Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: How The Kings Beat The Coyotes: Lather, Rinse, Repeat

Grading the Game - Utah

Quarterback - Keith Price wasn't exactly himself in the first half. Utah to their credit was able to keep the Washington offense from getting untracked in the first half. Sark and company were able to make adjustments at the half which allowed the Huskies to open a 17-7 lead early in the fourth quarter. Price was 22-30 on the game with 3 second half TD passes. Grade B Plus

Running Backs - Chris Polk ripped off a 49 yard run on the first series of the third quarter en-route to a 189 yard performance which broke the back of the Ute defense. Polk kept getting better as the game went on and he single handedly broke the back of a good Utah defense in the second half. Polk was able to get to the second level in the second half because Amosa was doing an amazing job as a lead blocker. Grade A

Receivers - Jermaine Kearse led all receivers with seven catches. ASJ continues to play like the true man child that he is. Kasen Williams had his best overall game and continues to get more chances as we near the mid point of the season. Chris Polk had three receptions which shows how diversified this Husky offense has become. Good game for these guys but too many drops to get an A grade.  Grade B Plus

Offensive Line - The line got pretty good push all night and the right side (Kohler/Porter) played much better this week. The Huskies wore the Utes down as the game went on and that is the signature of dominant line play. Grade B Plus

Defensive Line - Everyone contributed and played at a high level. Best game of the year for these guys. Josh Shirley arrived on the first series when he dumped Utah QB Jordan Wynn on his butt with a bone crunching sack. Utah was averaging 171 yards per game on the ground and they only picked up 17 against UW...Wow. One more thing...Semisi Tokolahi is back and he had some excellent reps. Look for him to play a lot after the bye week. Grade A

Linebackers - Best game of the year for this group. Cort Dennison led the team with ten tackles. This is a young unit that is coming of age. I love how Jamall Kearse and Garret Gilliliand are playing. Princeton Fuimaono had the best game of his young career. Grade A

Defensive Backs - The Huskies gave up 305 yards through the air but the Ute air attack was never really consistent. there is still work to do back here but overall it was a pretty good performance for a group of guys that have had a tough go so far this season. Quinton Richardson still is having problems back there. He gave up the last TD of the game as time was running out in the fourth quarter. Grade B

Special Teams - Another excellent game by these guys. Folk hit a big FG at the end of the first half to give the Huskies a lift an the lead at the half.

Coaching - Nice job on both sides of the ball by the Husky coaching staff. The fire Nick Holt folks get to take a couple of weeks off after this stellar defensive performance. The bald one called a great game and most importantly his young players are beginning to mature on the job.

Sark did a nice job mixing it up with his play calling. The only thing I found that was mildly disturbing was not taking Price and Polk out of the game late in the fourth quarter. Its garbage time...let Nick Montana play and don't risk the knees of your starting QB.

The team picked up five turnovers and only turned it over once which was probably the key stat of the game.

Grade A

Comment 245 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

More from UW Dawg Pound

Dot...Dot...Dawg (5/22)

May 2012 by Gekko Mojo - 1 comment

Dot...Dot...Dawg (5/19)

May 2012 by Gekko Mojo - 2 comments

Dot...Dot...Dawg (5/18)

May 2012 by Gekko Mojo - 16 comments

Dot...Dot...Dawg (5/13)

May 2012 by Gekko Mojo - 16 comments

Comments

Display:

Two nitpicks.

First!

Sark early decsion to go for it that blew up in our face is forgivable in light of what happened now that the game is over, but if we had lost by a possession, we would be furious about it right now. Thoughts?

While we do have a bye coming up to rest Price, I have no idea why Montana didn’t see time. Price’s lack of mobility makes him even more susceptible to injury. We’re willing to concede a garbage time TD but we’re not willing to sit KP? What possible reason could Sark have had to keep Price in the game?

by Bugs Dodger on Oct 2, 2011 9:00 AM PDT reply actions  

Now I will nitpick your nitpicks!

1) I think we have all figured out that this is who Sark is and we are going to have to take the good with the bad on 4th and 1’s in no man’s land. If he made it, we would hail him as a genius. I am fine with him going for it personally, just because of all the other times Sark gambles on plays like this and converts. It also shows trust in the players, for what that is worth to them.

2) My personal theory on not sitting KP or Polk (and this may be off) is that Sark wants to teach these kids to have a killer instinct and never let off the pedal. I don’t think it is a mistake that all the touchdowns were throwing plays. Sark wanted the kill shot at 31-7. Yeah, Polk was “beast mode”ing down the length of the field for the majority of the drives, but I got the feeling Sark wanted to pound a multiple nails in to the coffin. Maybe some hatred left over from playing at BYU? :P

by kschimke on Oct 2, 2011 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions  

Chow

I would have an easier time believing he wanted to stick it to Chow more then the BYU thing. If you recall Chow departed from USC awkwardly. But is their any hostility? I think he wanted to this to be a statement game more then anything. With Sark sticking with Price, I think he has shown that this is the era of Price and that Montana will have to wait his turn.

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Oct 2, 2011 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

Maybe some hatred left over from playing at BYU?

I would have had no problem with running a team that the Utes had no business losing to running up the score.

I thought about this a few times last week, but I have been so busy wanting to crush Utes for my own reason I didn’t stop to think how happy the Cougar in Sark must be to have rammed it down the throat of Ute nation.

by Bugs Dodger on Oct 2, 2011 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions  

Nitpicks

The 4th and 1 bugged me. Why not get up two possessions right off the bat – 47 Yds in altitude is easily in range.

I don’t worry about spelling P&P. Thise guys want to be in there, they’ve earned the right and adding stats for post season awards purposes is an unfortunate reality of our sport

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon

by Gekko Mojo on Oct 2, 2011 9:48 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

I’m not concerned at all with Polk. The Beast must feed.

by Bugs Dodger on Oct 2, 2011 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions  

4th and 1

Going for it on 4th and 1 is Sarks style…I wouldn’t change it…it is part of the personality of the team that he is trying to develop.

UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle

by John Berkowitz on Oct 2, 2011 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions  

See It Coming

For 2.5 seasons, Sark has been running our TB/QB between the tackles, on every 4th & 1 failure that I can recall. It is just too obvious what the call is going to be. If Sark wants this to ever start working, he better start thinking about mixing in more/different 4th-n-short play calls.

by The Dude 4 Real on Oct 2, 2011 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions  

I know it seems repetitive...

But I love that Sark does mess around on 4th down. When you have a physical O-line and a punishing running back, it doesn’t matter if they know you’re running at them. You should be able to take one yard.

by I'mSureI'veSeenWorse on Oct 2, 2011 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions  

But We Have No Success

….. so a smarter decision would be to take the field goal, and/or mix it up. Even teams with O-lines like LSU & Wisconsin do that.

by The Dude 4 Real on Oct 2, 2011 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

3/6 on 4th downs this year.

With one of them being that draw play late in the game on 4th and 17 or something?

So 3/5? To say we have “no success” is harsh.

by I'mSureI'veSeenWorse on Oct 3, 2011 12:29 AM PDT up reply actions  

The Kearse pitch the other week was pretty unpredictable.

Almost all coaches on a 4th&1 go between the tackles. If your OL can’t push the DL 1 yard then you have bigger problems than being predictable.

by Edgar for Pres on Oct 2, 2011 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions  

It's a culture thing

He’s transforming the culture to be one that believes that on 4th and 1 they are going to come right after you and they’re going to be successful because we’re simply better and/or we have more heart and effort. Like it or not, it appears to be his philosophy and you’ve got to believe it will only become more successful in time.

by mwalter on Oct 2, 2011 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

Very well said....

a companion thought is that sending the message of “I know you can get us that yard”…makes the linemen want to get it on 3rd down…

by gliderdawg on Oct 2, 2011 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

Oh really?

Is that why he called a play action pass on 3rd and one in the 3rd quarter?

I remember another 4th down against Nebraska where he called a play action too. He does mix it up on 4th and short, sometimes we are successful and sometimes we aren’t.

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 2, 2011 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

4th & One In Field Goal Range

Okay, so Sark does indeed go for it on 4th and 1……. and he has not yet, in 2.5 seasons, been successful with that. At thsi time I can immediately recall many field goal points that have been passed up, just so that we can give up the ball on downs. That game at Notre Dame was a 4th & 1 dissaster. Sure, you can try to place the blame on the hideous ref calls & spots, but why give it the risk, when you have 3 for sure, in a close and tough game?

There is stubborn, and then there is stupid. For all the great work and calls that Coach Sark is responsible for, we forgive his for this one: Sark is starting to look stupid on all his 4th & 1 – go for it! calls, when a field goal is virtually automatic points..

by The Dude 4 Real on Oct 2, 2011 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

That ND game where we scored a TD only to have it reversed?

How pissed are you that we went for it on 4th and 1 from the 1 against Cal? We passed up the sure points!?!?!? Sark what were you doing giving us one of the biggest victories for this program in the last few years instead of taking the sure points and going to OT?

My point is, if you’re going to complain about it when it doesn’t work, you better be here complaining about it when it does work too.

