GOOD GRIEF. Snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

[akron football]

Coach Idiot said in his postgame interview that we are all about winning at Akron . Really!!Kick the extra point go into OT and win the game.So much for the home stand, on to Oxford to get it handed to us. He won't win another game this year!

[Dave in Green]

our upper level seats

Open your wallet you cheapskate.

Hey, those are upper level reserved seats. They didn't cost any less than the lower level reserved seats, but we think the view is better! But the best view of the final 2-point conversion attempt was standing behind the corner of the end zone.

[skip-zip]

I hate to say this, but I think this is now the 2nd game, along with the two kickoffs against GW last year, where we can say that the coach's decision directly led to a loss. I really need someone to explain why making it a 12 point game as opposed to a 13 point game earlier in the half was an advantage. Kick both extra points, and we have another win. It stinks, because the kids are dissappointed, and they played an outstanding 2nd half.

[Dave in Green]

I hate to say this, but I think this is now the 2nd game, along with the two kickoffs against GW last year, where we can say that the coach's decision directly led to a loss.I really need someone to explain why making it a 12 point game as opposed to a 13 point game earlier in the half was an advantage. .....

Did you read posts #18 and 19 in this thread? It was not a sideline decision by the coach.

[skip-zip]

I hate to say this, but I think this is now the 2nd game, along with the two kickoffs against GW last year, where we can say that the coach's decision directly led to a loss.I really need someone to explain why making it a 12 point game as opposed to a 13 point game earlier in the half was an advantage. .....

Did you read posts #18 and 19 in this thread? It was not a sideline decision by the coach.

It changes nothing. When there is absolutely no advantage to getting the two points, couldn't the coach be calling off the "option" of going for two beforehand? No matter what his players might see when they run out there and line up?The single point at that particular time was way too critical. It made two TDs with extra points a win instead of a tie. There should not have been an "option" in that situation. The TWO was absolutely insignificant at that point in the game.

[MrAkronSoftball]

IT WAS AN EPIC FAIL ON IANELLO'S PART!! HE SHOULD NOT BE THE COACH AT ALL!! I'D RATHER HAVE Jim Tressel, J.D. Brookhart, Ric Flair, or even Elmo as the next coach of the Zips in 2012!! My personal favorite is Chuck Norris!TW needs to get rid of an excuse like Ianello..NOW!!!

[gozips19]

Can't say that i agree with the call but we are forgetting one very important thing. The play worked....Price just dropped the ball. That and the dropped td by the TE were huge!

[Big Zip]

I was good with the second call to go for two. The first was a mystery and agree that there needs to be a way for iCoach to call off the two point option. The receivers are terrible though...they don't just drop passes they stop on plays. The INT Moore threw today the receiver never turned around and was stopping as if the play was over. Moore there some other passes that were simply dropped and another one that was perfectly thrown short to the sideline and the receiver slipped and fell. There were others too, but I am not going to go into them all.My real question is...how doesn't iCoach see how much better his team performs in the no huddle and the pistol. It was like night and day.

[Dave in Green]

I hate to say this, but I think this is now the 2nd game, along with the two kickoffs against GW last year, where we can say that the coach's decision directly led to a loss.I really need someone to explain why making it a 12 point game as opposed to a 13 point game earlier in the half was an advantage. .....

Did you read posts #18 and 19 in this thread? It was not a sideline decision by the coach.

It changes nothing. When there is absolutely no advantage to getting the two points, couldn't the coach be calling off the "option" of going for two beforehand? No matter what his players might see when they run out there and line up?The single point at that particular time was way too critical. It made two TDs with extra points a win instead of a tie. There should not have been an "option" in that situation. The TWO was absolutely insignificant at that point in the game.

With your assumptions, you are correct. However, the game could have played out in many different ways. If it had played out in a way that 2 points on that play would have made a difference in the Zips' favor in the final results, it would have also been easy to criticize the team for not taking advantage of the opportunity presented by the CMU defensive alignment that invited a 2-point attempt. The problem was not with the choice of going for the 2-point conversion, but in the execution.Believe me, I love Monday morning quarterbacking, too. I've never lost a game on my Monday morning calls. It's a great feeling to have a perfect record.

[phil]

I guess each year we are going to get a bonehead call from the I coach who has won 1 game in his career at the division one level. Last year it was the kicking to the opposition at both the start of the game and at the half.This year it was the "let's go for 2 when we are losing 20 to 6. The decision makes no sense, especially in the 4th quarter. If the score is 20 to 7, you score 2 touchdowns and you win the game 21-20. If you go for 2 and make it and score 2 touchdowns, you win the game 22 to 20. There is no other coach in the NCAA that could legitimize this decsion.If it was an automatic decsion, then some coach should have told the team not to use it after that touchdown. It would be appropriate for the coach to recognize it as a mistake and learn from it.I am amazed that this decision cost Akron the 'game because I would never have predicted that the offense could score 2 touchdowns in the 4th quarter. The offense is the first 3 quarters was horrendous. I don't think we had more than 6 first downs in the first half. Moore held onto the ball way to long and could not find any open receivers. The interception was a stop and go, the same pattern that scored a touchdown for OU last week. However, the defender never went for the fake and he was 10 yards behind the receiver when he started upfield. Moore still through the ball and it went right into the defender's hands. He has to learn to throw the ball away if the play is not there. The running game was ineffective. We simply could not move the ball until the trick play on the reverse. My favorite play of the year.Still looking forward to basketball

[ZachTheZip]

I hate to say this, but I think this is now the 2nd game, along with the two kickoffs against GW last year, where we can say that the coach's decision directly led to a loss.I really need someone to explain why making it a 12 point game as opposed to a 13 point game earlier in the half was an advantage. .....

