3rd and 9

[gyroprotagonist 2591]

At the game today and that call was a bitch ass move to not even throw to the sticks.  bert is iffy AF from that range. You go for the first down there.

 

[T’Boo Ted Marshall 2724]

Nuts were on the line. I’d much rather not get it on 4th than kick the FG and bend over for the lube job.

[ztejas 43263]

This thread is ridiculous. How about the defense shows the fuck up and stops them to win the game. 

Sark knows what he's doing. 

[Coelenterate Fuccboi 13010]

1 minute ago, ztejas said:

This thread is ridiculous. How about the defense shows the fuck up and stops them to win the game. 

Sark knows what he's doing. 

Yes, but Vic is actually a hall of fame coach, so he definitely knows better.

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

16 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

I thought Sark ran the ball on 3rd with the intention of going for it on 4th down. I thought that was smart, because it forced OU to call a timeout. Then Sark brought out the FG team. 

No, then sark ran out the offense and caught ou unprepared personnel wise and without a timeout, but apparently didn’t call a real play so instead of snapping the ball they just called timeout after the hard count didn’t work and then sent out the fg team. 

[Vic Mackey 46934]

Yes, but Vic is actually a hall of fame coach, so he definitely knows better.

I know playing for field goals is a loser mentality.

[TexasMan 10786]

4 minutes ago, ztejas said:

This thread is ridiculous. How about the defense shows the fuck up and stops them to win the game. 

Sark knows what he's doing. 

Enough blame to go around today.

Only thing I'll give PK credit for is there is no way he could have known how bad Ford was going to be today. 

[Basil 742]

Mr. All gas, no brakes did a hell of a Turtle Tom impression to close out that game.

[Treefidy 1463]

4 hours ago, Levi said:

The servers on this site would have crashed in a nanosecond if we went for on 4th down and didn’t get it, leaving OU in great field position to drive into field goal range.

Kind of like the site would have crashed if a kicker who struggled last week would have missed a 47yd kick and left OU with a short field and good shot to win?

We had the ball and control at that point.  The right 3rd down call would have been to treat it as 2 down territory and play accordingly.  Burn their last timeout, burn clock, hold onto the ball until the end.  Try to get well into fg range with no time left, or at least move them as far from our end zone as possible. 

[OU Sucks 8746]

5 minutes ago, Basil said:

Mr. All gas, no brakes did a hell of a Turtle Tom impression to close out that game.

[Vic Mackey 46934]

Kind of like the site would have crashed if a kicker who struggled last week would have missed a 47yd kick and left OU with a short field and good shot to win?
We had the ball and control at that point.  The right 3rd down call would have been to treat it as 2 down territory and play accordingly.  Burn their last timeout, burn clock, hold onto the ball until the end.  Try to get well into fg range with no time left, or at least move them as far from our end zone as possible. 

And for awhile, it did look like 4 down territory. And when we took the field on 4th down, I'm like ok, that 3rd down call makes more sense. But nope, it was just a bluff and and we kicked. Sark was absolutely playing for the FG with that call. Not even a short FG, a pretty long one. Just dumb.

[Michael Knight 12890]

51 minutes ago, nineliveslost said:

Same bullshit for most of the last 30 years. The D line played weak and without effort. O line let OU rub their nuts across them. So many dumb play calls. This game was really Texas getting drunk and having fun thinking they are all that and then reality shows up.

 

We are who we thought we were 

 

More wandering until the stars align

Jesus if going 13-2 is wandering then I never wanna go home.

[Dahobbs 17444]

3 minutes ago, Treefidy said:

Kind of like the site would have crashed if a kicker who struggled last week would have missed a 47yd kick and left OU with a short field and good shot to win?

We had the ball and control at that point.  The right 3rd down call would have been to treat it as 2 down territory and play accordingly.  Burn their last timeout, burn clock, hold onto the ball until the end.  Try to get well into fg range with no time left, or at least move them as far from our end zone as possible. 

Which is what it seemed we were doing and it is almost like Sark second guessed himself. 

Edited October 8, 2023 by Dahobbs

[B00M 6280]

34 minutes ago, ztejas said:

This thread is ridiculous. How about the defense shows the fuck up and stops them to win the game. 

