Fake??

The Rock · Unread post by **The Rock** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 8:35 pm

When points are at a premium, WHY did we fake the FG??? Bad call

appchicago · Unread post by **appchicago** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 8:48 pm

Yeah. Hated that call. Would have hated it less if it had worked... but still wouldn't have loved it.

appfan83 · Unread post by **appfan83** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:24 pm

I'm scratchin' my head on that one also.

NewApp · Unread post by **NewApp** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:52 pm

The Rock wrote:When points are at a premium, WHY did we fake the FG??? Bad call

Perhaps the staff thought that it would take a TD to win it. Still a risky call.

WVAPPeer · Unread post by **WVAPPeer** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 10:02 pm

I actually liked the call - Toledo defended it great - most defenses would have been fooled and given up a sure TD - You just have to have faith in your players to make plays going forward to make a call like that ---

appbanker · Unread post by **appbanker** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 10:18 pm

I thought Critcher did a good job. His receiver had lead feet and did make a good target.

NoLongerLurking · Unread post by **NoLongerLurking** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 10:31 pm

Loved it. Would have been hospitalized had it worked.

JTApps1 · Unread post by **JTApps1** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 11:25 pm

WVAPPeer wrote:I actually liked the call - Toledo defended it great - most defenses would have been fooled and given up a sure TD - You just have to have faith in your players to make plays going forward to make a call like that ---

The fake didn't bother me at all, and it almost got us a first down. My issue was throwing 3 passes in a row to set it up after we had marched down the field with the run game. In the end it didn't matter!

AppAlum1 · Unread post by **AppAlum1** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 11:28 pm

I was OK with the fake. And, Critcher threw a perfect!!! pass. From where we sat it looked like pass interference.

WVAPPeer · Unread post by **WVAPPeer** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 11:46 pm

JTApps1 wrote:
WVAPPeer wrote:I actually liked the call - Toledo defended it great - most defenses would have been fooled and given up a sure TD - You just have to have faith in your players to make plays going forward to make a call like that ---
The fake didn't bother me at all, and it almost got us a first down. My issue was throwing 3 passes in a row to set it up after we had marched down the field with the run game. In the end it didn't matter!

I absolutely agree...

EastHallApp · Unread post by **EastHallApp** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:21 am

No problem with it. FG was far from certain with the wind. Don't think this thread would exist if it had worked (or if they'd thrown the PI flag).

If anything I thought we should have gone for it on 4th and 1 the next time, but our kicker came through and theirs didn't, so it all worked out.

The Rock · Unread post by **The Rock** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:30 am

EastHallApp wrote:No problem with it. FG was far from certain with the wind. Don't think this thread would exist if it had worked (or if they'd thrown the PI flag).

If anything I thought we should have gone for it on 4th and 1 the next time, but our kicker came through and theirs didn't, so it all worked out.

Why?? Rubino had been solid for the last month or two especially at the 30-35 yd range. We were around the 20 I believe. So a 30+/- FG in a tie game when we were having trouble moving the ball should be a no brainer. We just as easily could not have made it to FG range on the next drive, and Toledo could have been going for the winning FG on their last drive as opposed to the tying one.
In the end, it neither helped nor hurt App, but seems like you would always put the "likely" points on the board at that point in the game with a tie score.

proasu89 · Unread post by **proasu89** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:18 am

Having the ball on the right hash MAY have influenced the call. The go ahead FG was in the middle of the field.

T-Dog · Unread post by **T-Dog** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 6:10 am

Some of you can never be happy.

AppSt94 · Unread post by **AppSt94** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 6:24 am

T-Dog wrote:Some of you can never be happy.

You
We corner the market on second guessers. Nevermind, I just looked at the Toledo message board. They have way more than we do.

Yosef84 · Unread post by **Yosef84** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 7:05 am

The fake FG was an aggressive play but almost paid off. Credit Toledo for defending it very well. Toledo had been answering every time we scored and I think Coach Satterfield rolled the dice trying to keep the advantage. He was also aggressive when he went for it on 4th down from the 12 yard line, but that ended up in 7 points. We won the game against a very strong Toledo team and this season is in the books. No reason to second guess plays at this point.

App91 · Unread post by **App91** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:32 pm

my thought was why not, its a bowl game

eggers76 · Unread post by **eggers76** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:54 pm

"It's the last game of the year, you can't hold anything back Brent"

The Rock · Unread post by **The Rock** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:30 pm

T-Dog wrote:Some of you can never be happy.

I started this thread directly after the play. Obviously I'm happy with the win, just don't understand not putting points on the board at that time.
If we were down 4-6 points, at that time, I could understand trying the fake. Toledo would expect us to take the FG, rely on our offense to get the ball back for the game winning FG attempt, but if the fake is successful, we would take the lead.
But when we had been struggling to move the ball, later in the game, I would expect is to take the points.
Anyway; it's a moot point and proud of our hard fought win.

bigdaddyg · Unread post by **bigdaddyg** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:30 pm

We won sooooooo "it just doesn't matter"

Fake??

Fake??

Re: Fake??

Re: Fake??

Re: Fake??

Re: Fake??

Re: Fake??

Re: Fake??

Re: Fake??

Re: Fake??

Re: Fake??

Re: Fake??

Re: Fake??

Re: Fake??

Re: Fake??

Re: Fake??

Re: Fake??

Re: Fake??

Re: Fake??

Re: Fake??

Re: Fake??

Login • Register