Wednesday, September 21, 2011

National Story

Boomer and Carton

Columbia play-by-play man Jerry Recco is a member of the on-air crew on WFAN's "Boomer and Carton" in the morning show simulcast across the country on the MSG network.

This morning Boomer and Carton were giving Recco grief about Columbia's decision to go for it on the now infamous 4th and goal play at Fordham that resulted in a 101-yard INT return for a Ram TD.

So now we're a national story.

Hopefully, we'll get their attention again when Columbia does something good.


At Wed Sep 21, 02:32:00 AM GMT+7, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did Recco stick to his opinion made at the time?

At Wed Sep 21, 02:45:00 AM GMT+7, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that one facet of the interception debacle has been overlooked so far in the histrionics of the comments section.

The decision to go for the touchdown instead of a field goal is a separate decision than the play call which followed.

The decision not to kick in that particular game decision has been discussed ad infinitum. I'd like to turn the conversation over to the call itself. That kind of wide angle pass into the flats is an inherently risky throw. The defensive backs are playing up to begin with because they only have 12 yards of field to defend. Any interception is basically begging to be returned for a touchdown.

At Wed Sep 21, 05:38:00 AM GMT+7, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great point. The pattern was DOA for precisely that reason. I had no problem with going for the TD. But I had a huge problem with the call by the coaches, because of the reason noted above. That we compounded by Brackett's poor decision, which he has recognized, of trying to force the pass into coverage.

At Wed Sep 21, 05:39:00 AM GMT+7, Anonymous Anonymous said...

PS, we have flirted with disaster on that sort of pattern many times in this offense.

At Wed Sep 21, 06:52:00 PM GMT+7, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with everyone else going for it was not a problem. The high risk play was. Very risky with low success rate. Sometype of option would have been better, although, I am guessing the coach felt they would be looking for that.

At Wed Sep 21, 08:15:00 PM GMT+7, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Going for it was a bad decision, for reasons previously discussed. College teams have less than a 50% chance of success scoring on one play from the three; likelihood of changing the momentum for Fordham, etc. But also, we don't have a power back or a big TE, the weapons that improve your odds of punching it in. Given our history (sorry!) of not making big plays, the solid play of our D, and the fragile nature of momentum in football, the decision to go for it was poor. The play call was bad, but probably also a function of our lack of short yardage weapons.

PS -- If we still had Kennedy, it might've made some sense to try for the TD.

At Wed Sep 21, 08:59:00 PM GMT+7, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it's time to move on. It is generally agreed that it was a bad call. Now let's see how we can turn a negative into a positive. Because if we can't do that this early the season, before w have even played an Ivy league team, than we are really in trouble.

At Wed Sep 21, 09:12:00 PM GMT+7, Anonymous Anonymous said...

of course it was a bad decision in hindsight but consider the circumstances:
1) CU's defense was dominating in the first half.
2) FU had been unable to get anything using conservative running plays up the middle.
3) Any play with Brackett is essentially an option, given his running and scrambling ability.
4) Brackett has a history of not making mistakes like that one -- his INT to pass ratio has been very low.
5) The offense had not been able to mount sustained drives to that point in the game. Going for it was both a statement of confidence and a recognition that CU might not get that close again.
6) A fourteen point halftime lead, in a game like this one was shaping up to be, and with FU using a freshman QB under pretty good CU pressure, was worth the gamble.
7) Holding CU to a field goal that far into the red zone would have been a victory for the FU defense.
8) That said, it might have made more sense to put a big tackle in the TE spot, a big guard in the FB spot, and try to overpower the smaller FU defensive line up the middle, with Brackett having the option to slip outside if FU put too much in the box.
You can disagree with the decision, but i don't think you really can fault the coaching staff for it.

At Wed Sep 21, 09:57:00 PM GMT+7, Anonymous Anonymous said...

.... to be fair, we'll never know .... the play that was called by the OC you would think would be based on scouting from the UConn game .... poor call/poor execution ... my personal chopice would have been a fade rather than an out ... throw it where the only one who could get is our guy .... then again, it could have been a great play by the LB .... those of us talking about what happened really don't know what exactly happened ....

Frank F '70C

At Wed Sep 21, 10:25:00 PM GMT+7, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is our first game so let's not be to critical this early in the season! Mistakes happen, we need to focus on what's ahead of us and execute without turnovers!
The coaching is the coaching and that is not going to change, so to be critical at this juncture is moot! Let's be positive during the season and our record will be a big indicator if there should be a coaching change.
This program's ownership is solely a by product of the present coaches and should be evaluated at the end of the season and not during the season. Negative comments during the season have no value!


Post a Comment

<< Home