Answer Caesar

I like the answer. In the past, lack of confidence in the kicker's range may have played more of a role in this decision, but this year that is not the case as the D.B. has plenty of leg for 50 yards.

This year, Carroll just likes going for it. What we have here my friends is a straight-up aggressive coach who likes to gamble. I for one am glad you don't ever hear "Pete Carroll" and "Close to the vest" in the same sentence.

Agreed. McKay was known for going for 2-points with the game on the line (in the days when they had no overtime). It is exciting going for it on 4th down.

And has a 4th down gamble ever cost Carroll? The Texas thing very possibly still would have happened had Carroll punted instead of going for it.

I don't know that it's strategically smart, but I prefer coaches go for it on fourth down simply because I think football games should be left to players, not kickers. That's why I can't stomach to watch NFL (National Fieldgoal League) games.

Carroll's point that making it on 4th down is like a turnover really only applies if the decision is go for it or punt. If you punt, you are giving the ball back without any points. Hence, you save a "turnover" via a punt.

But, where the decision is FG or go for it, and you don't make the fourth down conversion, it's 3 lost points AND a USC "turnover" on downs.

That has cost USC in the recent past. Indeed, the 24-23 Stanford loss was attributable to Carroll eschewing the FG and having Chauncey Washington stuffed for no gain just before the half. The loss to Oregon last year included Carroll going for it on 4th down on the first drive (after Oregon fumbled the opening kickoff), only to have McKnight stuffed on a sweep. That play was a momentum killer, although it didn't necessarily cause USC to lose. Two years ago, Carroll went for it on 4th-and-goal in FG range in the 33-31 loss to Oregon St, but failed to convert. (In fairness, USC was losing 30-10 at the time.)

As for the Texas game, we all remember Carroll going for it on 4th-and-2 with White, but we may forget that in the 1st half, Carroll went for it fourth down while in FG range, only to have Leinart stuffed for no gain on a sneak. USC lost by 3 pts. Further, if USC punted late in the 4th Qtr, it would have given Texas much worse field position. That final drive was "death by small cuts" as Texas slowly, but surely, worked its way down the field. Had it started inside its 20 yard line, Texas might have run out of time before being able to score (Young scored the winning TD with only 19 seconds left).

It's hard to criticize a coach for being aggressive, but sometimes it will backfire.

By the way, LJ, I would add John Robinson (1st era) to the list of USC coaches willing to forego a tie and win with a 2-pt conversion.

Thanks for this question, Scott! This has been bothering me for years. And, USC Mike nailed it! This strategy cost us the Stanford game. It hurt us in the OSU loss two years ago. It hurt us against Texas. But, let me pick the most glaring use of over-aggression from Pete, which USCMike already nails. We are on the road with a back-up QB against #2 and hot Oregon. We get a gift TO in Oregon territory in the 1st half. We go for it on 4th from the 20 and get stopped. We are in a tough game in a hostile environment with the momentum against us. TAKE THE EASY POINTS! Later in the game, we are down 24-10, but IF WE HAD KICKED THE FG THAT 99% OF COACHES WOULD HAVE IN THE 1ST HALF, the score would have been 24-13. Then, on the Sanchez TD pass to Ausberry, we can go for 2 points to make it 24-21, and only need a late FG at the end of the game to tie. We were almost in FG range when Sanchez threw the last INT in that game. Sanchez was pressing knowing we had to score a TD. We would have been in a much better to win that game in OT if Pete had taken the early FG.

I love Pete, but USCMike is right. Going for it in FG range and not making it is like a TO FOR THE OTHER TEAM. This is reckless, statistically bad decision-making by Coach Pete in certain situations. But, it's nice to know what he is thinking. Thanks, Scott and USCMike.

As always, good analysis by uscmike.

However, I would add that individual plays during a ballgame are not played out in a vacuum. That is, what occurred in the first quarter i.e. kicking a field goal instead of going for a first down on 4th, can influence what occurs in the 4th quarter.

The entire dynamics of a game can be greatly changed, depending on the score at any point in the contest.

Does that make sense?

Hey LJ:

You are absolutely correct that a game is dynamic, and an early decision can impact later decisions in the game. My focus was hypothetical, and assumes all other plays remain the same. It is obviously artificial to think in that manner, as you pointed out.

Of course, one play does not necessarily decide the outcome. For example, the Stanford loss could also be attributed to the missed PAT. The Texas loss could be attributed to several dozen plays, including Bush's ill-fated lateral, etc.

Lastly, in Carroll's defense, it's easier to remember 4th downs that were unsuccessful, rather than successful. I remember the Cal game two years ago when USC went for it 4th and short, and Booty delivered a perfect play-action pass to a wide-open Steve Smith for an easy TD that sealed the win.

The bottom line is if USC goes for it, Sark better have the right play call.

Here's the problem I have with all of this.

On one hand, Pete is super-agressive, going for it on 4th down probably more than any other coach in history. On the other hand, despite having superior athletes at virtually every single position, Pete plays a bend but don't break defense for much of the game. Plus, the offensive playbook is filled with an abundance of bubble screens and lateral plays - and a dearth of downfield passes. (although better with Sanchez at the helm)

If you are going to be really aggressive in one phase of the game, why not extend it to all phases of the game??? (of course, that would include hiring a dedicated special teams coach)

When you have the horses, you have to let them run!

FIGHT ON!