From time immemorial, fans make some simple assumptions, failing to take into account other scenarios.
Last night, countless posters wrote that the missed 2 point conversion cost us the game. Maybe it did, but we don't know that.
Most likely, what it cost us was an opportunity to win in overtime, which is certainly not a given. See Boston College,
But beyond that, the statement fails to take into consideration any strategic moves by the other team.
As it was, Army could call plays on their last drive with a simple goal of getting into makeable field goal position. They didn't need to score a touchdown to win. But what if we had converted and were up 24-21? Then Moncken has to decide whether to play for OT or try to win in regulation with a TD. I'm no offensive coordinator, but I'm pretty sure the play selection and tempo would have been different depending which way he decided to go. As it was, he didn't have to make those decisions.
Having said that, I was far more pleased with our performance last night than a lot of PM posters. What few criticisms I have are mostly directed at Drink than the players, and don't even include the Badie situation.
I was not pleased with the play selection on the second drive, where we managed to turn a first and goal from the one into a field goal. We were fortunate that Army missed a short field goal, and a touchdown on our second possession would have given us a 14 point lead. Both teams were moving the ball, so with that cushion, we could play to trade touchdowns and win. Not so with a 10-0 lead (and two more field goals later).
I think that the ploy of lining up to run a play on 4th and short to try and get the defense to jump offsides works about as often as onside kicks. I hate wasting a timeout in the second half, and was not a bit pleased with Drink calling one at that point. Worse was the play he called after the timeout.
And then finally, as Mark Godich and others pointed out last night, Drink's clock management on the last drive was quite poor. Call the same plays with the same results, but let the play clock run down to 4 or 5 seconds. Everything else the same, we could have given Army 45 seconds or less, and most likely they would have had to use their one remaining timeout. He's shown he CAN manage time and distance, such as the last drive in regulation to set up Mevis's game tying FG at Boston College. Last night it was truly puzzling.
One last comment: at least one poster wrote that Dawson Downing's fumble resulted in Army's go ahead touchdown. I don't think that is correct. Not to diminish that the fumble, or any turnover, at the very least ended a promising drive, but my recollection is a bit different. IIRC, Army had to punt on that possession, and we started our next to last drive. What we lost was time (which turned out not to matter) and field position. Army scored their TD after our post-fumble drive fizzled out.
Last night, countless posters wrote that the missed 2 point conversion cost us the game. Maybe it did, but we don't know that.
Most likely, what it cost us was an opportunity to win in overtime, which is certainly not a given. See Boston College,
But beyond that, the statement fails to take into consideration any strategic moves by the other team.
As it was, Army could call plays on their last drive with a simple goal of getting into makeable field goal position. They didn't need to score a touchdown to win. But what if we had converted and were up 24-21? Then Moncken has to decide whether to play for OT or try to win in regulation with a TD. I'm no offensive coordinator, but I'm pretty sure the play selection and tempo would have been different depending which way he decided to go. As it was, he didn't have to make those decisions.
Having said that, I was far more pleased with our performance last night than a lot of PM posters. What few criticisms I have are mostly directed at Drink than the players, and don't even include the Badie situation.
I was not pleased with the play selection on the second drive, where we managed to turn a first and goal from the one into a field goal. We were fortunate that Army missed a short field goal, and a touchdown on our second possession would have given us a 14 point lead. Both teams were moving the ball, so with that cushion, we could play to trade touchdowns and win. Not so with a 10-0 lead (and two more field goals later).
I think that the ploy of lining up to run a play on 4th and short to try and get the defense to jump offsides works about as often as onside kicks. I hate wasting a timeout in the second half, and was not a bit pleased with Drink calling one at that point. Worse was the play he called after the timeout.
And then finally, as Mark Godich and others pointed out last night, Drink's clock management on the last drive was quite poor. Call the same plays with the same results, but let the play clock run down to 4 or 5 seconds. Everything else the same, we could have given Army 45 seconds or less, and most likely they would have had to use their one remaining timeout. He's shown he CAN manage time and distance, such as the last drive in regulation to set up Mevis's game tying FG at Boston College. Last night it was truly puzzling.
One last comment: at least one poster wrote that Dawson Downing's fumble resulted in Army's go ahead touchdown. I don't think that is correct. Not to diminish that the fumble, or any turnover, at the very least ended a promising drive, but my recollection is a bit different. IIRC, Army had to punt on that possession, and we started our next to last drive. What we lost was time (which turned out not to matter) and field position. Army scored their TD after our post-fumble drive fizzled out.
Last edited:
