A lot has been made about our choices to punt inside Wake territory last week. And we did that seven times. Some of the comments: “Coach Fritz was playing not to lose;” “We needed to give Glover a chance; his field goal would have made it from 45 yards;” “We should have gone for it on several of those occasions.” Even the play by play guy thought we should have “given up” on a first down when we were 3rd and long, and gotten 4-5 yards to make a field goal possible. So, what were the real options?
#1. On 3rd and 19, we threw incomplete. We punted on 4th and 19 from the 35 yard line. Should we have gone for it? Should we have tied a 53 yard field goal? Should we have gained 5 yards on 3rd down and, if successful, tried a 48 yard field goal?
#2. On 3rd and 10, we threw incomplete. We punted on 4th and 10 from the 35 yard line. Exact same questions as above.
#3. On 3rd and 8, we threw for 4 yards (the analysts choice) and then punted from the 38 yard line rather than going for it on 4th and 4 or trying a 56 yard field goal.
#4. On 3rd and 8, we threw incomplete. We then punted from the Wake 47 yard line on 4th and 8 rather than going for it or trying a 65 yard field goal.
#5. On 3rd and 13, we rushed for three yards. Was that what the TV analyst was suggesting? After an intentional delay of game, we punted on 4th and 15 from the 46 yard line. Without the delay, our choices were to go for it 4th and 10 or try a 59 yard field goal.
#6. On 3rd and 8, Banks rushed for 1 yard. Then, on 4th and 7 from the 39 yard line, we chose to punt rather than go for it or try a 57 yard field goal.
#7. On 3rd and 12, we threw incomplete. We then punted from the 38 yard line rather than try a 56 yard field goal or go for it 4th and 12.
So, our field goal options were to attempt 53, 53, 56, 64, 59, 57, or 56 yard field goals. With Cairo Santos, we might have tried 3 or 4 of these, but with Glover I doubt many of us would even consider anything of them.
How many of our fans (and I haven’t seen any mention of this option) liked the TV analyst’s idea of gaining 4-5 yards on 3rd down to set up shorter field goal attempts? I thought the point was to throw “beyond the sticks,” not play it safe on 3rd down to try a risky, still long range, field goal. For those who think our play calling was conservative, I wonder what giving up on a first down would have been seen as.
Going for it? The 3rd punt from the 38 yard line with a 4th and 4 is the most (and possibly only) questionable decision I thought we made among the seven punts. Sure, we could pin them deep. In fact, even with a bad bounce from the 2, we stuck them at the ten yard line. But going for it there on 4th and 4, to me, would have been the better choice rather than the punt or a 56 yard field goal try.
Anyway, best I can tell, those were the factual circumstances of our seven punts inside Wake territory. What could have, should have, or might have been done constitutes opinions. In retrospect, mine is that we should have gone for it 4th and 4 on our third punt. I really don’t find much fault in the other decisions. Though it might have been a long shot, going for it on 4th and 7 from the 39 yard line (#6) wouldn't have upset me either.
Roll Wave!!!
#1. On 3rd and 19, we threw incomplete. We punted on 4th and 19 from the 35 yard line. Should we have gone for it? Should we have tied a 53 yard field goal? Should we have gained 5 yards on 3rd down and, if successful, tried a 48 yard field goal?
#2. On 3rd and 10, we threw incomplete. We punted on 4th and 10 from the 35 yard line. Exact same questions as above.
#3. On 3rd and 8, we threw for 4 yards (the analysts choice) and then punted from the 38 yard line rather than going for it on 4th and 4 or trying a 56 yard field goal.
#4. On 3rd and 8, we threw incomplete. We then punted from the Wake 47 yard line on 4th and 8 rather than going for it or trying a 65 yard field goal.
#5. On 3rd and 13, we rushed for three yards. Was that what the TV analyst was suggesting? After an intentional delay of game, we punted on 4th and 15 from the 46 yard line. Without the delay, our choices were to go for it 4th and 10 or try a 59 yard field goal.
#6. On 3rd and 8, Banks rushed for 1 yard. Then, on 4th and 7 from the 39 yard line, we chose to punt rather than go for it or try a 57 yard field goal.
#7. On 3rd and 12, we threw incomplete. We then punted from the 38 yard line rather than try a 56 yard field goal or go for it 4th and 12.
So, our field goal options were to attempt 53, 53, 56, 64, 59, 57, or 56 yard field goals. With Cairo Santos, we might have tried 3 or 4 of these, but with Glover I doubt many of us would even consider anything of them.
How many of our fans (and I haven’t seen any mention of this option) liked the TV analyst’s idea of gaining 4-5 yards on 3rd down to set up shorter field goal attempts? I thought the point was to throw “beyond the sticks,” not play it safe on 3rd down to try a risky, still long range, field goal. For those who think our play calling was conservative, I wonder what giving up on a first down would have been seen as.
Going for it? The 3rd punt from the 38 yard line with a 4th and 4 is the most (and possibly only) questionable decision I thought we made among the seven punts. Sure, we could pin them deep. In fact, even with a bad bounce from the 2, we stuck them at the ten yard line. But going for it there on 4th and 4, to me, would have been the better choice rather than the punt or a 56 yard field goal try.
Anyway, best I can tell, those were the factual circumstances of our seven punts inside Wake territory. What could have, should have, or might have been done constitutes opinions. In retrospect, mine is that we should have gone for it 4th and 4 on our third punt. I really don’t find much fault in the other decisions. Though it might have been a long shot, going for it on 4th and 7 from the 39 yard line (#6) wouldn't have upset me either.
Roll Wave!!!
Last edited:
