Page 1 of 2
Chandler Staton
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 12:47 pm
by hotrod2001
After another week and 9 more missed points compliments of special teams, do you think we'll be seeing more of Chandler going forward?
Re: Chandler Staton
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 12:49 pm
by mtnjax
Apparently he kicked our last PAT yesterday
Re: Chandler Staton
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:03 pm
by hapapp
I think if he proves that he is more consistent then he deserves the opportunity. I wouldn't judge his worth by one PAT, after all Rubino made all his yesterday as well. There was/is a reason Rubino has been the kicker. My guess is it will be a competitive week in practice.
Re: Chandler Staton
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:19 pm
by appfanjj
Why not? Give him a chance. Not bashing Rubino. I support him but maybe it is time for a change. Can't help but think our kicking game is going to cost us a close one somewhere along the line. Trying to keep it low key but honestly this is becoming embarrassing and nerve wracking.
Re: Chandler Staton
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:49 pm
by WataugaMan
appfanjj wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:19 pm
Can't help but think our kicking game is going to cost us a close one somewhere along the line.
If memory serves me correctly I believe it already has.
Re: Chandler Staton
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:00 pm
by appfanjj
Yeah. Wake Forest and Tennessee. I would hate to see us lose an outright Sun Belt championship or a bowl game because of a missed kick.
Re: Chandler Staton
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:09 pm
by hapapp
Of course, his FG last week was the difference.
I'm not opposed to the change or giving Staton an opportunity but let's not pretend that Rubino hasn't made his own contributions. He was responsible for 25% of our points last year and was perfect prior to the Wake game. That game seems to be lingering in the back of his mind.
Speaking of weird special teams play, what the heck were we doing on that 2 point attempt? If we kick the PAT. the final margin is 9 rather than a score difference. I've never understood coaches going for 2 when they don't need to. Moreover, that was a wacky call.
Re: Chandler Staton
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 4:03 pm
by SpeedkingATL
hapapp wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:09 pm
Of course, his FG last week was the difference.
I'm not opposed to the change or giving Staton an opportunity but let's not pretend that Rubino hasn't made his own contributions. He was responsible for 25% of our points last year and was perfect prior to the Wake game. That game seems to be lingering in the back of his mind.
Speaking of weird special teams play, what the heck were we doing on that 2 point attempt? If we kick the PAT. the final margin is 9 rather than a score difference. I've never understood coaches going for 2 when they don't need to. Moreover, that was a wacky call.
I would rather see a two pointer done with the regular offense...then again I have not coached a team that is 4-0 in the Belt, won a Championship and 2 Bowl games.
Re: Chandler Staton
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:20 pm
by proasu89
hapapp wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:09 pm
Of course, his FG last week was the difference.
I'm not opposed to the change or giving Staton an opportunity but let's not pretend that Rubino hasn't made his own contributions. He was responsible for 25% of our points last year and was perfect prior to the Wake game. That game seems to be lingering in the back of his mind.
Speaking of weird special teams play, what the heck were we doing on that 2 point attempt? If we kick the PAT. the final margin is 9 rather than a score difference. I've never understood coaches going for 2 when they don't need to. Moreover, that was a wacky call.
I wasn’t paying attention to the failed 2 pt. conversion. Was it the same play that Troy tried (and failed with) on us in OT? If so, no one should ever run that one again.
Re: Chandler Staton
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:46 pm
by hapapp
We snapped to the holder with the rest of the team split wide to the either side. The holder then tried to run. Got stuffed.
Re: Chandler Staton
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:59 pm
by T-Dog
On 3rd and long inside FG territory, I'd rather Satterfield go for the first down and miss than pick up some yards and have a sharper angle.
The kneel-down in the middle of the field before halftime was a terrible decision. Basically said to Rubino that they had no confidence in him. I think that mentally hurt him worse than the first miss.
BTW, Coastal's kicker had missed his previous three FGs going into this game and nailed a 49-yarder. Rubino is fixable.
Re: Chandler Staton
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:16 pm
by hapapp
I didn't realize he was also CCU's punter. He kicks right footed and punts with his left.
Re: Chandler Staton
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:43 pm
by AppSt94
SpeedkingATL wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 4:03 pm
hapapp wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:09 pm
Of course, his FG last week was the difference.
I'm not opposed to the change or giving Staton an opportunity but let's not pretend that Rubino hasn't made his own contributions. He was responsible for 25% of our points last year and was perfect prior to the Wake game. That game seems to be lingering in the back of his mind.
Speaking of weird special teams play, what the heck were we doing on that 2 point attempt? If we kick the PAT. the final margin is 9 rather than a score difference. I've never understood coaches going for 2 when they don't need to. Moreover, that was a wacky call.
I would rather see a two pointer done with the regular offense...then again I have not coached a team that is 4-0 in the Belt, won a Championship and 2 Bowl games.
The PBP guy offered up a possible reason as to why the offense wasn't out there for the two point conversion. His hypothesis was that a team only has a handful of plays for that situation. Those plays were probably practiced with Moore and Upshaw. With both out they didn't have the personnel available to run the plays.
Re: Chandler Staton
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:44 pm
by huskie3
Happ, at the time a 1 point PAT would only have given us a 2 point lead while the 2 point PAT would have given us 3 point lead. So CCU could only tie with another field goal. We had no assurance of scoring again.
Re: Chandler Staton
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:47 pm
by T-Dog
huskie3 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:44 pm
Happ, at the time a 1 point PAT would only have given us a 2 point lead while the 2 point PAT would have given us 3 point lead. So CCU could only tie with another field goal. We had no assurance of scoring again.
You don't chase points with 22 minutes left in the game.
Re: Chandler Staton
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:49 pm
by AppSt94
T-Dog wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:47 pm
huskie3 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:44 pm
Happ, at the time a 1 point PAT would only have given us a 2 point lead while the 2 point PAT would have given us 3 point lead. So CCU could only tie with another field goal. We had no assurance of scoring again.
You don't chase points with 22 minutes left in the game.
The two point conversion chart say that you go for two if up by one.
Re: Chandler Staton
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:17 pm
by WVAPPeer
I think it was the correct call as someone mentioned earlier - try to get to a 3 point advantage - I just didn't understand the play call? I also heard the explanation by the PBP guy - not buying that reasoning ---
Re: Chandler Staton
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 11:11 pm
by /\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09
AppSt94 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:49 pm
T-Dog wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:47 pm
huskie3 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:44 pm
Happ, at the time a 1 point PAT would only have given us a 2 point lead while the 2 point PAT would have given us 3 point lead. So CCU could only tie with another field goal. We had no assurance of scoring again.
You don't chase points with 22 minutes left in the game.
The two point conversion chart say that you go for two if up by one.
"Been there...tried that"
-Bobby Lamb
Re: Chandler Staton
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 11:23 pm
by App91
WVAPPeer wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:17 pm
I think it was the correct call as someone mentioned earlier - try to get to a 3 point advantage - I just didn't understand the play call? I also heard the explanation by the PBP guy - not buying that reasoning ---
Looked to me like the plan was to snap it to the holder and let him try 1 on 11. They seemed to know where the snap was going. Holder did not try to sell it well as he looked back at the bench 3 times as if to say "you really want me to try this?"
Re: Chandler Staton
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:26 am
by hapapp
T-Dog wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:47 pm
huskie3 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:44 pm
Happ, at the time a 1 point PAT would only have given us a 2 point lead while the 2 point PAT would have given us 3 point lead. So CCU could only tie with another field goal. We had no assurance of scoring again.
You don't chase points with 22 minutes left in the game.
Thank you! With that much time and the way the game was playing out, no reason to go for two there.