Did you read posts #18 and 19 in this thread? It was not a sideline decision by the coach.

It changes nothing. When there is absolutely no advantage to getting the two points, couldn't the coach be calling off the "option" of going for two beforehand? No matter what his players might see when they run out there and line up?The single point at that particular time was way too critical. It made two TDs with extra points a win instead of a tie. There should not have been an "option" in that situation. The TWO was absolutely insignificant at that point in the game.

With your assumptions, you are correct. However, the game could have played out in many different ways. If it had played out in a way that 2 points on that play would have made a difference in the Zips' favor in the final results, it would have also been easy to criticize the team for not taking advantage of the opportunity presented by the CMU defensive alignment that invited a 2-point attempt. The problem was not with the choice of going for the 2-point conversion, but in the execution.Believe me, I love Monday morning quarterbacking, too. I've never lost a game on my Monday morning calls. It's a great feeling to have a perfect record.

It was a terrible decision when it happened, and it's still a terrible decision now. Why are you defending it?I was screaming my lungs out at the coaches while the team was lining up to take the PAT. Both times. I didn't decide it was bad after the fact, but before. Because anybody with the capability for rational thought knew that it was a bad call.

[UAZipster0305]

This is precisely why the coach should never "chase" the points early in the game. A 2-point conversion should be limited to specific situations late in the game that the coach has a predefined chart based on point spread (e.g. 2, 5, 8, etc.).

[pattydark]

I was good with the second call to go for two. The first was a mystery and agree that there needs to be a way for iCoach to call off the two point option. The receivers are terrible though...they don't just drop passes they stop on plays. The INT Moore threw today the receiver never turned around and was stopping as if the play was over. Moore there some other passes that were simply dropped and another one that was perfectly thrown short to the sideline and the receiver slipped and fell. There were others too, but I am not going to go into them all.My real question is...how doesn't iCoach see how much better his team performs in the no huddle and the pistol. It was like night and day.

I disagree, in part. In my opinion Sconiers and Suel are consistent--execute when they have the chance and have the potential to bust out. Sconiers and Suel both perform well under pressure. Suel had almost more receptions today than #3Price has had the entire season (and Suel only played slightly more than @ half the game). I continue to be baffled at the showcasing and reliance on #3 when he consistently cannot perform. Suel tore it up in the fourth quarter when they finally turned him loose. He made two of their three touchdowns (his diving TD into the endzone was a thing of beauty and talent); Sconiers numbers speak for themselves. I blame the coaches for starting #3 over MS15 and continuing to go to him for the big plays when he clearly can't execute (remember last week he was open in the end zone and the ball hit him at the numbers and he couldn't hold on). It not only hurts us now--it has got to be destroying his confidence. I would imagine that his teammates are not happy either. I don't mean to single out this kid, I blame the coaches for ignoring the numbers and the talent before their eyes. The WRs have the potential to be the electrifying force on this team--but they have to use the ones that can execute. I understand not starting MS15 last week--he was coming off an injury and fair is fair. But even playing half a game he had 6 receptions and a TD--SO THEY DON'T START HIM TODAY. ARRRGH. Chisolm can't do it by himself. They've got talent in their WRs they just need to identify it and use it properly. And, somewhat off-topic. I admire Moore's guts. Man, he can take a hit and just keeps on ticking.

[Lee Adams]

Coaches do not win games. Players win games. Coaches CAN lose games by making decisions that do not allow the players to be in the best position to try to win. That is what Ianello did today. For whatever his personal reasons,he thought he could win the game from the sideline. In doing so he not only did not allow his players to be in the BEST position to win the game,he sent the message that he did not trust them to win the game in overtime. No matter when he made the decision to go for 2 it was a bad decision.Nobody in our section could believe it. That team played the best half of football they have played in two years and the head coach 'takes the pipe'.

[GP1]

Coaches do not win games. Players win games. Coaches CAN lose games by making decisions that do not allow the players to be in the best position to try to win. That is what Ianello did today. For whatever his personal reasons,he thought he could win the game from the sideline. In doing so he not only did not allow his players to be in the BEST position to win the game,he sent the message that he did not trust them to win the game in overtime. No matter when he made the decision to go for 2 it was a bad decision.Nobody in our section could believe it. That team played the best half of football they have played in two years and the head coach 'takes the pipe'.