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 2, 2011 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Also

a field goal is never a sure thing from 47 yards out, even with Folk. A missed field goal is just as bad (in terms of field position) as coming up short on a 4th down try.

by SeaHuskies on Oct 3, 2011 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions  

I know its a debatable call

But I’m of the opinion that if you can’t pick up ONE yard in that sort of situation then you don’t really deserve to win the game. Therefore to lose on a play where you can’t pick up one measly yard is just showing your true colors as a team who never deserved the win in the first place. That’s how I’d rationalize it if we lost. Now that we won I just chose to forget the play happened.

by Edgar for Pres on Oct 2, 2011 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

The Dawg Father Took The Points...

….. and earned Rose Bowl and Nat’l Championship success. What Sark is doing on 4th and short is not working. End of debate, as far as I can tell.

Doing the same things over and over, while expecting different results, is a good definition of “crazy”, after all.

by The Dude 4 Real on Oct 2, 2011 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

It got us a win over Cal straight up

So you would have rather kicked the FG for OT last year on the road? It has worked more times than not, you are just choosing to not recognize that.

by kschimke on Oct 2, 2011 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

This is true.

But there is a big difference between risking it all to win the game on the last play and taking an unnecessary risk at the expense of a higher-percentage play to add more points to the board.

by Carl Shinyama on Oct 2, 2011 5:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

To be fair, we've converted 75% of them...

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon

by Gekko Mojo on Oct 2, 2011 1:06 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

yeah, I'm a little confused by this

I seem to remember successful 4th down conversions before. How on earth can you say “end of debate” that Sark’s strategy is not working? Even a good play call will sometimes fail.

by Will Kier on Oct 2, 2011 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

Stupid decision.

That’s all I’m going to say about that.

by Carl Shinyama on Oct 2, 2011 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Well, I'm glad you aren't our football coach.

If we get that 1st down, which we could have easily if Tanigawa didn’t get blown up so bad he made Polk stop, then we can score a TD and go up 14 points with ALL of the momentum. It was maybe a debatable call, but definitely not a straight up stupid one.

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 2, 2011 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

The smart thing to do is go for the high-percentage play...

 Not take an unnessary risk so early in the game where the gamble is a high-risk play for potential momentum rather than adding to the scoreboard with a higher-percentage play.

With Eric Folk on your roster and the altitude on your side, the higher percentage, and more logical, option would be for the Huskies to for the field goal, particularly since UW generally struggled with running the ball the in the first half, on top of that, the Huskies were getting the ball to start the second half.

I disagree, it was stupid. Ask yourself this, would you rather have three points, or zero?

by Carl Shinyama on Oct 2, 2011 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I could conduct a study that does thing that supports the numbers for going for a FG, rather than going for it on 4th down early in the game.

Particularly when you already have a 7-point lead. The thing that people neglect to account for is the risk of giving the momentum right back to the other team when they stop you on 4th down.

That study doesn’t actually weigh the necessity of the risk (which, as we shall remember, the more the game is on, and you are behind, it becomes more necessary), nor does it actually give you an expected value for going for it on 4th down past the 35-yard mark in the opponent’s territory, and it doesn’t account for Eric Folk’s kicking success vs. UW’s success on 4th and 1.

Eric Folk has kicked 100% from 30-49 yards this year, which is the range in which he would have been kicking his FG, going 6-6. On top of that, the altitude allows for the ball to carry better in the air. On the other hand, the Huskies were 50% on 4th and short this year. Which do you think sounds like the more higher-percentage play?

Let’s also keep in mind that that study was conducted using NFL statistics, not college statistics, and there is a big difference between the two levels.

by Carl Shinyama on Oct 2, 2011 6:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

so do it

Let’s see some actual research that refutes this study, because otherwise it’s just talk.

Let’s also keep in mind that that study was conducted using NFL statistics, not college statistics, and there is a big difference between the two levels.

That may be true, but the important thing is how the statistics differ, and if (and where) they do, how does that difference change the chart? Are FG tries more or less successful in college vs. the NFL? Are 4th down attempts by offenses in college more or less successful than in the NFL?

…nor does it actually give you an expected value for going for it on 4th down past the 35-yard mark in the opponent’s territory…

Not sure what you mean here – the expected values charts all use distance from the end zone as one of the axes.

by kirkd on Oct 2, 2011 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

I could, but I will not devote countless hours to prove this point. I don't care to.

You either accept it or you don’t. Your choice.

That said, you don’t need to actually produce research to refute a study. You simply need to refute it.

Regarding your second part, I would agree that the important part is how the stats differ, but that may only serve to make the NFL study somewhat irrelevant because it’s college data that’s the more relevant data.

What I mean when I say that that it doesn’t actually give you an expected value for going for it on 4th and one past the 35-yard mark is that they already give you an expected value for kicking the field goal, but does not offer any for going for it on 4th and 1 past a certain point on the field. So how can you know which is the better option when you only have the expected value for just one rather than both? You can’t. And in any case, I’m not sure you can come up with an expected value for it, because going for it on 4th down in field range is, just for the chance to score potential TD’s, deals purely with circumstance and the hypothetic. Going further, how do you measure potential? Also, how do you measure the risk vs. reward? It’s a choice between a higher-percentage play and potential.

And in this case, knowing UW’s success rate for either, I can confidently say that UW’s higher-percentage play was to go for the FG.

by Carl Shinyama on Oct 2, 2011 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

Higher percentage play of accomplishing what?

Higher percentage play to score any points at all? Possibly.

Highest expected point value? Not likely.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/08/expected-points.html

There’s your expected point values. Notice that it goes higher than 3 right at the 40 yard line. That’s where we were and why it makes sense to go for the first down, it gives you more expected points.

Yes these are NFL stats, but I think they can pretty safely be translated to the college level. If nothing else, the expected point values for CFB would be higher since offenses in CFB are better than defenses. Kickers are also less reliable, making kicking the field goal less worth it.

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 2, 2011 8:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

I Understand

Both sides of the argument, but to me, it boils down to this:
Folk is a great kicker.
The situation seemed very solid for him to get the points.
We only seem to make, what half of our 4th downs?
Even if you make the 4th down, no assurance of points.
Between turnovers and further 4th down failings, in THAT scenario, up by 7, I would kick the field goal. Does it make the ‘go for it’ call wrong? No. But it isn’t a right/wrong argument. It is a points argument. And those were near guaranteed three points against a scenario with no guarantees whatsoever.

by Fanfman on Oct 2, 2011 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

Say a genie walked up to you and offered you $1 dollar, or a 50% chance at $1,000

I bet you would take your shot with the $1,000.

It isn’t about minimizing risk, it is about maximizing your expected points.

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 2, 2011 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

Say a genie walked up to you and offered you $1 dollar, or a 50% chance at $1,000

The comparision is $3 or $7 — not $1 or $1000.

by Bugs Dodger on Oct 2, 2011 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

true, but the point is to subvert a recurring trend here,

which is ritualistic use of the word “high percentage” or its synonym “guaranteed” as if that’s the determining factor for the best choice to make. Clearly there exist some circumstances in which the least likely option is the best one to take, which is the point of the thought exercise. The proper perspective, as Bowdown alluded to, is to decide which option gives you the greatest average expected points as a consequence. The risk of failure is built into that.

Given X chance of 3 points and Y chance of eventually getting 7 points (where X > Y), there will exist some point at which X is the best choice, some point at which it’s a tossup, and some point at which Y is the best choice. That was the point of the AdvancedNFLstats study, and what it figured out.

by Will Kier on Oct 2, 2011 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

There is no but.

We are discussing a decision that Sark made in a football game.

If the genie metaphor is valid, that would mean that Sark was choosing between going to it and scoring ONE THOUSAND points or kicking it for one point.

That would change the nature of his decision entirely and would not remotely resemble the game of football as it is played.

by Bugs Dodger on Oct 2, 2011 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

The point of my question wasn't to say that those are the exact circumstances, but to show that just because something is "guaranteed" doesn't mean it is the best choice.

We have already provided evidence as to why it was the right choice based on the expected value of each decision.

You can argue that the expected values provided in the data may not be correct for some reason, but you can’t argue that just because the 3 points seemed like the “safer” bet that it was the right decision to kick.

It is ALL about the expected value.

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 2, 2011 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

The point of my question wasn’t to say that those are the exact circumstances, but to show that just because something is “guaranteed” doesn’t mean it is the best choice.

Of course it wasn’t. Your point was to manipulate your readers by supplying them with a more attractive analogy than the analogies (faulty) referent, which is what is actually under discussion. It’s a false anaology — bait and switch — and it has absolutely no bearing, logically, upon the argument at hand.

That said, the fact that I’ve called our your fallacy has no bearing on your argument about whether or not Sark should or should not have gone for it. I have no dog in that hunt. I’m just keeping you honest.

by Bugs Dodger on Oct 2, 2011 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

What are you talking about?

My point was to come up with an obvious example in which going for the “higher risk” option was a better choice.

I was not trying to trick anyone and I take offense that you suggest I was trying to “bait and switch” as opposed to illustrate a point with an example. You are not “keeping me honest,” I am doing that on my own. That analogy was not used in any way to suggest what the right decision was in this instance, only to illustrate the error of judging the two options on their perceived “risk.”

You have shown absolutely no acknowledgment of my actual point that expected value is all that matters in this situation.

Our argument that going for it was the correct choice is explicitly this: Going for the first down on a 4th and 1 from where we were on the field provides a higher expected value than kicking a field goal. That is illustrated by the studies and links we have provided. If you would like to argue about why the specifics of this situation made it so that the expected value of going for it was lower than that of kicking it than please do.

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 2, 2011 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

You have shown absolutely no acknowledgment of my actual point that expected value is all that matters in this situation.

