GOOD GRIEF. Snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

[akronzips71]

So let me understand this:FOUR SECONDSDown one point.Extra point goes to overtimeZips have MOMENTUMAnd he goes for two? With a team that has barely scored a TD all year?FIRE THIS IDIOT COACH

[LZIp]

not to mention him going for two out of that stupid ass formation they always do before extra points earlier in the game.

[ZippyforPresident]

not to mention him going for two out of that stupid ass formation they always do before extra points earlier in the game.

If they would have just kicked the extra point after both touchdowns they would have won the game. I really do not understand either of his decisions to go for two. What was the rationale behind them, especially the first one? It seems to me the decision to go for two on the last play demonstrates that he didn't have much faith in his team to win it in overtime, which can't be very good for the morale of the players after yet another crushing defeat.

[GP1]

It seems to me the decision to go for two on the last play demonstrates that he didn't have much faith in his team to win it in overtime, which can't be very good for the morale of the players after yet another crushing defeat.

He probably thought with the momentum they had they could make one play and win...huge risk. I'd rather take that momentum into overtime and put a series of winning plays together.

[Zip_ME87]

I agree OT with the momentum and at home. S T U P I D decision!

[mes102]

I don't have a problem with the 2 point conversion call. I have a problem with the play they chose for the 2 point conversion though...A Playaction rollout??!?!?!?!!! REALLY?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[GP1]

I don't have a problem with the 2 point conversion call. I have a problem with the play they chose for the 2 point conversion though...A Playaction rollout??!?!?!?!!! REALLY?!?!?!?!?!?!?

what would you have called?

[Zipmeister]

they seemed to be having some success with crossing routes.

[mes102]

Since Moore was on fire at the time, I would of probably passed it with a four WR set. With the two inside WRs running little out corners or curl routes while the two outside WRs would run slants...ORI would run a HB draw in that play. CMU was demoralized and running the ball on that 2 point conversion might not of been the higher percentage, but at that moment, might of been able to out hustle, push, etc. to get those few yards...I would decide between those two plays. Obviously, whatever one worked better in practice throughout the week with the scout defense in...

[ZachTheZip]

Kick two PATs and you win. Kick the second PAT and you go to OT with a huge amount of momentum and likely win. Go for a TD instead of a FG when you're down by 2 scores and a FG doesn't change that fact and you win. Coach doesn't want to win. He also is pretty terrible at math.The first TD, you're down by 20. What does going for 2 do in that situation? If you make it, nothing. If you miss, you're down 14 instead of 13 for the extra point. Then, down by 14, you go for a FG instead of a TD, so you're still down by 2 scores. A FG does nothing there. Then at the end, you go for 2 again (with a really stupid play) and lose the game instead of sending it to OT at home with all the momentum. But it wouldn't have been neccesary if you weren't stupid earlier on in the game.

[mes102]

Kick two PATs and you win. Kick the second PAT and you go to OT with a huge amount of momentum and likely win. Go for a TD instead of a FG when you're down by 2 scores and a FG doesn't change that fact and you win. Coach doesn't want to win. He also is pretty terrible at math.The first TD, you're down by 20. What does going for 2 do in that situation? If you make it, nothing. If you miss, you're down 14 instead of 13 for the extra point. Then, down by 14, you go for a FG instead of a TD, so you're still down by 2 scores. A FG does nothing there. Then at the end, you go for 2 again (with a really stupid play) and lose the game instead of sending it to OT at home with all the momentum. But it wouldn't have been neccesary if you weren't stupid earlier on in the game.

Momentum can change on any play...a fumble here, or an interception there, or another CMU big play, and the momentum switches...I liked the call to go for two at the end, just didn't like the play call...

[GP1]

Since Moore was on fire at the time, I would of probably passed it with a four WR set. With the two inside WRs running little out corners or curl routes while the two outside WRs would run slants...ORI would run a HB draw in that play. CMU was demoralized and running the ball on that 2 point conversion might not of been the higher percentage, but at that moment, might of been able to out hustle, push, etc. to get those few yard

Both of these plays are "all or nothing plays". I don't have a problem with moving a mobile QB on the three. It presents a lot of options or even the QB running.

[akronzips71]

Kick two PATs and you win. Kick the second PAT and you go to OT with a huge amount of momentum and likely win. Go for a TD instead of a FG when you're down by 2 scores and a FG doesn't change that fact and you win. Coach doesn't want to win. He also is pretty terrible at math.The first TD, you're down by 20. What does going for 2 do in that situation? If you make it, nothing. If you miss, you're down 14 instead of 13 for the extra point. Then, down by 14, you go for a FG instead of a TD, so you're still down by 2 scores. A FG does nothing there. Then at the end, you go for 2 again (with a really stupid play) and lose the game instead of sending it to OT at home with all the momentum. But it wouldn't have been neccesary if you weren't stupid earlier on in the game.