Sark knows what he's doing. 

You really weren’t yelling to go for it on 4th down? I’ve never lost an erection faster than when it became obvious we were just trying to draw them offsides 

[scottsins 1953]

And for awhile, it did look like 4 down territory. And when we took the field on 4th down, I'm like ok, that 3rd down call makes more sense. But nope, it was just a bluff and and we kicked. Sark was absolutely playing for the FG with that call. Not even a short FG, a pretty long one. Just dumb.

I wonder if he still kicks the fg is it was 4th and 2 instead of 4th and 4.

[B00M 6280]

21 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Which is what it seemed we were doing and it is almost like Sark second guessed himself. 

I assumed someone talked him out of it but I have no idea. Regrets…

[Nueces River Rat 5529]

5 hours ago, lilMAC25 said:

Im not as upset about us not going for it on 4th, EXCEPT for the idea that OU had their kick block team in and wasn’t anywhere near set. Even given that, I still don’t mind us not going for it there on 4th.

 

I have a huge issue with the tempo in that drive. Just like Tech 08, it cost us the game by having us snapping the hall with 20+ sec on the play clock multiple times.

Did that really happen with the play clock?   I wasn’t paying attention to that, but if that happen, then yes fuck us. 

Edited October 8, 2023 by Nueces River Rat

[Levi 2576]

8 minutes ago, Treefidy said:

Kind of like the site would have crashed if a kicker who struggled last week would have missed a 47yd kick and left OU with a short field and good shot to win?

We had the ball and control at that point.  The right 3rd down call would have been to treat it as 2 down territory and play accordingly.  Burn their last timeout, burn clock, hold onto the ball until the end.  Try to get well into fg range with no time left, or at least move them as far from our end zone as possible. 

Well Bert already made a 45 yard FG previously which is more devil advocate from me but at least we can see where sarks head was at when he sent him back out for a go ahead 47 yard FG. I agree tho the risk of him missing it was there but I’m not going to complain for 3 points we did get rather than what could’ve been. We came away with the lead which was the goal of the drive. If we were to start with the 3 & 9 call, it’s easy to see where his head was at. You can’t take a sack, like they already did on first down, because then you’re out of FG range and it’s a long 4th. An incomplete pass is also technically out of FG range, too. We run for 5 yards or less and we’re in the same spot or worse than what actually happened. That’s why I believe the 3rd and 4th down calls were fine from a risk perspective. A different play call on 3 & 9 would be a roll out play action and if it’s not there have  Ewers tuck it and make OU call a timeout. 
 

We got the ball on our own 15 with 4:42 on the clock. When the clock struck 3:05 we were at the OU 49. You want to know how much time we Sark took off the clock? A whopping 15 seconds. We took off 30 seconds the next play. There is absolutely no reason as to why we shouldn’t have slowed down and milked the clock once we got across the 50. Gabriel scored with 15 seconds left in the game. Sark mismanaged the clock before OU ever touched the ball and it cost us the game. 

[MIkeHoncho 1895]

25 minutes ago, B00M said:

You really weren’t yelling to go for it on 4th down? I’ve never lost an erection faster than when it became obvious we were just trying to draw them offsides 

Only issue here is that Ewers should have had an option to snap it or not, depending on the defense they had.  Regular defense - try to draw them, Field Goal block, go ahead and snap.  Whoever was "covering" JWhitt left him alone. Snap and hit him and it's easily a 1st down if not TD.  He was all alone. 

 

[Brothahorn 10085]

As aggressive as he normally is no idea why he puckered his asshole here. We were rolling in the passing game, they had lost a numbers of players in their secondary, no reason to not challenge them there.

[Goredho 17346]

Championship teams close it on D when they pull ahead by 3 with a minute and a half to go and the other team out of time outs.  3rd and 9 didn’t lose this game.  Prevent defense, pass interference and thinking we had won lost this game.

Edited October 8, 2023 by Goredho

[TwiceHorn 31268]

6 hours ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

* Multiple lack of focus pre-snap (e.g. not biased/opinion-based/Rig XII) penalties

 

Because this mostly hasn't been a problem all year, unlike last, I think you have to attribute a lot of that to Majors going out.

