What was Wilcox thinking!?!
(Written by kencraw)
I am sorry, going for 2 was a huge mistake, particularly at home. Yes, the Arizona offense was rolling, but the Bear defense had some success in the 2nd half and the Cal offense wasn’t exactly struggling. You kick the extra point and keep plugging away instead of the low percentage 2 point conversion.
HUGE mistake!
October 21st, 2017 at 10:24 pm
Yeah, felt like Wilcox pushed his luck a bit too far there. Should have just been thankful after the Anderson kick paid off. But the play call was worse than the decision itself. Had they been able to set-up quickly and run a play, I think their odds would have been better. But they should have reconsidered after the Cal player went down and then the subsequent TO. Still a fun, well-played game. Man, not looking forward to seeing Khalil for 2-3 more years. That guy is special. There is some Vick-like potential there.
October 22nd, 2017 at 12:39 am
After further thought, going for 2 makes sense. Consider:
In the second OT, if Cal kicks the PAT the Cal offense has to stay on the field and score another TD, and then go for 2 points since it is now the 3rd OT. (No PATs allowed.)
AZ then gets the opportunity to try to score themselves. Since they scored their two OT TDs much faster than Cal scored, it is highly likely that they would have scored a TD for the 3rd OT. Then it would come down to 2 point conversions. Had Cal made theirs, than AZ would have to make their own to tie again. BUT, if Cal had not made the 3rd OT 2 point conversion, than AZ wins with theirs, or simply ties should the AZ 2 pt attempt fail.
So Wilcox was right to go for 2, keeping the AZ offense off the field. Otherwise, the Cal offense would have had to go for 2 on the very next series, with little reward even if they make it.
October 22nd, 2017 at 8:43 am
Couldn’t disagree more Adam. The choice is simple, a scenario where only you have to make the 2-point conversion or one where both you and your opponent are equally challenged to make it. Particularly at home, you go for the equal scenario over the lone low percentage play.
October 27th, 2017 at 7:05 am
When your opponent has scored two touchdowns in 3 plays from your 25 in overtime I would think that a credible argument could be made that continuing overtime was actually the “low percentage play”.
October 27th, 2017 at 7:11 am
Bill, I get that argument, but I think it is short-sighted. It ignores how well the defense had done in the 2nd half and that the defense now finally had some rest after having spent the end of the game and two back to back overtime possessions on the field.
It also ignores that the longer an overtime game goes, the more it favors the home team.
I’ve seen a lot of overtimes in my days, and a lesson to be learned is that what the trend was for the 1st or 2nd overtime does not necessarily hold as things continue.
So I think one has to play the game based on the assumption that there are two equally matched teams on the field and go with the scenarios that are statistically justifiable based on that assumption.
October 27th, 2017 at 7:32 am
Ken, did the home team continue to be favored in overtime when they allowed two quick touchdowns in 3 total plays? We can agree to disagree on this. I believe you have valid points that don’t take the defensive performance in overtime into account. BTW I just emailed my son who has two small boys (who have plenty of friends) to check out your Ebay sale. You have much better seats the we had when he was their age. Hope he doesn’t have plans for that weekend.
October 27th, 2017 at 8:15 am
I as well think the opposite side has some valid points, but I continue to disagree with them. 🙂
Thanks for passing along the eBay link.