I too wish we would have been more aggressive on our last possession. However, that doesn't mean I think what Kirk did was unreasonable, or that he was an idiot for running an idiot for running it on the first two plays, for a number of reasons:
- To that point, our defense had given up 14 points and our offense had given up 7. Our defense didn't play that bad.
- CJ had a pretty bad game and only completed 50% of his passes. He missed some easy throws, and we also had a few drops. Since we had misconnected on a few short throws already in the game, there was doubt that we could count on completing a short pass. An incomplete pass at that point in the game is one of the worst case scenarios.
- NDSU is not a big-play offense. Their two touchdown drives each took over 5 minutes. Running the clock puts their offense at a disadvantage because they'd have to drive 40-50 yards in 2 minutes which would put them in rather obvious passing situations. Additionally, our defense is built on not allowing big plays. The staff trusted the defense not to give up a 29 yard rush on the first play of the last possession, which seems reasonable.
- King had a good return to the 32. From there, if we net 44 yards on our punt (which we ended up doing), then NDSU has to start their drive from their own 24 yard line. This correlates with the previous point - NDSU would have needed to drive at least 46 yards to have a chance at a 47 yard field goal.
- NDSU's kicker missed badly on a 50 yard field goal already. Based on that kick, it looked like he'd struggle with anything beyond 40 yards.
- Running twice wasn't necessarily giving up on a first down. Had Daniels's first run of the second half not been called back (on a dubious holding call) then he would have been averaging 7.6 yards per carry to that point. It's true that our running game sucked outside of that long run that was called back, but it does show that Daniels at least had a chance to break loose on a long run - similar to what he did against Minnesota last year when we tried to run out the clock.
- Twice before in this game we ran play action when everyone was expecting a run - once when we were backed to our own 2 yard line, and another time when Stanley came in for CJ. Because we had done this twice before in the same game, there is a decent chance that the element of surprise might be lost. If the NDSU staff wasn't telling their defense not to bite on play action, I'd be very surprised.
- Finally, in hind-sight our worst play of the final drive was when we actually did try to pass for a first down. Had we not lost 9 yards on the sack, NDSU would have started their final drive at their own 25 instead of 34, and their 37 yard field goal might have turned into a 46 yard attempt, which I'm not sure they make.
I note the above rationales not because I agree with Kirk's/Greg's decision to be so conservative, but rather to show that while I disagree with their decision, I can at least recognize the rationale behind them. It's exhausting to see so many people rip our coaches to pieces for the decisions they make, especially since these are the same coaches that led our program to our first 12-0 start just last year. They aren't infallible, and I agree with a lot of the criticism of them in this thread, but such criticism is going overboard and relies on straw-man arguments. It would be healthy for many on this board to recognize that no decisions during a football game are easy, and we aren't smarter than the coaches just because we have the benefit of hind-sight.