[Coelenterate Fuccboi 13010]

1 hour ago, Vic Mackey said:

2 hours ago, Coelenterate Fuccboi said:

Yes, but Vic is actually a hall of fame coach, so he definitely knows better.

I know playing for field goals is a loser mentality.

[Vic Mackey 46934]

Championship teams close it on D when they pull ahead by 3 with a minute and a half to go and the other team out of time outs.  3rd and 9 didn’t lose this game.  Prevent defense, pass interference and thinking we had won lost this game.

Championship teams also go for the win when you can when you have the ball in your hands and don't rely on a shaky defense. If we want to play that game.

This isn't football from decades ago. At every level, teams can move up and down the field under 2min in a hurry. When you play not to lose and for FGs, that's a loser mentality. And that's not going to win much.

[lilMAC25 3778]

9 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

Championship teams also go for the win when you can when you have the ball in your hands and don't rely on a shaky defense. If we want to play that game.

This isn't football from decades ago. At every level, teams can move up and down the field under 2min in a hurry. When you play not to lose and for FGs, that's a loser mentality. And that's not going to win much.

If you’re gonna play for a FG, you damn well better run more clock than we did today.

[Nueces River Rat 5529]

46 minutes ago, Brothahorn said:

That is good ice cream. 

[cmontexas 3253]

Ohio State would have won the National championship last year had they not played the end of the Georgia game exactly the same way Sark did this one 

[troph 24562]

Sark said in the post game presser they were playing to run out the clock had an RPO called for second down that ended in a sack and at that point and no point earlier was he thinking get the field goal but on 3rd he needed 4-5 yards and didn’t think he could afford an incomplete pass. That decision wasn’t terrible. Honestly it shows the margin here for winning and losing was one play. Any one of 20 plays go different and it’s a win. 

Edited October 8, 2023 by troph

[GreenspointTexas 9564]

The 3rd and 9 call didnt lose us the game

 

hiking the ball with 25 seconds on the play clock every play of the final drive lost us the game

 

thats on sark. He was fucking drunk at the wheel at the end of the game. Embarrassing

[Hornius Emeritus 12419]

2 hours ago, Basil said:

Mr. All gas, no brakes did a hell of a Turtle Tom impression to close out that game.

What are you talking about? We went ahead with 1:15 left in the game. We had an 88.7% chance of winning at that point.

[troph 24562]

Yeah I’ve come around to fuck the hurry up / definitely go no huddle prevent subs and call at the line. But the actually hurry up - snapping the ball with 20 seconds on the clock - was a huge mistake once we crossed the 50 yard line. The game was tied. Play for the win or OT. Do not let them have the ball back. 

Edited October 8, 2023 by troph

[dcar00 14035]

10 hours ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

What are you talking about? We went ahead with 1:15 left in the game. We had an 88.7% chance of winning at that point.

Chatgpt doesnt know who our DC is and that rig 12 wants ou to win that game

[DanTheHorn 4901]

20 hours ago, Vic Mackey said:

Absolutely putrid playcalling on this play. Ewers has been 1 incompletion from perfect after a poor start. OU had no answer for our passing game and you call that play? You don't even give Ewers a shot to put this game away. Sark played for the FG. I did think he was going to nut up and go for it on 4th down and maybe that 3rd down play call made sense but nope. Sark was playing for a damn near 50yd FG with a ton of time left to only be up 3.

 

Oklahoma had not scored since 10:21 left in the 3rd quarter. If you are Sark as far as you are concerned your defense has found its footing and Gabriel is missing wide open receivers and seems to be choking. Of course you are going for the lead. He was betrayed by PK and an atrocious prevent defense strategy.

Sark's failure in that scenario in my view was either telling PK to play such a strategy or not telling PK before the last drive you better fucking not come at them with your preferred prevent strategy.

[DanTheHorn 4901]

12 hours ago, GreenspointTexas said:

The 3rd and 9 call didnt lose us the game

 

hiking the ball with 25 seconds on the play clock every play of the final drive lost us the game

 

thats on sark. He was fucking drunk at the wheel at the end of the game. Embarrassing

Why does everyone that makes the we should have not gone with tempo argument assume that changing what had been working for us was going to work? The tempo strategy got us within a first down of winning that game. The bad RPO sack is what what put the game in jeopardy. They made the play when it was needed and we did not make it. What lost us the game was prevent defense at the end.