If your point had merit, I would have let it stand.

In your example you are making one outcome far more valuable than the other. One dollar is virtually worthless. One thousand dollars is not. If the genie offerred a certain $999 or a possible $1000, most people would take the certain $999.

Sark is not choosing between $1 or $1000. He is choosing between a field goal and a touchdown, between three and (PAT included for simplicity’s sake) seven.

Moreover, he is not playing the game by himself. You need to account for the fact that a guy named Kyle is playing the game, too. This is not about Sark’s personal wealth. This is about who ends up with more points.

Sark doesn’t get to walk off with cash. He will leave it on the field. If he takes that certain one dollar and Kyle ends up with nothing, Sark will still win.

The goal is to have more money than the other guy does, and, when we are playing for points, three is not to seven what one is to one thousand.

I have acknowledged your point: your point is illogical and fallacious.

You can rage away all you like, but that will not change the fact that you picked a bum metaphor. It doesn’t impact your argument about whether or not Sark should have gone for it.

I’m going to bed now.

Rage away.

by Bugs Dodger on Oct 2, 2011 9:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

haha, I am not going to rage away, except at an education system which has left you without an understanding of expected values and statistics.

You are correct to go to bed because “arguing” further is futile. This isn’t even an argument, I am trying to show you the basis for the math behind the decision so that we can actually have a discussion about whether or not it was the right decision. The fact that you don’t understand my point legitimately saddens me.

Because you seem to have been thrown off by my example I am going to put in a bit more effort and actually put numbers to this situation. I apologize for the length in advance, but I hope you’ll stick with me throughout, I’m interested in hearing your thoughts after you read it.

Please note that these are NOT the actual expected values, and that in order to keep the math simple I have dramatically overvalued field goals by making them worth 3, when in fact they are worth around 2.3 points because you need to factor in the field position your opponent gets based on a make or a miss. This actually makes the example say that kicking a field goal is the correct choice. I didn’t want to use the value of 2.3 because I think it would lead to confusion, if you want to read about why it is 2.3 instead of 3 see the example provided here:

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-3.html

We can agree that there is an expected point value to each decision in this instance. The situation was a 4th and 1 at the Utah 32 yard line. There were two options, kicking the field goal and going for the first down. I will tackle the EV for the field goal first because it is easier, and going for it second.

The expected value of the field goal is simple (In this example, as mentioned above the actual value is around 2.3). It is 3 times the percentage chance that Folk would make the field goal. From 30 to 40 yards Folk is 13/14 career for a percentage of 92%. We’ll just go with that percentage, and will multiply it with 3 to get .92 * 3 = 2.76 points. The expected value of kicking the field goal was 2.76 points.

The numbers for going for it will be a little more vague since football is a complicated game, but I will attempt to come up with reasonable estimates. Like I said above, the exact numbers can be argued, choosing the option with the highest EV cannot.

The first step is to determine what our likelihood of a successful conversion was. I’m going to use the NFL statistics here because I think they are relatively close to what the statistics for college football would be and I need a valid number.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-3.html

The percentage they give is about 75%. This means there is a 25% chance of a turnover and getting 0 points, which ended up being the actual result of the play. Lets just for the sake of argument say we got the exact yardage needed for the first down and had a first down at the 31. The math here begins to get complicated because there are a lot of different scenarios which can play out. These involve the chance of scoring a TD, the chance of kicking a FG anyways, and the chance of an INT or fumble which gives Utah the ball without us scoring. That is a lot of factors which thankfully the sites given earlier have taken into account. They actually provide the expected value for a first down from any yard line. That is provided here:

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/08/expected-points.html

Reading the exact value for the 31 yard line is tough, but it looks to be about 3.2. Therefore the expected value of a minimally successful conversion is 3.2 points.

Finally, to get the expected value of going for it, we multiply the value of each outcome with its probability of happening and we add them up.

.25 * 0 = 0
.75 * 3.2 = 2.4
2.4 + 0 = 2.4 expected value of going for it.

Remember the expected value of kicking the field goal was 2.7 points. Comparison of the two values shows:

kicking vs. going for it
2.7 > 2.4.

This means that in this calculation kicking the field goal would be a better choice. Unfortunately in this example FGs were overvalued. Lets try again with the actual FG value really quickly.

If we were to use the actual field goal value of around 2.3 we would get .92 * 2.3 = 2.11.

A comparison now shows:

kicking vs. going for it
2.11 < 2.44

So using the NFL numbers, we find that going for it was worth .3 points more than kicking a FG would have been and was clearly the correct decision. And now that I think about it the value for going for it should be slightly lower since turning it over at the 32 is actually a negative point value. I doubt this would result in the decision being reversed though.

As I have said earlier, you can argue with me about the percentages of getting the 1st down, or making the field goal, but you can’t argue with the fact that choosing the option with the highest expected point total is the correct choice.

I hope that this has helped you understand my argument, I put a lot of time into writing it. I’m sorry it is so long, I tried to make things as straightforward as possible.

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 2, 2011 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

In addition, if Sark takes that $1 instead of the $4 he could have had Kyle wins!

It is a win for Kyle if Sark takes anything less than his maximum value.

We should all be angry at Sark if he leaves points on the table needlessly.

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 2, 2011 10:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

a correct evaluation of the 4th down situation considers both probability and reward

this is what fanfman said:

But it isn’t a right/wrong argument. It is a points argument. And those were near guaranteed three points against a scenario with no guarantees whatsoever.

and I read that in the context of the rest of fanfman’s post to indicate his favor of the field goal was instead controlled by looking just at the probability factor. FG = high guarantee of getting points, TD = low guarantee, ergo kick the field goal. The point of Bowdown’s analogy was fair: it applied that logic to a different circumstance, and showed it led to a plainly unreasonable conclusion. Simply using probability to evaluate a decision is flawed.

If I’ve misread fanfman then I apologize, but the principle behind the text of his post seems fairly clear to me.

by Will Kier on Oct 2, 2011 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

“Going for it” will not yield a payoff one thousand times more valuable than kicking.

If a touchdown were worth a thousand points and a field goal were worth one, your analogy would be logical. Sark is making a decision being three points and seven. If he were choosing between one and one thousand, he would weigh his options differently, and he would not be playing football.

by Bugs Dodger on Oct 2, 2011 9:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

It doesn't even matter if its 1000 to 1.

It is about the expected value.

If the chance of winning 1000 dollars was 1% it would still be a better idea to choose the $1000.

That’s because your expected value from choosing that option is .01 * 1,000 = 10. While your expected value for choosing the $1 is 1.00 * 1 = 1. The smart play is to ALWAYS choose the option with the higher expected value.

We have provided evidence as to why we think the expected value of going for it was higher than kicking it. You can argue as to why we may be wrong about that, but you can’t argue about the fact that it is best to choose the option with the highest expected point value.

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 2, 2011 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

If you get the 1st down, you are still almost garunteed three points.

This is included in the expected value I’ve mentioned, but I wanted to make it explicitly clear that going for it doesn’t just mean 7 or 0.

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 2, 2011 9:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

That doesn't even answer what I said:

The expected value for going for it on 4th and 1 past a certain point on the field was never established.

Nowhere does it establish the expected value for that. In fact, saying that there is an expected value for going for it on 4th and 1 is misleading because with a fresh set of downs, there are too many factors on a given number of plays to account for to actually and successfully establish an expected value. Meaning, there are too many variables and hypothetical factors to arrive at a concrete number.

What it does is that, using the concepts from the Roman Paper, is it uses the average points based on a success rate of 3 out of 7 attempts on going for it on 4th and 2 in the first quarter, and saying that it is equal to one single successful field goal, never establishing that going for it provides a greater expected value. Not to mention, the numbers used appear to be arbitrary rather than following a logical guideline.

In fact, all it ever really establishes is the point expectancy based on field position, not circumstance. Even then, they admit in using their data is the assumption of linearity.

by Carl Shinyama on Oct 2, 2011 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

the burden of proof is on you

You contend that the “smart” decision was to kick the field goal. Research suggest that the smart thing to do – by a good margin – was go for it. So the burden of proof is on you to refute those findings. Your choice whether to do so or not. Me, I’ll go with the detailed study out there. If you have better data, by all means share it.

by kirkd on Oct 2, 2011 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

The application of the research in this particular case is debatable.

The choice is to go for it or kick the field goal. It is an either/or choice.

What the research that was cited doesn’t tell us is that UW this year has gone 50% on 4th and short situations. The research doesn’t actually provide an expected point value for going for it on 4th and 1. The Huskies have, however been 100% on field goals between 30-49 yards. Which do you think was the higher percentage play? Which do you think was more likely to put points on the board?

I’m not actually trying to PROVE anything. It is my belief, based on observation and facts, that the smarter decision for UW was to kick the field goal, and that’s all I was trying to express.

by Carl Shinyama on Oct 2, 2011 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'll grant you safer

Dunno about “smarter”.

Carl, you clearly understand numbers enough to know that the data we have on the Huskies and going for it on 4th down this season isn’t anything close to statistically significant.

by kirkd on Oct 2, 2011 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

that was a sticking point for me, too

Carl, your objections to the AdNFLstats article seem to have a sound basis and make me want to review it, but using things like Folk being 6-6 between 30 and 49 yards- what if there was a bad snap, an inconvenient gust of wind, or a higher number of 49 yard kick attempts? Using the stat implies its value has meaning, but Folk very well could have been 3-6 if all those bad things happened and it doesn’t indicate Folk is better or worse.

