I vocalized my frustration when Dan didn't opt to take the FG on 4th and 2 while up 7 and with our defense thus far playing lights out.

I imagined Charles yelling at his screen "TAKE THE D@%$# POINTS!"

Then when Davison walked into the endzone I of course had to jokingly tell my family I was just kidding...

Anyway, @Charles Fischer I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this and if it changes your mindset at all. I would have taken the 3 points, but in hindsight that might have very well cost OBD the game...

I believe two things in regards to this...

1) We've lost more games by NOT taking the points, than the reverse. Granted it is not many losses under Lanning, and not recently, but the stats are the stats.

2) It does not matter what I think; Dano is going to continue to go-for-it, and the players love it.

Dan Lanning had the attitude that he was playing with house money. Penn State had the returning stars, the bye week and the “white out”. I think his thought was if Oregon is going to steal this one then he needed to take some chances and make Franklin coach all four downs.

That play to me shows the difference in coaches. Lanning seems to believe that you need to take the win from the opponent and Franklin seems to think playing it safe and staying inside the odds is the way to go.

I must admit I’m more of a play it safe and staying inside in the side of the odds type of guy. Lanning seems more like a Han Solo “Never tell me the odds!” Type of guy.

The safer coach has a reputation as a big game choker and the wild one is the hottest name in college coaching. Go figure.

Not taking the points, but instead going for it is choosing program culture over game strategy.

Actually Lanning does both, he picks and chooses what statement he wants to make based on the opposing team and situation. Going for it on 4th down not only makes statment to our players but to the other team as well. Last night DL told JF we are going for broke--and you aint stoppin us!!

I mean ... Dan opted to take the points earlier than going for it on fourth and that resulted on a missed field goal.

Granted if that field goal was made then the game would have stopped the OT. Could have even resulted in Penn State not scoring that touchdown to put it into OT because that final drive of regulation was slow and methodical which is what Penn State needed. But force them to play faster could have resulted in some more bad plays from Allar with the pressure on..

In the end Dan is going to play aggressively.

1 hour ago, David Marsh said:

I mean ... Dan opted to take the points earlier than going for it on fourth and that resulted on a missed field goal.

Granted if that field goal was made then the game would have stopped the OT. Could have even resulted in Penn State not scoring that touchdown to put it into OT because that final drive of regulation was slow and methodical which is what Penn State needed. But force them to play faster could have resulted in some more bad plays from Allar with the pressure on..

In the end Dan is going to play aggressively.

Yeah, you never truly know how the rest of the game would have played out if you could go back in time and change one of those decisions.

The FG that was missed was by no means a gimme, but the 4th down yardage needed was much longer, I believe.

I generally like Dan's aggressiveness. But the one I noted above felt like too much for me. PSU hadn't been able to do anything offensively at that point. The FG was a chip-shot, and would have made it a 2-score game. I was all about taking the points there. Good thing I'm not making the calls.

And the thing we'll never know in the moment is how good they feel about a particular play in a particular situation that gives them the added confidence to go. That run by Davison was blocked perfectly and made it look easy.

I was thinking take the points. And still believe that was the correct call to get 2 scores up. Worked out fine. Hindsight 20 / 20

Thanks, great topic and contents. I don't know if anyone else watched SC at Illinois yesterday. USC scored in the last eight minutes or so to close within eight points of Illinois. SC needed to kick the extra point, score another TD, and kick the extra point to send the game into OT.

Instead, SC went for two. Joel Klatt explained that this is what the analytics say you should do on the road in this situation. Secure the 2-point conversion when still seven points down. If you don't make it, you can tie the game with a two-point conversion. The analytics favor a team making one of the two attempts.

SC made the two-pointer. Scored again with less than two minutes left, kicked the extra point, and went up 32-31. SC was only in the game because twice in the 4th quarter, Illinois RBs fumbled going into the end zone for a TD. The SC D that played lousy all day allowed the Illini to move into FG range. convert a walkoff FG to win 34-32.

This was the sixth time in two seasons SC had a 4th quarter lead against a B1G opponent and lost. 😁

It's not always easy to watch, but I trust Dan and his 'gut' decisions. As Charles noted after OBD lost at UW in the regular season in 2023, the plays were there but the O didn't execute.

22 minutes ago, Jon Joseph said:

SC made the two-pointer. Scored again with less than two minutes left, kicked the extra point, and went up 32-31. SC was only in the game because twice in the 4th quarter, Illinois RBs fumbled going into the end zone for a TD. The SC D that played lousy all day allowed the Illini to move into FG range. convert a walkoff FG to win 34-32.

This was the sixth time in two seasons SC had a 4th quarter lead against a B1G opponent and lost. 😁

Gross time mismanagement there.

They needed to run the ball once or twice to burn the clock or some timeouts.

If they scored on a run play so be it... But a pass play resulted in a touchdown, which is good... But an incompletion would have meant the clock stops and no timeout needed.

I was more disappointed that Riley chose to keep a balanced attack, instead of attacking Illinois' weaker secondary. And this isn't because Indiana scorched them.

USC walked themselves into too many third and medium situations that in my opinion, Illinois could handle. My philosophy is avoid third down frequently, meaning convert as many seconds downs into a fresh set of new downs as your strategy.

USC did that early, then when Illinois started taking control, USC slowed the game down. USC put their very good QB in too many clutch clad situations. Those third downs should be second down situations instead.

From what I'm seeing, if you don't put up 45 points, you stand a good chance of losing. That means trying to score TDs on every drive in the first half. You want your opponent chasing you "out of their game plan" because only Georgia and Ohio State seem capable of handling that kind of pressure ( yes that includes Indiana because they use RPO, which sets up their vaunted passing attack they run to set up their passing).