Edited October 8, 2023 by DanTheHorn

[GreenspointTexas 9564]

33 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

Why does everyone that makes the we should have not gone with tempo argument assume that changing what had been working for us was going to work? The tempo strategy got us within a first down of winning that game. The bad RPO sack is what what put the game in jeopardy. They made the play when it was needed and we did not make it. What lost us the game was prevent defense at the end.

Agree to disagree. See bama game last year and 2008 tech, off the top of my head

 

did anyone really think we were gonna stop Gabriel with 4 downs the whole way? Its hard as fuck to stop a team going 4 downs on a final drive

[A’Dam Psycho 1469]

6 minutes ago, GreenspointTexas said:

Agree to disagree. See bama game last year and 2008 tech, off the top of my head

 

did anyone really think we were gonna stop Gabriel with 4 downs the whole way? Its hard as fuck to stop a team going 4 downs on a final drive

As soon as we sent the FG unit out, I thought best case scenario was OT. No way did I think we were stopping them from at least getting into FG range. 

[Dbeasy 14966]

Texas had just lost a year ago on kicking a field goal and then watching Alabama March down the field in a minute to win. 

College football today is littered with games where a team marches down the field in a minute to win. 

The defense struggled all day to contain Gabriel and stop the OU offense. 

Sark himself has said multiple times he wants to play aggressive to win.

The other plays in the game are not relevant to the question of whether this was a bad play call or not. Texas had an opportunity to keep the ball to the end of the game and the play call should be evaluated in that context, not ifs and buts of other plays.

Texas had shown a few times the ability to execute successful plays of that distance on 3rd down and ensure Ewers didn’t get sacked.  They rolled him out, etc  

It was a horrible play call and it cost them the game and possibly the national championship. Only pussies defend the call.  

 

[BigHorn'13 3352]

16 hours ago, Auto Driller said:

When you look at the entire sequence, it almost seems like we were playing for overtime.

This is the part that gets me and what people aren't understanding here. The game was already tied. We were already on our side of the 50. Multiple injuries in ou secondary. At that point, you're playing against the clock. Go for it on 4th, against their ST unit no less, and you've got a more than decent shot to pick up the first and continue to drain clock and win. If you don't get the first, then you've still burned time and the game is still tied.

With kicking the FG and kick off, giving it to them automatically at the 25 (WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T HE SQUIB DOWN THE MIDDLE?!), what's the big difference in yards? Like 7 or so putting them at the 32? 

[Not a cat 5618]

6 minutes ago, A’Dam Psycho said:

As soon as we sent the FG unit out, I thought best case scenario was OT. No way did I think we were stopping them from at least getting into FG range. 

This.  Best case scenario if he makes it is overtime.  If he misses it, and let's be honest Auburn has not exactly been Justin Tucker, the likely scenario is a loss.

The only scenario where an outright win was a decent chance was going for it.  

You can game theory all day.  Just plug in percentage odds Auburn makes it, odds we convert 4th down, likelihood of OU getting field goal/TD after kickoff, ou getting FG after failed conversion, ou getting FG after failed field goal.  I think unless you put in some insanely optimistic chances on auburns ability, the best chance of a win was going for it.

[BigHorn'13 3352]

14 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Texas had just lost a year ago on kicking a field goal and then watching Alabama March down the field in a minute to win. 

College football today is littered with games where a team marches down the field in a minute to win. 

The defense struggled all day to contain Gabriel and stop the OU offense. 

Sark himself has said multiple times he wants to play aggressive to win.

The other plays in the game are not relevant to the question of whether this was a bad play call or not. Texas had an opportunity to keep the ball to the end of the game and the play call should be evaluated in that context, not ifs and buts of other plays.

Texas had shown a few times the ability to execute successful plays of that distance on 3rd down and ensure Ewers didn’t get sacked.  They rolled him out, etc  

It was a horrible play call and it cost them the game and possibly the national championship. Only pussies defend the call.  