Subjectively I think we’d collectively agree our trust in him after seeing him for a few years is high, but highly isolated raw stats aren’t a very reliable basis for pointing that out.

by Will Kier on Oct 2, 2011 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

Fair enough.

I remember having a debate very similar to this last year. The Huskies were about midway into the season, and Sarkisian chose to go for it in field goal range in the first half (I think second quarter, if memory serves), and I used the stats throughout the season up to that point the season prior to that, and the expected success rate was roughly the same as it has been this year.

I know that this year, the sample size is too small to make a significant case for, but the entire body of work since Sarkisian took over remains highly similar when it comes to the success rate of FG’s vs. 4th and 1’s.

by Carl Shinyama on Oct 2, 2011 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

By the way, very healthy discussion :)

I like it very much. This place holds the same appeal for me that Field Gulls does. Civil and rational discussion

by Carl Shinyama on Oct 2, 2011 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

Oh man, I just wrote a freaking essay above without reading what you guys were talking about.

Carl, you are still making the same mistake earlier in saying that kicking the field goal is “higher percentage.”

The only acceptable choice is the choice with the higher expected point total. Expected value factors in risk.

I think that the historical NFL data is a pretty good approximation of the baseline statistics. I’m completely open to arguing about why the expected value in this case may be different than those in the research.

I am not ok with people saying that the amount of risk involved in the decision is the determining factor in what choice should be made. The determining factor is the expected value of each decision, of which the risk is a large factor. Let me know if you disagree with me on this, I’m having a hard time telling if you do..

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 2, 2011 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think you are missing my point.

Percentage is not the way to judge this. The highest expected value of each of the choices should be chosen.

The percentages factor heavily into the expected value, but they are not the entire thing. The value of the different options is also a very big factor.

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 2, 2011 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

No, I didn't miss your point.

I know exactly what you’re saying. I find it interesting that you didn’t even answer my question.

Percentage is not the way to judge this? Not even when the ones that I’m quoting are directly related to this discussion? That makes no sense.

Also, I’ve said it several times now: The research that you are using doesn’t actually offer any expected value for going for it on 4th and 1 past a certain point on the field.

by Carl Shinyama on Oct 2, 2011 11:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

See my comment below for the answer to you second question.

Do you not know what expected value is? It factors in percentage! My example way earlier shows that percentage is not the only factor, the value of the two outcomes is also extremely important.

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 2, 2011 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

Don't grant him safer.

It is not “safer.” Going with the highest expected value is the safest decision.

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 2, 2011 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

What does that question even mean?

Of course it has an expected value and both the articles were linked establish its value.

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 2, 2011 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

Here are the articles establishing the values of 4th down conversions.

Explanation of expected value and values for every yard line on the field: http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-1.html

Establishing the value of punts and kicks: http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-2.html

4th down conversion percentage and expected value of going for it: http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-3.html

Putting it all together and showing why it is better to go for it on 4th and 1 from your own 32: http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-4.html

The most important graph of the whole thing, showing what should be done in each situation (as a baseline): http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2618/3688516023_07450826e5_o.png

Please read those and explain to me where it doesn’t say what the expected value for going for it on 4th and 1 from the 32 is.

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 2, 2011 11:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

Oh my goodness.

I’m not sure you actually understand that study.

In part one, it is based on the concepts from the Roman Paper, where it uses the average points based on a success rate of 3 out of 7 attempts on going for it on 4th and 2 in the first quarter, and saying that it is equal to one single successful field goal, never establishing that going for it provides a greater expected value.

All it ever really establishes is the point expectancy based on FIELD POSITION, not circumstance (meaning that it doesn’t regard down and distance), and it never once gives the expected value of going for it on 4th and one, not like what they did with field goals. It is IMPORTANT that you understand this.

In part 2, they talk about probability for FG’s and punts. Nothing useful from there, except the acknowledge that the probability of a successful field goal is primarily dependent on the distance. Since we know that UW’s success rate is higher with FG’s than their success rate on 4th and short, this is probably the only part where part 2 is relevant. No expected value for converting a 4th and short is given.

In part 3, they talk about the probability of a successful conversion based on several factors, and they offer an arbitrary example. No expected value for going for it on 4th and short was given.

by Carl Shinyama on Oct 3, 2011 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions  

Because it is based on FIELD POSITION.

If you convert a 1st and 10 and the ball is spotted at the the 35, or a 3rd 25 and the ball is spotted at the 35, both would be identical in expected value to converting a 4th and 1 and the ball is spotted at the 35 because because the EP for a 1st down 35 is identical to a 1st down on the 35 the field at any time during the first and third quarters (which the guy basically says so in part one).

The only difference between those is that on 1st and 3rd down, if you don’t convert, you don’t turn the ball over, whereas on 4th down, if you don’t convert, you do. From there, all it really does is comes up with a formula to weigh the value of where you are on the field vs. where your opponent will be if you fail to convert or after you score and kick the ball off to the opponent and where they end up. It’s a formula for potential, not to measure probability.

So with that said, it’s ultimately an EV for field position, NOT circumstance, and circumstance is really what you’re trying to compare, but without a concrete EV for converting a 4th and 1 like what is offered for making a field goal at certain parts of the field, a valid comparison cannot be made.

But let’s get to the heart of it: If you’re a coach, and your team is in the earlier part of the first quarter with a 7-point lead, and you know that your FG kicking unit is more reliable than your offense’s ability to convert 4th and short, which do you choose?

It’s a choice of moving ahead with a near-certain 10-point lead or a 50-50 chance of giving the ball back with only a 7-point lead. Which do you choose? It’s a choice of probability vs. potential, so which do you choose? Which is the smarter choice?

 

by Carl Shinyama on Oct 3, 2011 12:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

You're trying to make it a choice between safe and not, but that's not what it is.

And you’re argument that it isn’t an EV for a 4th and 1 is wrong. It is an EV for 4th and 1 because you know the EV of the 1st down at the 31, you know the EV of giving them a 1st down, and you can approximate the success rate of going for it. How is that not an EV of going for it?

Your first paragraph is true but irrelavent. And your claim that it is an EV for field position and not the attempt to go for it doesn’t follow for anything you said.

You can’t just say that its a choice of a near certain 10 point lead or a 50-50 chance of giving them the ball with only a 7 point lead. Those are NO WHERE NEAR the actual percentages or values of the two options.

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 3, 2011 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

Do you really think we only have a 50-50 shot at getting 1 yard on a 4th down?

Just because there are two outcomes does not mean the probability of either is 50%

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 3, 2011 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions  

Really, no expected value was given?
A 4th down and 3 conversion attempt from that part of the field would be successful 56% of the time. A successful conversion would mean a 1st down at at least the opponent’s 34, which is worth 3.0 EP. A failed conversion attempt give the opponent a 1st down at his own 37, worth 1.1 EP to him and -1.1 EP to us. The total expected point value of going for it would be:
(0.56 * 3.0) + ((1-0.56) * -1.1) = 1.2 EP

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 3, 2011 12:05 AM PDT up reply actions  

useless, easily maniuplated junk data:

9 seasons and 2400 NFL games’ worth of information from the 1st and 3rd quarters

reliable, useful data:

Eric Folk being 6-6 this year from 30-49 yards

by Will Kier on Oct 2, 2011 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

it was sarcasm

I think I’m going to respond to your post just above here though because it more directly addresses the idea I disagree with

by Will Kier on Oct 2, 2011 7:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

ahh sorry nevermind, don't wait on it

the discussion just above has left a great sadness in me, so I’m going to look up some photos of Dubs to cheer me up

by Will Kier on Oct 2, 2011 9:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

HOLY CRAP!

I just saw how this sub-thread exploded.

So, this is what fans of 4-1 teams debate? Wow. I’ll take it.

for the record, I agree with Carl, studies be damned. The situationally correct move was to put the points on the board and put Utah in a two possession deficit right away. Knowing that this is perhaps the weakest offense in the PAC, the pressure on them would have been greater. I get the whole “% of the time” argument presented by the NFL study, but the situation is part of the equation.

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon

by Gekko Mojo on Oct 3, 2011 4:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

DB's are more D's less B's

Our DB’s were consistantly giving up 10 yards on 3rd and 8 or 6 yards on 3rd and 5. Utah converted too many 3rd downs we should have stopped.

Seriosly, stop them before the bright yellow 1st down line, we all see it! =)

by sdhuskyfan on Oct 2, 2011 9:02 AM PDT via mobile reply actions  

The most striking point on DBs

I think that Ducre has proven himself a better corner than Q presently. I am not sure how much the ankle/foot is bothering Q still, but damn he still looks a lost or slow on the uptake out there, it is really disappointing. At this point they obviously are red shirting Peters, but I am comfortably now with a Trufant/Ducre tandem.

by kschimke on Oct 2, 2011 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions  

Looks like Q has become the nickle back.

by Snostrebla on Oct 2, 2011 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions  

And just like the band, everyone dislikes him

Except for opposing QBs, of course

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by cdlewey on Oct 2, 2011 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

Love the picture

I love the picture of Coaches Dougherty and Nansen on the Seattle Times sports page(online). What kid wouldn’t like playing for a coaching staff that brings such energy and fun.

by Juneautom on Oct 2, 2011 9:07 AM PDT reply actions  

I thought it was staged

but it was taken by a SLC guy. I mean, it was shot from a low point, and there knees bent gave them a max air look like they were K Williams or somebody. If I was in that picture, I would have it framed and displayed in my office.

by dawgdude on Oct 2, 2011 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions  

Was gonna say, those old men can get up!!

