Maybe this has already been discussed here, but

This topic has 8 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by Dhisatake.

Viewing 7 reply threads

Author

Posts
- 10/31/2016 at 9:50 AM #18203
  
  Larry B
  Participant
  
  Why did we not have someone in the backfield on the Browning pooch punt? There was NO WAY Washington was going for it on 4th and 8 at midfield. Even if you don’t have Boobie back there, at least have a safety there.
  
  That IMO was the worst coaching decision of the game and was the reason we lost. Even if we had started at the 10 yard line we could have run clock and got into scoring range. Shoulda woulda coulda, I guess.
- 10/31/2016 at 10:00 AM #18204
  
  voxnihili
  Participant
  
  IIRC, the returner ran up to cover an uncovered receiver. If he doesn’t do that, Browning options out to a pass for an easy first down opportunity. That’s the reason Washington runs that QB punt.
- 10/31/2016 at 10:09 AM #18205
  4
  
  UtahUteGuy
  Participant
  
  Nonsense. The reason we lost is because Washington is a slightly better team. One moment in a game can’t be “the reason we lost”. Our fans are unbelievable sometimes.
  - 10/31/2016 at 10:18 AM #18207
    
    Larry B
    Participant
    
    @UtahUteGuy
    
    I agree that Washington is the better team. But having a 90 yard field with over 3 minutes in the game and one of the best field goal kickers in the country? I’ll take that all day. But instead we had a 99 yard field which gave our punter no room to get off a good kick.
- 10/31/2016 at 11:14 AM #18212
  
  GameForAnyFuss
  Participant
  
  @Larry B
  
  I disagree about the punt – he got off a great punt. The problem was it was too great. When I saw it leave his foot I said to my neighbor “uh oh, he just outkicked his coverage.” Sure enough…
- 10/31/2016 at 3:07 PM #18237
  
  Utahute72
  Participant
  
  There were actually two guys down in time to cover the punt, but one was taken out by a block in the back.
- 11/01/2016 at 11:35 AM #18278
  
  dleto
  Participant
  
  Also, one thing that people are forgetting is that we’re lucky we didn’t get called for too many men on the field on that play. There was someone relatively deep. I couldn’t tell if he was set to receive the ball or not. But when the camera panned with the ball, there was a Utah player RUNNING OFF THE FIELD! And there was a D lineman who was really late getting on the field. So we either had too many men or only 10 on the field. Something was botched. Coaches definitely should have called a timeout and we were lucky to not get hit with a penalty.
- 11/01/2016 at 12:07 PM #18280
  1
  
  Utahute72
  Participant
  
  I don’t think Washington looked like a clearly better team (and I think the voters who watched the game agreed). That game was really close and each team had some good plays and some bad ones. A classic college football game. I bet that if those teams played 10 times the split would be 5-5 or 6-4 either way.
- 11/01/2016 at 1:17 PM #18284
  
  Dhisatake
  Participant
  
  So 9 out of 10 times even with the pooch kick Utah ends up with better field position. And 40 percent of the time Utah ends up with a touch back and starts on the 20.
  
  You might be able to argue why didn’t Utah take a time out at that point and get a better plan like go with a Cover 1 and have the safety drop back if it is a pooch kick but otherwise Washington completes a pass and coverts fourth down.
Author

Posts