would have gone for it too(I think Stoops would have done the same thing) I was sure they were gonna make it. I don't think they needed a trick play either.

[Scotty]

Its a generality in today's game that the underdog or the visiting team goes for two. See Baylor against A&M last year.

I expected to see them go for two after the 4th and 18 play and go for the win in regulation.

[colleyvillesooner]

Its a generality in today's game that the underdog or the visiting team goes for two. See Baylor against A&M last year.


That was 2004 and Baylor was at home.

[AimForCenterMass]

If we win the toss, Boise goes first and if we hold them to a four and out, I think they kick the field goal. I can't see them going for the TD with the possiblity of laying a goose egg for OT. BSU lucked out by winning the toss.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I wish Marcus Walker stepped out of bounds on the INT. We would've never went to OT.

[Scotty]

That was 2004 and Baylor was at home.

I was using them as an example for the underdog, not visiting team, seeing as how OU/BSU was on a neutral site.

[wishbonesooner]

I hate to say it, but I was sure they would convert the 2 pointer too. They had our D on their heels, and were a little shell shocked after what happened at the end of regulation.

[bri]

Their coach said that he already knew he was going to call the 2-pointer because he could see that his team was exhausted. THAT'S why the "underdog" makes that call as opposed to the "big boy". We have enough depth and talent that we could have kept grinding as long as needed, but BSU had to take their shot before it slipped away.

I honestly believe that if they had simply kicked the PAT and gone to a second OT, they would have lost. Their coach's comments lead me to believe that he thought that, too. :D

[LittleWingSooner]

I think we should have gone for two in regulation. Make them not only have to get a TD but score a Two after that just to tie.

[Killerbees]

I was jumping up and down yelling for us to go for 2 in OT. I had a feeling they would go for 2 with the condition of their players and the way the second half had gone. They would not have been able to keep up in multiple OTs they had to win it then. I just wanted our O to be able to win or lose the game because their O made me nervous after the way they pulled that hook and ladder so smoothly. I just didnt think our D could stop them from gaining 2 yards with whatever wacky play that coach had dreamed up and sat on for just that moment.

[achiro]

I think you two both need to go rewatch the game. Do it, re-read your posts and you won't have to ask me why.:rolleyes:

[GottaHavePride]

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I wish Marcus Walker stepped out of bounds on the INT. We would've never went to OT.

There was absolutely NO WAY for Walker to foresee our defense failing to stop BSU at the end of the game. We had stopped them virtually the entire second half at that point, he had no reason to think we wouldn't just force a turnover on downs next time around. Plus, in the heat of the play his options were A) get tackled and we go to OT or B) hit the endzone and ice the game. No way would he have thought NOT making it to the endzone would be the "better" option.

[Desert Sapper]

There was absolutely NO WAY for Walker to foresee our defense failing to stop BSU at the end of the game. We had stopped them virtually the entire second half at that point, he had no reason to think we wouldn't just force a turnover on downs next time around. Plus, in the heat of the play his options were A) get tackled and we go to OT or B) hit the endzone and ice the game. No way would he have thought NOT making it to the endzone would be the "better" option.

Nor would it have been, even retrospectively. Boise tied the game because they executed the hook and ladder to perfection, something even Zabransky admitted later they had never even done in practice. It was their night. The fortunes smiled down upon them and they won. 'Nuff said.

Hook and Ladder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_and_lateral_play_(American_football))

[bluedogok]

I think he made up his mind when AD scored on the first play of OT, he as much admitted that on ESPN Radio this morning (listening on the drive to Houston) as bri stated. He said with as big and strong as OU is at that point he felt they could just score in every OT, I guess he wasn't sure if his team could. That is why I think it is a joke when the players say "yeah coach had faith in us that we could score the 2 pointer to win". Well, je may have had some faith in the offense, but I think having none in the defense is what made his decision easier.

[Eielson]

OU wouldn't have gone for it and here is why. Boise State knew they weren't as good as OU. OU knew they were better than Boise State, they just didn't play well at the start.

[DustySooner]

I'm not really sure on this one. I think he'd possibly go for it. Bob is unpredictable. I know this a different situation but I didn't think any coach in America would go for it on 4th and inches on their own 30 only down by a point considering we had a defense that was playing great. That's why I love our coach.