Last PAC-10 Rose Bowl winner not named USC....Washington

by DAWGFATHER91 on Oct 2, 2011 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

Not me

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon

by Gekko Mojo on Oct 2, 2011 9:49 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

I've been having issues with SBN and Google Chrome.

"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"

by Lear Pilot on Oct 2, 2011 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions  

Huge win for the Dawgs!!!

This really sets us up in great position to get healthy and roll the second half of the schedule. After watching Stanford and oregon I think both are beatable. Both have great offenses that will be hard to stop but both are not nearly as good on D as they were a year ago. With our much improved O we should be able to score quite a few points on both teams.
-I was wondering why Montana didn’t get some time as well, especially with Price be hobbled.
-I thought our play calling was a bit conservative and unimaginative in the first half
-Kearse at LB is going to be a stud. Really love watching him.
-Glenn and Parker are the bst Safety combo we’ve had in years
-Dennison is a warrior…as usual
-the D is much better with a helathy Tokolahi

Watch for the D & O to be MUCH improved after the bye. GO DAWGS!!!!

by Snostrebla on Oct 2, 2011 9:25 AM PDT reply actions  

I actually think we match up pretty good with both of them.

Given steady defensive improvement, of course.

Sark is a hyper-competitive dude, and these are the teams in his way. He’s had a year to work the problem. At this point, I would be mildly surprised if he doesn’t knock off one of the two this year.

by Hawnk on Oct 2, 2011 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

The tree must pay for last year's effrontery.

We must cut it down, slice it up, and build from its boards a jakes in which we might crap comfortably upon the heads of our enemy.

by Bugs Dodger on Oct 2, 2011 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

Indeed

But neither Sundodger or Kirk think Stanford is mortal

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon

by Gekko Mojo on Oct 2, 2011 1:16 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

The Ducks are the soulless demonspawn.

Stanford won’t even see us coming.

Last year’s team was a lot more than luck. With the loss of Harbaugh and their depleted line, they’re far from invulnerable.

Who have they played? Duke? Pardon me for not pooping my pants.

by Bugs Dodger on Oct 2, 2011 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

you have to admit...

…Stanford’s looking pretty good so far this year.

by kirkd on Oct 2, 2011 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm going to be at that game.

The Utah win looked good, but I don’t think we’re quite ready to duke it out with The Furd at home. We’ll see after the bye week, I’ll feel better if the defense can enforce its will on what looks to be a terrible colorado team.

by Drew_D on Oct 2, 2011 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

No I don't.

…they are efficient and they definitely have been physical. But, they’ve had several slow starts against as weak of competition as you can find and their passing game really hasn’t clicked at all.

Luck is a Heisman candidate on reputation right now – his numbers don’t support it.

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon

by Gekko Mojo on Oct 3, 2011 4:46 AM PDT up reply actions  

What does a "slow start" have to do with anything?

Stanford is winning its games by an average score of 46-12.

by Sundodger on Oct 3, 2011 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions  

wow

You really just refuse to give credit where credit is due when it comes to Stanford.

by kirkd on Oct 3, 2011 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions  

wow continued
…and their passing game really hasn’t clicked at all

Hooooo-kay.

Andrew Luck, 2011 season stats:
71.4% completion pct
12.7 yards per completion
9.8% TD pct
0.9% INT pct

If that’s “not clicking”, I’d hate to be on the receiving end of their passing offense “clicking”.

by kirkd on Oct 3, 2011 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions  

He’s on pace to throw for more than 3,000 yards, 30 TD’s, and only 3 picks. He’s averaging better than 9 yards per attempt, too.

If he could ever break out of this slump, Stanford could be a decent team. Until then, they’ll have to continue wallowing in the back of the pack.

by Sundodger on Oct 3, 2011 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

Wow, that is horrible!

They should fire Nick Holt too!!!

"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"

by Lear Pilot on Oct 3, 2011 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

UW tends to struggle against spread offenses.

On top of that, Oregon’s offense is multi-dimensional, not unlike Nebraska.

But yes, hopefully, the defense continues to improve. The Huskies will need them to be clicking to have a chance to win either game.

by Carl Shinyama on Oct 2, 2011 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

Funny...

I feel the exact opposite. I think we match up much better with oregon. Oregon doesn’t pass well. With a healthy Tokolahi our run D should be very good. Last year we shut down their run game in the first half. In the second half we ran out of gas but we have a deeper rotation this year on the DL. Really, the reason we got blown out by oregon last year was because of special teams. I beleve we gave up 298 yards and a TD on special teams to them. We won’t beat many, if any teams if we do that again especially oregon.
Stanford on the other hand is pretty balanced on offense and physical on their OL….not a great match up for UW.

by Snostrebla on Oct 2, 2011 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

Really????

Ummm… they rank dead last in the PAC12 in passing offense.

by Snostrebla on Oct 2, 2011 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

no, they don't

Oregon ranks 16th in the country and 4th in the conference in pass efficiency offense. Using passing yardage to judge passing is worse than using batting average to judge a hitter.

by kirkd on Oct 2, 2011 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

The PAC12 site just updated it’s stats. Oregon is 4th in pass eff. but 10th in passing. The combo of the two tells the real story: ey throw a lot of short high % passes for not a lot of gain. In other words…they have no deep threat.

by Snostrebla on Oct 2, 2011 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

pass efficiency isn't perfect as a stat...

…but it’s far more telling than simply looking at passing yards per game.

by kirkd on Oct 2, 2011 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

True. As I’m sure you know, teams that are constantly behind tend to rack up more passing yards while trying to catch up. As for pass efficiency, if a team features a lot of bubble screens then they probably have a high efficiency % but that doesn’t necessarily make them a good passing team. There should be a stat that combines the two as it’s the combination of the two that tells the story.

by Snostrebla on Oct 2, 2011 9:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

Just what football needs…another stat.

by Snostrebla on Oct 2, 2011 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

I love new stats that can show new information.

Kind of like ESPN is trying to do with the ultimate QB rating or whatever it is. I really like that they discount interceptions on Hail Marys, since those do not reflect a QB’s decision making or accuracy but instead reflect how desperate the situation is.

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 2, 2011 9:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

In what, may I ask?

Total yards? They average 234.2 yards passing per game, 10th in the conference which is due more to the amount of attempts which averages out at 27.0 per game, not because of inability to gain passing yards. For your information, UW averages 241.8 yards passing per game, 9th in the conference.

But if you want to talk stats, I can do that: Darron Thomas is completing 61.1% of his passes, he has thrown 12 passing TD’s to just his one interception, he averages 7.8 yards per attempt. All of these are very solid numbers. his rating is 161.4. They can pass.

Oregon’s passing yardage is so low because Oregon chooses to run the ball 40 times per game, and only pass the ball 20 times per game. They run so much because they average 7.4 yards per carry. When you have LaMichael James averaging 9.4 yards per game, why pass all the time?

I have to ask you: Are you actually basing your matchups based on numbers, rather than actually scouting the the teams? If so, this is a faulty way to gauge matchups.

by Carl Shinyama on Oct 2, 2011 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

I base it on what I’ve seen. I rarey look at the stats. In my opinion we match up better against a running finess team than we do a power running team with the best QB in the nation.

by Snostrebla on Oct 2, 2011 7:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

Thoughts....

1. Perfect timing for the BYE week! By the time Colorado rolls in to town, Price should be in much better shape, Tokolahi should be almost full health, Q. Richardson will be back to full speed.

2. D-LINE – The d-line looked pretty decent yesterday, but, they still are having quite a bit of trouble generating consistent pressure on the QB. I really like having Tokolahi back, he and Ta’amu combined really eat up a ton of blockers, so hopefully it will start to free up the DE’s to have 1 on 1’s with the tackles.

3. Secondary – Still REALLY shaky, I love Parker and Glenn, but every single game there is a GIANT seam in right in the middle of the field, about 10 yards deep. Every opponent has found that seam, and we give up a ton of yards right there. Maybe that’s Dennison’s fault that he doesn’t drop back into coverage? maybe the safeties fault? Not sure, but I hope Holt has a plan to fix it, because we will get taken advantage of by the QB’s in the PAC12 if that weakness doesn’t go away.

by jacobcda on Oct 2, 2011 9:33 AM PDT reply actions  

I'll still take a porous pass D over a porous run D

Our division features Stanford, Oregon and Oregon St, after all

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon

by Gekko Mojo on Oct 2, 2011 9:51 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

I think at some point the annoucers said something about our players not understanding how to play zone defense

I’d agree with this. I also am not sure if we are athletic enough to play man-to-man on the best WRs. A deadly combo that is going to be the main frustration with this team all year.

by Edgar for Pres on Oct 2, 2011 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions  

THey said the young LB’s don’t understand where to drop to.

by Snostrebla on Oct 2, 2011 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

More specifically

they said they were dropping to the center of their zone every time, instead of keeping their eyes forward and adjusting the zone to the offensive routes.

by SeaHuskies on Oct 3, 2011 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions  

yep

Too often we’re seeing these guys drop into a zone and hesitate to actually cover a receiver that enters their zone. They definitely seem to be favoring keeping plays in front of them rather than committing to cover a guy and risk a second receiver entering their zone and burning them.

by kirkd on Oct 3, 2011 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions  

Kearse TD's

Kudos to Dawgfan83 in the times for mentioning this. Both Kearse brothers scored TD’s last night. Mom and Dad feeling good today.

by Juneautom on Oct 2, 2011 9:49 AM PDT reply actions  

Linebacker zone coverage

We as fans put to much onus on safeties and DB’s for failed coverage. Watching yesterdays game ( and will be looking for it going foward) I saw countless times when our LB’s, Dennison included, dropped into coverage and were dropping to deep for the routes being run or not getting into their drops fast enough. LB"s cannot arbitrarily drop into a 12 yard zone. They must use their keys and drop according to the routes being run. This all comes from experience. So when we see receivers running open, especially on those 10 yard over the middle of the field completions don’t be so quick to burn Parker, Glenn or the other DB’s. Unless its Q. Somehow it usually is his fault.

by CgHawk360 on Oct 2, 2011 9:52 AM PDT via mobile reply actions  

JB - you stole my picture!