 

This guy gets it. No one's arguing that the defense didn't suck yesterday. The argument is/was let's not put them in a position to suck again and cost us the game. 

And sure enough, they did. 

[DanTheHorn 4901]

53 minutes ago, GreenspointTexas said:

Agree to disagree. See bama game last year and 2008 tech, off the top of my head

 

did anyone really think we were gonna stop Gabriel with 4 downs the whole way? Its hard as fuck to stop a team going 4 downs on a final drive

The reason time was left on the clock in 2008 was because Colt ran out of bounds after getting a first and goal. If he slides in bound we win or if we catch an easy interception. Against Bama they made a stop on a decent call with a great player. This comes from a guy that thinks Sark is terrible at in game adjustments but thinks yesterday was one of his best in game jobs and one of his worst pregame jobs.

[Slacks 6791]

22 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

First turnover they scored off of. 
Second turnover led to the blocked punt. 
Third turnover led to a 3 and out. 
 

Turnovers didn’t kill us as much as the other braindead decisions and mistakes. 

You can't look at turnovers like that. 

You are only looking at their production off turnovers without looking at your own non-production from turning the ball over. 

Assume the avg points per possession  is worth 2.25 points for Texas. 4 turnovers (if you count on downs) means 9 points off the board. 

You do the same with them... And you see that it really mattered. What happens after is what happens (like we came back) but what if we add 9 points early? Different game. 

I didn't like the goal line play calling at all. 

I was OK with the 3rd and 9 play, because it reduced the likelihood of being out of FG range, and still gave a chance to get the first down. A first down almost guaranteed a win. An incomplete pass would have been OK. A sack would almost guarantee a loss,but with a 4th down to try. An INT would be 99% loss. The math supports the decision, even with how the passing offense was rolling. I would have accepted either option. 

Turnovers and other mistakes (especially penalties) are game killers that are difficult to out coach in game. 

 

[Nicole44 22027]

Most of the game I chock up to rivalry game with huge implications and player execution. But to say the last two minutes or so aren’t at Sark’s feet is I think wishcasting there. I mean I watched Missouri beat Kansas State on a last second field goal. They left nothing to chance. Let the clock wind down each snap on their final drive. Made sure they converted a 3rd down to get a first. Took their time lining up for a field goal. Made sure Kansas State never got the ball back. That’s time management and coaching. My saying that doesn’t mean I think Sark should be fired or isn’t the guy. But Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick people Sark made those calls at the END of game to play for and settle for a field goal with too much time left (ask any team in the NFL that gave the ball back to Tom Brady with a minute and change and less than a seven point lead what happened to them.) that part is on Sark. If you listened to Sark after the game (you can watch a video or google it) he thought he’d won the game with that FG and yes the defense should have held and YES the refs screwed us but OU DOES NOT GET THE BALL BACK IF We LET THE CLOCK RUN DOWN to a few seconds and then kick it. I lay that at his feet. I’ve seen teams do that all season. Win with the last second FG or win by letting the clock run out with a tiny lead. It’s called clock management and that’s under his purview not the players and he whiffed on it. The last two minutes plus were under his control to make sure the other variable didn’t happen and OU never gets ball back. 

[DanTheHorn 4901]

2 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

Texas had just lost a year ago on kicking a field goal and then watching Alabama March down the field in a minute to win. 

College football today is littered with games where a team marches down the field in a minute to win. 

The defense struggled all day to contain Gabriel and stop the OU offense. 

Sark himself has said multiple times he wants to play aggressive to win.

The other plays in the game are not relevant to the question of whether this was a bad play call or not. Texas had an opportunity to keep the ball to the end of the game and the play call should be evaluated in that context, not ifs and buts of other plays.

Texas had shown a few times the ability to execute successful plays of that distance on 3rd down and ensure Ewers didn’t get sacked.  They rolled him out, etc  

It was a horrible play call and it cost them the game and possibly the national championship. Only pussies defend the call.  

 

So you call posters pussy because your argument does not pass muster. He calls a pass play leaves himself outside field goal range and your bitching. The defense makes a stop and your calling the run on 3 and 9 a genius move since OU had not scored since 10:21 in the 3rd. The defensive strategy at the end of the game cost us the win. Mistakes and a slow start put us in position to have to go through that last drive.

