Because you are playing to win and not playing to lose. You are in control of the outcome not the other team. This will pay off down the road and they will win.

 

The message you send to your team is we are better than them and I believe in you kids to get the job down in one play.

 

Exactly, you have the control, if you tie it you no longer have that control

I think it's a bonehead move to go for two. You have all the momentum and X hasn't been able to score or keep you out of the end zone. Tie it up, get a stop, score again and get the win. Desperate call...

 

They were going to end up in OT, and no one wants to go to OT against a team like X, it wouldn't have been in their favor.

How does going for two make you a winner? It makes you a gambler...you rolling the dice on one play instead of giving your kids a chance to make a stop in overtime. If anything it tells your kids that we can't win in overtime, so we better try now and hope we get lucky. Completely wrong message to be sending to your players...

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I will respect yours. But on the flipside, not going for two can portray the same message. I feel going for two, on the road, is the right call.

Wow must have been a great second half for the Bruins.

It was a great game the Tigers should have put it away but did not close the deal. The X offense could not get in sync because they kept switching QB's and one clearly out played the other tonight. The Bruins have a ton of talent and will make a run this year. Hall was the difference in the game and X needs to get him some touches on offense as well as Devonte. A great way to start the season.

 

I thought playing guys both ways was anathema to Coach Glaser.

I seem to recall a pre-game rumor that St. X had some key injuries. Did this affect the game, or was St. X at full strength?

 

It will be interesting to see how the Trinity-Ballard game goes.

Very surprised this one was so close.

The early score returns - esp. 28-0, had many thinking (including me).."same old Ballard..same old X." Obviously not the case. Congrats to B on the comeback - as well as the try for the Win. I agree with the earlier quote about 'gaining alot of respect."

 

Great game to and for both.

X was without LaMont McMurray, not sure he could have been any more productive than Jay Hayden at RB. The defense was at full strength and that's where we were exposed. Someone besides Daylen Hall is going to have to step up and make plays in the secondary.

X was without LaMont McMurray, not sure he could have been any more productive than Jay Hayden at RB. The defense was at full strength and that's where we were exposed. Someone besides Daylen Hall is going to have to step up and make plays in the secondary.

 

Park

 

What about the QB situation? Cj reported the started would not play - toe injury or something, but understand he may have been inserted toward the end of the game ? thanks.

I think it's a bonehead move to go for two. You have all the momentum and X hasn't been able to score or keep you out of the end zone. Tie it up, get a stop, score again and get the win. Desperate call...

 

Having the momentum is just as good a reason to go for it...all you have to do is get two yards on one play to beat X.

 

I think the beginning of OT kills a lot of the momentum. It's a new game and a fresh start. It allows X to regroup. I don't have a problem with either decision. I think both can be justified. And, like a lot of football decisions, it's genius if it works, stupid if it doesn't....that applies for either scenario.

The injuries did effect the X offense. In the previous scrimmages LaMont and Jay have both been huge weapons. Jay was incredible, never did I think he could be such a workhorse with 30+ carries and 164 yards. Ballard's defense really tagged him several times. Losing LaMont definitely cost X some points as they may not have settled for field goals early on. It's a shame LaMont missed this game as there was an impressive group of D-1 talent such as Parker, Hardin and Hall on the field. These guys all made fantastic plays tonight! Brohm was injured and only attempted about three passes. Mattingly filled in quite well at QB. Great early season game for both teams, they will learn a lot from such an early season matchup. Nice to see these coaches will schedule tough ones early to find out what they need to work on.

The injuries did effect the X offense. In the previous scrimmages LaMont and Jay have both been huge weapons. Jay was incredible, never did I think he could be such a workhorse with 30+ carries and 164 yards. Ballard's defense really tagged him several times. Losing LaMont definitely cost X some points as they may not have settled for field goals early on. It's a shame LaMont missed this game as there was an impressive group of D-1 talent such as Parker, Hardin and Hall on the field. These guys all made fantastic plays tonight! Brohm was injured and only attempted about three passes. Mattingly filled in quite well at QB. Great early season game for both teams, they will learn a lot from such an early season matchup. Nice to see these coaches will schedule tough ones early to find out what they need to work on.

 

Nice analysis and insight. :thumb:

Go for the win on the road and the tie at home. That football rule is as old as the hills. Way to go, Coach J.

Lamont McMurray is a weapon for sure...maybe he breaks one, maybe he doesn't. I just don't want use injuries as an excuse for almost getting beat at home. 35 points should have been enough to win by two or three td's. Our lack of defensive depth was exposed in the second half. We tried to play our two's and Ballard would start moving the ball and then several of the 1's would come running back onto the field. The fact that Daylen Hall, John Allen and Devontae Beach(defensive starters) all three played significant minutes both ways speaks volume for our lack of depth.