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon

by Gekko Mojo on Oct 2, 2011 9:53 AM PDT via mobile reply actions  

Ooops!

Sorry…I was late getting stuff out today.

UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle

by John Berkowitz on Oct 2, 2011 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions  

UW not ranked in either AP or USA Today

I am glad UW isn’t ranked to be honest, gives the kids something to shoot for and won’t have their head inflated going in to an easily winnable home vs Colorado game in two weeks. I’ll take the disrespect.

by kschimke on Oct 2, 2011 10:03 AM PDT reply actions  

The Utes will be more offended by this than we will be.

by Bugs Dodger on Oct 2, 2011 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions  

HAH

Never thought of it that way. Burn.

by kschimke on Oct 2, 2011 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

I'm glad ASU moved back up.

And I agree that it’s best for us to not be any more cocky than we might be otherwise. As far as Colorado’s concerned, we’re WSU’s football-challenged little brother. Nothing to worry about here, hippies. Roll another number for the road.

by Bugs Dodger on Oct 2, 2011 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions  

Q Rich

Looking back at the game on DVR. Ducre is doing a much better job than Q. It was sad, at the end of the game, the other defensive backs deflected passes and then Q rich gives up 6.

Its apparent that Ducre should start, but will Quintin Richardson get better with a rested ankle, or is Ducre just better at that CB spot and needed reps to show it?

by CouveDawg on Oct 2, 2011 10:24 AM PDT reply actions  

I've always felt that Richardson and Trufant are just not fast enough to go in stride with top tier WR

Is this actually true or am I just taking a selective sample of when they get beat to form my opinions?

by Edgar for Pres on Oct 2, 2011 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions  

Trufant

Trufant (at least) seems up to the task with many of them, but I don’t think that speed is the whole issue. Nick Holt said himself at the end of last year that Q Rich didn’t always have his head right in the games. I liked what Q brought in the last 4 games last year, but that guy hasn’t showed up this year. Experience doesn’t seem to have helped him. Ducre is the future.

by CouveDawg on Oct 2, 2011 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

Couple Thoughts

DB’s. Ok it was 305 in the air but the last drive was like 70 yards. This was a weaker passing attack but they did very well.

Amosa – He has to be on that surprise list. he has been a stud
Ducre – I think he will be starting more games
Kearse- had two big drops. ASJ is a beast. reminds me of how dominate Jerramy was at times.

by CODawg on Oct 2, 2011 10:33 AM PDT reply actions  

Kearse

He had more than two….

UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle

by John Berkowitz on Oct 2, 2011 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions  

Even my non-huskies friends who watch the game comment on how many drops he has

He’s never gonna make the next step of being a great WR at this point. I’ve never seen a WR so bad at catching the ball. He would be so good….

by Edgar for Pres on Oct 2, 2011 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions  

K. WIlliams

On a bright WR note, Kasen Williams really showed up yesterday. I recall a pass that he caught and it took 4 utes (equivalent to one Stanford cardinal) to bring him down. He was impressive.

by CouveDawg on Oct 2, 2011 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

I counted 3

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon

by Gekko Mojo on Oct 2, 2011 1:42 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

That's about par for the Kearse. (sorry...)

What is a germane curse for a dropped pass? Drat? Darn? Dammit?

by Hawnk on Oct 2, 2011 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

NEIN, NEIN, NEIN!!!!!!

"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"

by Lear Pilot on Oct 2, 2011 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

Rankings

AP 28
Coaches 31

How is a team 4-1 and has won 8 of the last 9. Talk about lack of respect. I get we were low but we should have jumped lots of teams. Hell A&M choked the last two weeks.

by CODawg on Oct 2, 2011 10:37 AM PDT reply actions  

This is the first game we have one by more than 8 points.

We haven’t exactly dominated teams like EWU or Hawai’i. And that Nebraska game hurt us a bit. Possibly a blowout against Colorado will remedy that.

by Hopefulmsfan on Oct 2, 2011 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions  

How many

BCS schools would have our recored in last 9 games and not be ranked. I dont care who they beat

by CODawg on Oct 2, 2011 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions  

Its not like we have been that impressive so far this year

Even Nebraska hasn’t looked that good.

We’ll probably barely be ranked after our next game if we win but our following schedule is going to be pretty tough. People know we are probably not in the top 3 Pac12 teams and its not like the Pac12 is stacked this year. We are a good team but expecting us to be ranked is probably a little hopeful. I don’t think we are quite there yet.

by Edgar for Pres on Oct 2, 2011 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions  

The last thing we need to worry about is being ranked

Take this time to heel up, work some kids over for depth purposes (Hatchie comes to mind). And get ready for a strong push thru the next round of games. What good does it do if we beat Colorado convincingly to get ranked? The way this team is improving, I think we have a legit shot at beating both Stanford and Oregon. Just win and the respect will follow.

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Oct 2, 2011 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

Truffant Issue

Okay, Truf is doing a great job for us at CB. Yet we want and need to get better, right? So with that in mind: Truf needs to learn how to make a tackle in open field, and not just make a play for the ball when it is our of his reach. Most recievers are taller and/or can jump higher than Truf – so he must to learn that sometimes the throw will be in that narrow range that is above his reach, but not the recievers, and make a freaking tackle!

by The Dude 4 Real on Oct 2, 2011 11:20 AM PDT reply actions  

Its pretty hard. Probably the hardest thing to do in football.

Safeties are suppose to see plays coming and help out. That’s their job. CB can’t try to do everything.

by Edgar for Pres on Oct 2, 2011 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I thought Tru is actually pretty good in one on one situations.

I’m guessing The Dude has a few specific plays in mind which I don’t doubt but I think in general our secondary is decent in open field.

by I'mSureI'veSeenWorse on Oct 2, 2011 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

Truf Has Given Up At Least 2 TD's This Season

One at Cal, and then another for the Utes, when he made a play for the ball only, when the throw was out of his reach. Was not able to see the Nebraska game, so not sure if there may be more.

Now I know it is one of the finer skills of secondary D, but even in high school, my coaches had our DB’s focus on knowing when to make a play for the ball, and when to focus on making a hard-hitting and well times tackle. Yes, Truf is going great… I’m just saying that this is the one and only mistake that he needs to overcome how.

by The Dude 4 Real on Oct 2, 2011 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

His tackling has never been the problem. He is a great tackler and constantly makes good tackles on running plays and screens.

What play are you talking about from yesterday? The only one I can think of is where he went for the ball and still forced the Utah player out of bounds.

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 2, 2011 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

I agree, but Trufant seems to prevent more TD's than he gives up.

I’ve seen him defend at least 5 passes, if not more in the endzone. This is not including the passes he’s defended that could have been taken to the house.

by Carl Shinyama on Oct 2, 2011 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

Maybe we're talking about two different situations.

I thought you meant plays in which the catch has been made and attempting to break it up was out of the question. Just pure tackling, not decision making. I see your point. Agreed.

by I'mSureI'veSeenWorse on Oct 2, 2011 11:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

Tru is a 1:1 eraser

Actually, the tackling has been pretty good all year. Positioning has nor

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon

by Gekko Mojo on Oct 2, 2011 1:45 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

Great game for the Dawgs!

Very impressed by the team going on the road and winning in convincing fashion. The offense started off rough, but got their swagger back in the second half. When Price and Polk are on, this offense is going to be almost unstoppable.

Defense was much, much, much, much better. Unfortunately one good game doesn’t suddenly mean that Nick Holt is a good coach. If he holds Oregon to 21 points, then we’ll talk. Having Tokolahi back and playing against a mostly pro style offense definitetly helped the defense.

I love seeing all the young talent filling in and stepping up. This could be the start of a very good season, but the future will be even brighter!

"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"

by Lear Pilot on Oct 2, 2011 11:35 AM PDT reply actions  

Umm Utah is mostly a spread offense

Urban Meyer brought it in and Whittingham kept it. Chow might change it over the course of time, but it’s still a spread at this point.

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Oct 2, 2011 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

No it's not.

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon

by Gekko Mojo on Oct 2, 2011 1:47 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

Well then what the hell is it?

Pro style is base off a two back formation. Not once did I see two Utes in the backfield. They had a one back set or a no back set all damn day. It’s spread or pistal, but definitely not close to pro.

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Oct 2, 2011 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's just as "pro style" as we are.

