Wildcat pass on 2nd and Goal
(Written by kencraw)
I’ve noticed some grumbling about whether the pass by Vereen out of the wildcat formation was a good decision on 2nd and Goal from the ASU 5 yard line with 30 seconds left. I wanted to add a couple thoughts to the discussion.
First of all, by the numbers, it was most definitely the wrong thing to do for a few reasons:
- It stopped the clock which meant ASU could prevent Cal from running down the clock to 3 seconds on 3rd down.
- It’s a low percentage play.
- It’s a risky play as an interception would effectively end the game.
So the “right” thing to do is run the ball again on 2nd down. It’s low risk. It’ll increase the percentages of a TD, particularly on 3rd down. And finally it’ll mean there’s no chance of a last second comeback by ASU after the field-goal.
But I think there’s a bigger picture here and I support the call. First of all, so many of us Bear fans complain about our play-calling being TOO by the numbers. We can’t have it both ways. You want it less predictable? Well, there it is. There’s nothing less predictable than what the Bears did then.
Plays like this, as well as the play-calling for the majority of the season, have been keeping our opponents on their toes. Clearly Cal is going to keep running the Wildcat and don’t you think that every defensive coordinator left on the schedule will be able unable to ignore that call? You think the next time Cal has 2nd and goal and they go into the wildcat that this play won’t be on their mind? Of course it will.
I also like it because it was going for the jugular. Being down by 1, a touchdown and a 2-point conversion mean that ASU can only tie even with a desperation drive with a few seconds left. Particularly when you’re kicker is struggling, I like going for the jugular.
There’s no doubt it was ballsy. Some argue too ballsy. I might be even inclined to agree. But if anything, this team needs more heart and more emotion and I think ballsy play-calling like that can only help that. Cramming the ball into the line, while it may be the “right” thing to do, is not nearly as exciting. This team needs more excitement.
I’m more than willing to see the team take these risks.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:08 pm
I totally agree.
When seen in a vacuum, yes, it was way too ballsy.
When seen in context, it totally makes sense. Tedford made the decision not to leave any game in the hands of the Special Teams. From his perspective, the kicking game already had a chance to win the game but failed. GT already missed a 35 and a 39 yarder, both kicking to the same uprights as the final kick (into the sun). Brock already screwed up a hold on the 25 yarder. Lastly, the kick protection has been awful for a long time… a really long time. Let’s see:
08 MSU – Anger punt blocked.
08 CSU – Seawright FG blocked.
08 ASU – Anger punt blocked.
08 UCLA – Anger punt blocked.
08 ORE – Bad snap.
08 MIA – Bad hold by Longshore.
09 WSU – GT FG blocked.
Almost every game also contains a play where the kick protection breaks down and defenders get, at least, a chance at deflecting the ball. In fact, on the last FG at ASU three defenders had a shot at the ball due to the left tackle whiffing completely. Re-watch it. That kick should have been blocked. Think about that.
Any logical person should conclude that our horrendous special teams could cost us at least one or two games this season. We cannot kick a FG outside of 35, and we give up field position on every kickoff.
Tedford could play it conservatively and just let the special teams lose a game for us and blame it on them. Alternatively,… he can take it upon himself to not let special teams cost us two games this season. Sure, if it doesn’t work he’ll be blamed, but he’d rather take that risk. That’s a good coach.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Totally agree, Ken.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Disagree.
I, too, like to see aggressive play, but I like to see that throughout the 4 quarters, not gambling the whole game on a risky pass by a RB. Had we run the ball instead of passing it, we could have run the clock down on that play and the next (the centering). This would have left ASU no time at all. As it stood, ASU had a fairly good shot at getting within field goal range. Had this been a team with an awesome kicker, like UCLA, that play could have sunk us – both on the front end (interception) and on the back end (giving enough time for a field goal).
So, yeah, ballsy play ok – just not on the last play of the game.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
if we can’t kick what equates to an extra point, we don’t belong in the pac10. period. that was one of the dumbest calls in the tedford era, followed by a squib kick which almost took the cake. you don’t give a team the ball back with time on the clock when you can guarantee yourself the last play of the game. i don’t care if you force them to score a td. it’s a stupid call. if that ball had been picked, as it could have been, and should have been, you wouldn’t be praising the aggressive playcalling. it was a reckless move.
going for two on your first td like oregon did to us…that’s clever and ballsy. the vareen pass was just stupid. we were lucky to win that game. this team had better get their heads out of their behinds or they can kiss a decent bowl goodbye. sorry. had to vent a little.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Going to have to disagree with you on this one. Like you, I liked the call, but that was not the time and place to try and decide to be aggressive.
It’s a bit like a frustrated wife asking her husband to spice it up in their relationship. Then the husband shows up nude at her office holding chocolate covered strawberries, thinking that would have been a good time to get daring. Understandable idea, wrong situation.
Wait, wtf?!
November 4th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
I don’t call the Sun Bowl a decent bowl and even with a 10-2 record that’s where we would end up. Worse if we don’t win the last four games.
Face it, we score a TD on that play and almost everybody says it’s a brilliant call. If ASU intercepts and Tedfords head is on the chopping block. Plays out like it did and the wieners come out of the woodwork.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:32 am
i don’t think it’s a brilliant call when they come back and beat us with a touchdown in 30 seconds (because they get the ball at midfield on the kickoff return and have one timeout remaining). my tv is lucky to be alive after that play. just plain stupid. i love the play. totally the wrong time for it, though. i agree with bearswithfangs on the perspective.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:59 am
I don’t disagree that we should have made that field goal, and should have counted on it. That’s not really my point. My point is that there is a benefit to that play beyond today. Maybe there will be another time when we’re in a similar but less deterministic situation. Won’t it be nice knowing that our opponents are going to have to consider that we might be that ballsy?
But more importantly, I think it’s safe to say that none of us are giving our work address to bearswithfangs.