Not only ttat, but the kick is high percentage, probably 98%. Thr two point conversion, statistically for a team with our record, is probably no better than 25% at best. So he played 3-1 odds against. I would like to play poker with him. I need the money.

[dre22era]

doesn't surprise me at alli been called for the coaches head weeks ago

[mes102]

Since Moore was on fire at the time, I would of probably passed it with a four WR set. With the two inside WRs running little out corners or curl routes while the two outside WRs would run slants...ORI would run a HB draw in that play. CMU was demoralized and running the ball on that 2 point conversion might not of been the higher percentage, but at that moment, might of been able to out hustle, push, etc. to get those few yard

Both of these plays are "all or nothing plays". I don't have a problem with moving a mobile QB on the three. It presents a lot of options or even the QB running.

If the passing play that i mentioned is done right in practice, it's practically 2-1 odds...Because since the inside WRs are going out in flat area and u have the outside WRs going into the middle on slants, if it is executed right, it will work. The defenders would essentially get "screened" like basketball. If they try to go under the player, you throw just over top, and if the player tries to go behind, you throw it right in there between the numbers...

[mes102]

That play also opens up the sidelines for a RB to go on one of the sides and make it work. With the defense morality of CMU at the end, it would of worked...

[GoZips88]

I agree OT with the momentum and at home. S T U P I D decision!

+1He's an absolute idiot and his coaching staff is right there with him. Incredible ...

[GP1]

With the defense morality of CMU at the end, it would of worked...

There is no way to know that....

[g-mann17]

Kick two PATs and you win. Kick the second PAT and you go to OT with a huge amount of momentum and likely win. Go for a TD instead of a FG when you're down by 2 scores and a FG doesn't change that fact and you win. Coach doesn't want to win. He also is pretty terrible at math.The first TD, you're down by 20. What does going for 2 do in that situation? If you make it, nothing. If you miss, you're down 14 instead of 13 for the extra point. Then, down by 14, you go for a FG instead of a TD, so you're still down by 2 scores. A FG does nothing there. Then at the end, you go for 2 again (with a really stupid play) and lose the game instead of sending it to OT at home with all the momentum. But it wouldn't have been neccesary if you weren't stupid earlier on in the game.

Lol. Question the FG over Trying for TD? If we don't have the 3 there we are down 4 at end of game.For the rest. You Always question him not going for it and punting or like Zach picking the sure 3 over a chance TD, but then get mad he goes aggressive when we have chance to win the game? You are idiots. We are playing for wins now. You have a team confused, no confidence and wounded. You go for the kill!!! If we are 4-2 you go for OT, we are 1-6 so you go for the kill.As for going for 2 the first time, that is read play. If Campbell sees a mismatch he calls for direct snap, that is built in to the PAT, it's not "run this play" call it's an audible.Most of you need to attend the football 101 (I know it's for ladies that's my point).

[Dave in Green]

Ianello explained both 2-point attempts in the post-game radio interview.The first one was an automatic call the Zips make on the field when they see the defense lined up a certain way that makes the 2-point conversion more likely to be successful. This is a fairly common play at all levels of football. The Zips read the CMU defense correctly, but did not execute the play, falling just short.The 2-point conversion attempt at the end of the game was planned before the touchdown. Ianello told the offense on the sideline that they were going to play to win and not to tie. He said he wanted to encourage a winning culture. He said the play that was called was the Zips' best play in that situation, and that he would have to look at the video to see all that might have happened to cause it not to be successful.Anticipating the action in the endzone, we walked down from our upper level seats and were standing at ground level right behind the corner of the end zone, so the play unfolded coming right at us. The defender was right on the receiver, but the ball was almost perfectly thrown -- high enough to clear the defender but not too high for the receiver to have a good shot at it. It appeared there might have been slight contact between the receiver and defender. The ball went through the receiver's hands. It would have been a great catch if he'd made it, but it was catchable.Given all of the above, I can't fault either decision, even though it ended up resulting in a 1-point loss. I like Ianello telling his players he has faith in them to make the winning play. They just need to keep believing in themselves that they can do it.

[MaxZIP]

Bottom line is they lost. Add a mark to icoach's L column.

[GP1]

If we are 4-2 you go for OT, we are 1-6 so you go for the kill.

We were playing one of the worst teams in the league and they were in the process of falling apart. CMU was badly trying to lose that game. I would agree if we were playing Toledo (or us going for the win at NC State a few years back), but a team like CMU is dying to lose every game they play. All we needed to do was stick around and wait for them to blow a road game in OT, which they were well on their way to doing. MAC teams blow games all the time on the road and we had CMU right where we wanted them.

[UAZipster0305]

Bottom line is they lost (again). Add (yet another) mark to icoach's L column.

2-18 record on aggregate. I'm tired of this "process."

[GP1]

our upper level seats

Open your wallet you cheapskate.

[MDZip]

Coach doesn't want to win.

We were down by one and he went for two and the win. Whether you like that decision (or the earlier XP decision) or the call he absolutely went for the win. This is a silly statement.