Is a one back offense, pro style or spread? Pro offenses use a lot of single back formations, or a decent amount of shotgun formations. You don’t have to use a fullback every play to be pro style. Shoot, I’d call our offense more of a “multiple” offense (using some pro, some one back, some spread) than a “pro style” offense.

"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"

by Lear Pilot on Oct 2, 2011 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

Our offense is based off the 2 back formation

And we run power I out of that formation. It sets up our play action. Like pro ball we have a ton of four receiver series. We will also use a spread series to some degree. But make no mistake the foundation of our offense is power I pro style.

Utah was never in a power I formation. They went one back to no back formations. That isn’t pro. I do however think Chow will change the offense to a more traditional pro style offense. Maybe not to the extreme of using a power I formation. But I do see something in the terms of Erickson’s one back offense or some version of it.

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Oct 2, 2011 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

You need to watch the game again.

I bet you’d be surprise at how often they used “pro style” formations and how often we didn’t.

"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"

by Lear Pilot on Oct 2, 2011 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

Also

they changed the offense when Wynn came out to try and take advantage of the backups running ability. Pro style suits Wynn but apparently not for the other guy.

by SeaHuskies on Oct 3, 2011 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions  

You just can't give Holt any love can you?

Held Cal to 3 points in the 2nd half, and only gave up one meaningful TD to Utah on the road. The defense is playing leaps and bounds better as I predicted. How’s that crow taste? LOL :)

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Oct 2, 2011 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

You are full of crap!

The defense is playing leaps and bounds better as I predicted.

What an amazing prediction!!! I never would have guessed they’d get better . . . . oh . . . .wait, even I predicted they’d get better as the season progressed!!! When you have one of the worst defenses in the country, saying they are going to improve is like saying, “it’s dark outside, I predict the Sun will come up tomorrow!”

One game doesn’t prove anything. Even if the defense plays lights out, knock down, rip every head off, football for the rest of the season, I’m still going to be terrified of how bad the defense will be for the first 4 games next season!

"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"

by Lear Pilot on Oct 2, 2011 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

Weren't you on the Fire Holt Bandwagon?

And it’s not one game. It’s one and a half games if you take into account we’ve only allowed 10 meaningful points in the last 6 quarters of Pac 12 football. Gotcha Lear :)

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Oct 2, 2011 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

OH MY GAWD!!!!!

1.5 games of good defense, fire Sark and put Holt in charge!!!!!!!!!!

For the record: I have not called for Holt to be fired (this season), but I have said that he is not performing, his defense is under performing for the talent on hand and his position needs to be seriously evaluated at the end of the season. I don’t know about you, but if I only did my job well 50% of the year, I’d be dead or fired.

"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"

by Lear Pilot on Oct 2, 2011 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

If you're going to say that 1 game isn't enough of a sample, than how big is your sample that you say he's underperforming?

The defense didn’t play well in the first 3 games of this year. Every year we have seen improvement though, I’m not sure what exactly you’re asking for.

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 2, 2011 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

How about

I’m going off all 30 games. I know I am repeating myself, but I believe our defense is not performing to the level of talent that we do have. Every season is the same story: Nation’s worst defense for the first third of the season, average defense for the middle third of the season, then a pretty good defense for the final third. When is Nick Holt going to have his defense prepared at the beginning of the season?

I totally agree that the defense has always improved from first game to last game, but looking at the stats, the defense has NOT improved from year to year.

"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"

by Lear Pilot on Oct 3, 2011 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think that some of our defensive players that we lost had more of an impact than assumed

Mason Foster is proving how valuable he was by his play in the NFL. Nate Williams also played really well for us, as did Vic Aieywa. Its not like our corners have changed in the 3 years. There are a lot of young players developing, it doesn’t seem to me like the schemes are the problem.

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 3, 2011 9:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

Thank God!!!

"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"

by Lear Pilot on Oct 3, 2011 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm pretty sure both teams play with teenagers . . .

or guys in their early twenties.

"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"

by Lear Pilot on Oct 3, 2011 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

Improvement yes, but . . .

There’s a low threshold from which to start. I loved the aggressive play on D yesterday, and the results speak for themselves, including rushing yards allowed, and more importantly the W’s for the past 2 weeks. However, I’m not convinced that Utah is an elite offense, and when we face Stanford, Arizona, Oregon, and USC the real test will be had. Let’s just see how we all feel after that stretch, against some high-octane passing attacks. Our secondary is where I continue to have major doubts.

I’m far from sold on Holt, but I’ve said it more than once – I want to be wrong! Rationally, we should be able to agree that none of us here can say with 100% certainty that Holt is either “the man”, or a “bust” – subjective descriptions, I know – so we all interpret what we see, and come to what we believe is a justified conclusion. Nonetheless, what we all end up with are probability-based opinions. My opinion still skews to the negative on him, but I will say the weighting of that opinion moved in his favor yesterday. Let’s see how this all plays out before we anoint him or crucify him.

by NY85Dawg on Oct 2, 2011 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

I mostly agree,

just one small change: My opinion still skews to the negative on him, but I will say the weighting of that opinion moved slightly in his favor yesterday.

"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"

by Lear Pilot on Oct 2, 2011 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

I Agree with all the above!!

Let’s consider yesterday a start in the right direction.

Last PAC-10 Rose Bowl winner not named USC....Washington

by DAWGFATHER91 on Oct 2, 2011 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

Montana question

Did any listen to Soft’s post game show – they talked about Montana and what they thought about his future I only caught the very tail end. Did any hear what they said and can you share? Thanks

by lorenzothedog on Oct 2, 2011 1:50 PM PDT reply actions  

Didn't hear but will share my thoughts

Price and Montana battled it out during the offseason. Montana had every chance to beat out Price, but unfortunately didn’t. I was a big Montana guy and thought he would’ve been Locker’s replacement. At this point I am very glad I was wrong in my assumption. Price has been lights out great in his first year and the fact that he is succeeding a living legend in Locker makes it even more impressive.

This is Keith Prices’ team now and in the future. I think he’s earned the tag that this is his team. Montana is a talent, but as of now he is going to have to wait his turn. At some point the kid will get into the game and he’d better make the best of it to show what he can do. I didn’t have a problem staying with Price yesterday, even though it would’ve been nice to see where Montana was in his game. But this is officially the Keith Price era, he’s earned it.

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Oct 2, 2011 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

They basically said the Montana family has a history of transferring

Then Softy said something about he may have to wait till his last year for playing time, and Millen countered with “KP can be knocked out of the game at any time with how fragile he is so far”. That was about it.

by kschimke on Oct 2, 2011 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

Montana would be wise to stick around

He going to receive the best QB training if he stays. Everyone is questioning the durability of Price and his knees. With Price playing hobbled their is a better then average chance we might see him in action as early as this year. However, Price has earned the starting job. I think all Husky fans would agree to that. Heck Nick might have to give his approval to Price too.

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Oct 2, 2011 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Obviously I have never met Nick, but from what I have read and the actions I have seen, he seems like more of a team player than a guy who will transfer at the first sign of adversity. I know his brothers have transferred, but I just don’t get that vibe (I hate that word) from Nick.

"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"

by Lear Pilot on Oct 2, 2011 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

Millen said that?

I have a hard time calling football players “fragile”, especially when they’re playing WITH the injuries instead of missing time because of them.

by Carl Shinyama on Oct 2, 2011 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

Why does everybody think 4 and short is a Sark thing?

Have you been watching the game the last half decade? Everybody is going for it on 4th and short these days. Coaches have come to the conclussion that they’d prefer to keep the offense on the field rather then punt it into the endzone. I’d personally like to see us punt more in those situations to attempt to pin the opposing offense inside th 5 yard line. This isn’t a Sark thing. It’s a college football thing. Les Miles does it, Pete Carrol did it. Chip Kelly does it, Chris Peterson does it, even Charlie Weis did it. Relax on the 4 and short thing. Now if we attempted a 4th and short on the long side of the field then I’d be a little upset of the call. If you go for it and if you are 60% successful then I say go for it.

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Oct 2, 2011 1:51 PM PDT reply actions  

There have been studies done that show it is almost always better to go for it if it is 4th and 1.

Not only that, but I think we can all agree that is the attitude we want our team to have.

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 2, 2011 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

Agreed

I’m not sure why Husky fans are upset with the idea to go for it. Is it because we didn’t get the 1st down? Well sometime you’re going to win the 4th down and other times you have to tip your hat to the defense in stopping it. I thought it was the right call to go for it in that situation. the score was 7 to 0 in our favor so if we don’t get it we still had the lead.

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Oct 2, 2011 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

Absolutely

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-4.html

This is one of many studies that support being more aggressive on 4th downs. It’s a bit geeky in terms of data crunching, but it gets the point across. Of course it’s situational, but Sark is both playing the right percentages, and developing a team character I like. There’s a good return for the risks he’s taking, however I’d like to see him mix up the play calling a bit more in those situations.

by NY85Dawg on Oct 2, 2011 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, it's not just about the points in that situation.

It’s about the mindset of the team – Sark’s sending a message that he trusts the offense to get it done and be better than the other guys, and I really like that. The research shows that going for it is better, and I think it’s also better for outside reasons.

by huskies2010 on Oct 3, 2011 6:30 AM PDT up reply actions  

4th down

We are talking about a 4 and 1 play but it was not a gimmy FG by any means. It was either a 50 yarder or 48 yarder. Yes Folk has been money but that is not guaranteed points like people keep saying. It that is a 35 yarder Sark has something to think about. In this situation where we scored on the first play, caused a 3 and out and then were driving again. You go for the knock out punch in that situation.