Good post Lee.I would also add that the coach has to see the big picture for the players. He has to understand trends. One of the big pictures in the MAC is as follows, and the sooner Coach I learns it, the better he, the team and we all will be:One Major Rule To Live By In The MAC - MAC teams are more likely to blow a game than win a game. It happens every week. When a MAC team is blowing a game, the best thing to do is sit back and don't get in the way. CMU was in the process of blowing the game yesterday and Coach I got in the way. A good, veteran MAC coach would have understood this (see Keith Dambrot...he won a MAC Championship last year following this rule). OT was the best choice.

[Dave in Green]

As I said in another thread, even though the failed 2-point conversions led to a 1-point Zips loss, I like seeing aggressive coaching and playing decisions. I think that becoming more aggressive in all areas of the game will serve the team better in the long run than the passive, conservative style of play we've seen in the past from the team under this coaching staff. If this new, more aggressive style does not lead to more fire from the players and, ultimately, more wins, I'll admit I was mistaken.

[ZachTheZip]

You need to be aggressive against teams that are better than you. You need to be conservative against teams that let you beat them or are beating themselves. We're doing the exact opposite. Why is that a good thing?

[Dave in Green]

Nope, I want to see the Zips play more aggressively all the time. I want confidence and aggressiveness stamped into their DNA. I want them to continue to believe they can do it even after they fall a few inches short. I want them to know they're never going to be second-guessed by me as long as they are not playing passively and conservatively.

[GP1]

I like seeing aggressive coaching and playing decisions.

I like coaches being aggressive as well. The Zips were no huddle and calling a good aggressive game which got them back into the game. That was awesome. I also like them to be smart about what they are doing. At this point, see my note above about MAC teams blowing games.

[tbozeglav]

I, as others are very much as well, am caught in between two thought processes regarding iCoach and this game.On one hand, I am infuriated that iCoach decided to go for 2 down by at least 2 scores. As others have pointed out, going for 2 gets you nowhere closer to victory mathematically than a PAT would. If he just goes for the PAT, now that means he only has to kick the PAT at the end to win. Instead, he was forced to go for 2 again to have any chance at winning the game. On a similar note, I am upset at his lack of faith in the players to continue theyre play into OT where they stood a better chance at winning the game than completing a 2-point conversion. Personally, I would have much preferred to see iCoach play the numbers, as most HCs do, and put his players in a position where they have the best statistical chance at winning the game. He FAILED at doing this yet again.On the other hand, I have admit I find it tough to be upset over a 1-point loss knowing that the coach when for the win instead of OT. Somehow he got us to the point where we had a chance to win a game and thats an improvement on other games this year. We've been clamoring for some time for iCoach to be aggressive and try to get the win... Now that he was and came up just short in the process, we're blasting him for not playing smart. WHICH IS IT? It cant be both ways. I sure as hell dont know which it is. I personally would prefer a coach that is intelligently aggressive - that is aggressive when it serves a specific and strategic advantage in putting his players in a position to win. Regardless... a loss is a loss and he's still only got 1 win against a FBS opponent. I cant wait for this building process to be over so we can bring in someone who can actually do something with the talent we have.

[ZachTheZip]

After reading some articles, apparently our holder made the call to go for 2 the first time. There are so many problems with that. First is how we line up for PATs. Coach says that we always line up as if we're going for 2 before hand, and then shift to kick-protection if we're going to kick it. This decision was likely made early in the season or pre-season when we had a less reliable kicker than we do now. There's no need to do that now.Second is that the coaches coached our holder to make that decision. He did what he was coached to do in practices. So our coaches are coaching our players to make bad decisions on the field.Third is that our holder had the option to kick or run the fake, and he made the wrong call based on the circumstances of the game. Can he not do simple football math? Did he not know the score? Or did he want to impress someone on the sideline by orchestrating a risky trick play? I hope somebody grabbed him by the helmet and yelled at him about knowing the score and not taking risks when the best possible outcome is a point that didn't mean anything in terms of football scoring.

[skip-zip]

Since everyone is bringing up this so-called "chart" that determines whether to go for 2 points, let it be known that the "chart" in that situation, when we were down 14 points, says to kick the extra point to reduce the lead to 13 points.I think most of us already figured that out, but I thought I'd post it.

[GP1]

I hope somebody grabbed him by the helmet and yelled at him about knowing the score and not taking risks when the best possible outcome is a point that didn't mean anything in terms of football scoring.

How about preventiing this before it happens? The coach should tell the holder on the way out, no 2-point play regardless of what you see. It's call managing the game.

[Hilltopper]

I just wish we could line up in a normal extra point formation and kick them through on a regular basis. Leaving the decision about whether we go for 2 points or 1 point up to a 19 year old doesn't make much sense to me. If we had just played it straight, we win 24-23 with no drama needed.

[Lee Adams]

I just wish we could line up in a normal extra point formation and kick them through on a regular basis. Leaving the decision about whether we go for 2 points or 1 point up to a 19 year old doesn't make much sense to me. If we had just played it straight, we win 24-23 with no drama needed.

Its a shame that this coach at least publicly doesn't take responsibility. I get the feeling that if every once in awhile he came out and said I screwed up people could tolerate this situation a little more.