Also, the Bama drive only worked because one of our players missed a sure sack and the Bama lineman was allowed to make a flagrant hold otherwise the field goal wins us the game last year.

[utexas8 1433]

Didn’t we have something similar when playing bama. We ran it on 3rd down and got it? Brooks actually gained a lot more than needed? IIRC.
And bama never got the ball back.

[troph 24562]

20 hours ago, Vic Mackey said:

20 hours ago, Treefidy said:

Kind of like the site would have crashed if a kicker who struggled last week would have missed a 47yd kick and left OU with a short field and good shot to win?
We had the ball and control at that point.  The right 3rd down call would have been to treat it as 2 down territory and play accordingly.  Burn their last timeout, burn clock, hold onto the ball until the end.  Try to get well into fg range with no time left, or at least move them as far from our end zone as possible. 

And for awhile, it did look like 4 down territory. And when we took the field on 4th down, I'm like ok, that 3rd down call makes more sense. But nope, it was just a bluff and and we kicked. Sark was absolutely playing for the FG with that call. Not even a short FG, a pretty long one. Just dumb.

He said he decided on third and 9 after a sack to play for the FG. Not a play sooner. Saying he’s a turtle when he played for the lead with 1:17 and OU had burned all their time outs while the D had been on a monster roll the last 3-4 series stopping OU is not a bad chess move. It’s just not. 

[LTtxfan 48966]

Hindsight is 20/20

Texas needs to play better, keep improving, and win next 6 games so we can kick sooners asses... 🤘

[troph 24562]

6 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

Hindsight is 20/20

Texas needs to play better, keep improving, and win next 6 games so we can kick sooners asses... 🤘

Had he gone for it on 4th and missed or called a pass on 3rd for the sticks and missed - playing for the sure win or OT I would not have complained either. The decision tree here wasn’t perfect after the sack. Hell who is to say JB doesn’t break off a 15 yard run for a first? I thought we had been clamoring to run the ball down their throats all week? We actually were running well. Hell the FG was probably long enough to make with with no more yards. But who knew, every one was worried about that kid too. Probably sark too even though publicly he was in his corner. Yeah hindsight is 20/20.

Edited October 8, 2023 by troph

[jdhorn92 1538]

Disagree respectfully. Sack on 3rd loses us the game ; the run killed their last TO….Bama jumped OS and that sealed it, give OU the chance too. Made FG and no TO’s for OU , one stop and it’s game. I didn’t dislike the FG there. We made it and after as shitty as we played we are one defensive play away from winning it. On the last drive , DG made several great plays. Second guess all you want about the clock but we were ahead just like Bama last year thats all you can ask for imo 

[Tex Long 4347]

33 minutes ago, troph said:

Had he gone for it on 4th and missed or called a pass on 3rd for the sticks and missed - playing for the sure win or OT I would not have complained either. The decision tree here wasn’t perfect after the sack. Hell who is to say JB doesn’t break off a 15 yard run for a first? I thought we had been clamoring to run the ball down their throats all week? We actually were running well. Hell the FG was probably long enough to make with with no more yards. But who knew, every one was worried about that kid too. Probably sark too even though publicly he was in his corner. Yeah hindsight is 20/20.

 Didn't OU put their FG team in? I thought we'd go for it against that personnel set instead of the "oooohh, let's draw them offside in a half-ass way" play. A first down there and we're gonna win - run the clock to nothing and let Auburn win it.

On the other hand, taking the "can't lose" FG shot, as we did, is good thinking... if you trust your D. Apparently Sark trusted the D.  

I really wonder if Sark did, and still does, trust the D. You have to assume that he did, but does he still? If he didn't have to do the OC job too, would the HC have time to ride herd on the DC and make sure he keeps  doing what's been working for the last three or four OU possessions?

Dammit.

Are we better than where we were with MensaTom? Oh, yeah. Are headed in the right direction? Seems like it. Almost. At this point, we can only watch and see. I don't think we'll be greatly surprised, either way. Hopefully - and so far - he's past the point in his life where he has to turn to drink or drugs to handle things.