If you want to play the what if game, here is one for you. What if they block the FG attempt and run back for a TD?? (which is quite possible as with longer distant FG the ball comes out much lower to compensate for the long distance. ) We will never know but what I am saying is that those points were not guaranteed with a FG and bad things can still happen in that situation too. Always two sides to the story, but with Polk back there I bet we get one yard more often then not.

by DAWGFAN87 on Oct 2, 2011 2:04 PM PDT reply actions  

Plus on the road you want TD more then FGs

FGs on the road lead to losses. TDs on the road lead to wins.

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Oct 2, 2011 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

It was 45 yards in the altitude.

… it was pretty much a high percentage kick.

He should have kicked it.

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon

by Gekko Mojo on Oct 2, 2011 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

Hind sight is always 20/20.

Obviously we can now say he should have kicked it, but I have no problem with an aggressive call in that part of the field.

"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"

by Lear Pilot on Oct 2, 2011 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

Honestly both the field goal attempt and 4th and 1 probably had similar rates of success and whether or not you like the call depends on your risk aversion

Personally I like a less risk averse coach, especially with a good offense and undependable defense, but to say he absolutely should have kicked or absolutely should have gone for the first down is something I can’t agree with.

by Gihyou on Oct 2, 2011 8:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

+1000

Both options have valid reasoning behind them. At the time I was favoring a FG try, but I can understand why Sark went for it.

by kirkd on Oct 2, 2011 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

The one thing that’s gotten left out of this debate is the momentum shift of getting a first down on 4th &1 vs. kicking a fiel goal and the message it sends.

kicking a field goal is like say “fine, you stopped us. We’ll take our three and get out of here”.

Getting the 1st down is like saying “We don’t think you can stop us”.

I can see both sides but knowing a little bit about Sark it seems like he likes to send the bigger message.

by Snostrebla on Oct 2, 2011 9:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

Its impossible to know which was the "correct" choice because we can't nail down the exact percentages and parameters of the situation.

But we can go off of historical evidence and get a pretty good idea about what the correct decision was.

You’re right though that this one was right on the borderline of that, a lot of debate to be had about the factors involved.

by UW11Bowdown on Oct 2, 2011 9:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

You're too reasonable.

Get out of here! There’s no room for understanding on this blog!

by I'mSureI'veSeenWorse on Oct 3, 2011 12:18 AM PDT up reply actions  

just watched the highlights

did anyone else notice on the opening kickoff that there was a big red deflated plastic thing behind the endzone? a little fortelling, huh?

by CAHusky on Oct 2, 2011 3:18 PM PDT reply actions  

Montana should have played

Really don’t understand why Price played that last series. The game was decided, Price was gimpy, Montana has yet to see any action – why not get him some game experience?

I could go either way on the 4th & 1 call. Coaches are way too conservative in general, and I’m glad that Sark is willing to play the percentages rather than play it safe. On the other hand, in the thinner air a 47 yard attempt by Folk should have been considered high percentage as well.

Defense got some opportune turnovers in the first half, and made their own luck by laying hard hits and shutting down the Ute running game. Pass defense still needs work and the pass rush is still to inconsistent, but a step in the right direction. As I thought all week long, this Ute offense didn’t impress me and was a good opportunity for the Husky D to “get well”.

So where has Utes_real2008champs hiding? A lot of bold talk in the prediction thread…

by kirkd on Oct 2, 2011 3:40 PM PDT reply actions  

Well said, as always.

Completely agree with every point. Stunned Price and Polk didn’t get pulled for the last series. Utah fans need to man up and take they’re beating like men. There was a lot of mouthing off, it’s time they showed up, eat the crow, and regain our respect.

"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"

by Lear Pilot on Oct 2, 2011 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

Agreed

Yet a 31-7 road victory is sexier then a 31-14 victory. Was Sark caught up in the idea that he wanted to turn some heads with a road blow out victory? That would seem logical since he kept Price and Polk in the game. If this wasn’t the bye week, I’m sure both Montana and Sankey would’ve finished the game. But since we had a bye week coming up, the sexy final score was withiin our grasp.

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Oct 2, 2011 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

Shirely Surely Stepped up

With the injury to Jamora, I was a little apprehensive how it would effect our ability to control the perimeter. Shirley did a great job and has finally arrived. The opening sack was awesome. But then again he was not blocked. One sack, but the guy continued to harrass the QB all day. Didn’t always get there but he was within an arms length on most occasions.

Going forward I saw him at times over run the pass rush. He needs to start zeroing in on the target. He’s got all the best stuff to be a great pass rusher. He’s young, and I think he’ll focus more on finishing the pass rush thru the QB. He didn’t really wiff on his rushes, more like out ran them at times.

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Oct 2, 2011 4:09 PM PDT reply actions  

I agree

Watching the highlights it wasn’t as if Shirley made the Tackle look bad. It was as if Shirley was invisible to the Tackle because he didn’t even look in his direction. Total blown protection by the Tackle or the RB there. Nice for him to get it, but what on earth was the Tackle thinking?

Benno

by Benno on Oct 3, 2011 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

My thoughts, assumptions, and such.

1. We were up by 24 points with 9 minutes left in the game. Sark said something prior to the game along the lines of: “We’re going to put it all out there, knowing that we have a bye coming up to get healthy.” It’s a 3 possession game and, yes, teams have blown that kind of lead before. Sark wasn’t taking any chances at all with that lead and he made it crystal clear. Utah had the ball for the last 4 or 5 minutes I believe? At that point if we had the ball I’m sure you would have seen Montana but since we didn’t you just saw a really long drive against soft zone by Utah.

2. For those of you having the heated debate about Sark going for it on 4th and 1 I refer you to this article. There are several other studies out there and quite frankly if you took the excessive amount of time to do the math on your own you’d find that going for it on 4th down far outweighs punting/kicking field goals in many situations. Is that the reason Sark goes for it? I highly doubt it. But I don’t think you guys should get upset about it because statistically he’s actually making the better decision when he does. (Side note: The guy featured in the article is the one whose team scored 29 points before the other team even held the football. So ya, he knows what he’s doing.)

3. I know this is looking ahead a little bit but here’s some food for thought: If we beat Colorado and then somehow miraculously pull off a major upset against Stanford we will very likely get College Gameday in Husky Stadium to face O****n for the last home game before we renovate. If the team continues to improve and be successful, we might be looking at Gameday in 2013 for the Boise State home game. How freaking awesome would that be if we could have Gameday to close out the old and ring in the new for Husky Stadium?

4. Gilliland and Kearse need to play A LOT more.

by JoeinFW on Oct 2, 2011 8:52 PM PDT reply actions  

Gilliland and Kearse

I was saying that all last week and the responded.

by CODawg on Oct 3, 2011 8:43 AM PDT up reply actions  

Thoughts

- I’m over the 4th and 1 debate.

- I loved the post game interview they did with Keith Price on the radio. He took responsibility for his mistakes and promised to improve. That’s the kind of thing you need from your quarterback, he’s confident but doesn’t act like nothing was his fault.

- In terms of defense, I wish we were dominant, but I also wish we could watch a simulated game with our players and make the corrections we think they should make. Take the classic, “we’re giving them way to much space off the ball” complaint. I say it like 10-15 times a game. What if theY started playing bump and run… Do we all of a sudden dominate? No, i bet we’d give up even more big plays. I think they’re playing with what they have. Also, the defense needs to function as a unit. Everyone needs to improve. Our corners should be quicker to react just as much as our defensive line should get after the quarterback a few seconds faster. I’m not convinced we have the talent to be a suffocating defense. Not yet at least. For some teams, “bend but don’t break” is almost a mandatory strategy. As sickening as I feel for typing that, I think it’s true.

- Lastly, we’re 4-1. Hell yeah. Bow down to Washington.

by I'mSureI'veSeenWorse on Oct 3, 2011 12:15 AM PDT reply actions  

You know your QB is playing well when...

…he goes 22-30 for 226 yards, with 3 TD’s and a pick, and that game lowers his passer efficiency rating by over 3 points.

by Sundodger on Oct 3, 2011 9:02 AM PDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the UW Dawg Pound, an unofficial site for Washington Husky fans.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Learjet31a_1_jpg_small
Question of the Day:
T9odawgtest_small
A few Spring Game thoughts.
P1010006_small
Who Said College Basketball Recruiting was Supposed to be Clean?
Dubs_close_small
The Future Of Husky Basketball
Small
Updated: Arizona loses at home, Cal faceplants in style.
Dubs_close_small
PAC 12 Pickem Final Results
Dubs_close_small
UW Dawg Pound Tournament Challenge
Small
PAC 12 Tournament Tickets
Dubs_close_small
PAC 12 Pickem Results/Conference Tournament Schedule
Dubs_close_small
Tournament Challenge

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

1959_huskies_small John Berkowitz

Dubs_small thecassino

Editors

W_logo_small kirkd

New_picture_small Gekko Mojo

Beastquakerwallpaper_small Ben Knibbe

Profpic_small JLee2025

Authors

Learjet31a_1_jpg_small Lear Pilot

Dubs_close_small CODawg

Coda_head_shot_250_small S_o_Smith

2721_small ToddWilliams206

P1010006_small Randall Floyd