Blogs › Buffzone Blog
Is Dan Hawkins gutsy, crazy or a little of both?
Posted September 5, 2007
So we have a little time to kill here while we wait for the second game of the season this Saturday at Arizona State.
photo by Cliff Grassmick
I figured it's a good time to look back at the crucial play from last week against Colorado State.
Trailing 28-25, CU coach Dan Hawkins decided to go for it on fourth-and-four from the CSU 28-yard line instead of allowing place-kicker Kevin Eberhart to attempt a 45-yard, game-tying field goal.
I have to tell you, I thought Hawkins was out of his mind for going for it. Nine out of 10 coaches kick that field goal and rely on their defense. But then we know Hawk isn't nine out of 10 coaches.
So I'm left to think two things. Hawkins didn't believe Eberhart would make the kick or he didn't trust his defense would stop the Rams from driving down for a game-winner if Eberhart did make the kick.
Hawkins said he was simply playing to win and that he believed in Eberhart and the rest of the team. He said going for it on fourth down demonstrated his belief in his team.
The guy does have a history of doing this. Remember last year at Missouri when the Buffs went for it five times on fourth downs?
Still, Hawkins got bailed out on the call by CSU cornerback Joey Rucks who clearly committed pass interference on the fade route to Patrick Williams, thus extending the drive, which ended in Eberhart's 22-yard field goal.
So I'm curious Buff fans. What did you think about the fourth-and-four call by Hawkins? And are you comfortable with the idea that your head coach is a bit of a gambler?
Somewhere down the line this philosophy is bound to lead to a loss. Are you like Hawkins, prepared to live with that?
This site does not necessarily agree with comments posted below -- responsibility lies with the relevant reader alone. Read our privacy agreement.
Posted by rumblinbuffalo13 on September 5, 2007 at 3:48 p.m.
Hey Kyle,
During the game I leaned over to my friends and said there's no way we should be doing this twice. Once was the 4th down play you mentioned above. The other time was the 2 point conversion. Call me conservative (the only time anyone ever gets to call me that) but those risks were a little to excessive given the situations. I felt (and still feel , regardless of the outcome) that the 2-point play was too early to be messing with math. And I felt(and still feel) that the fourth down play was a little too agressive. I understand the whole play to win thing, but I don't think my heart can take anymroe of that.
While the two plays worked out well for the Buffs in the end, and prolley were the key points in the eventual victory, at the time I was cringing as the decisions were being made. Kudos to Hawk for having the guts to make those calls, and big ups to the football gods for those calls comming out alright.
I'm going to have to start bringing some antacid tablets with me to games now.
Posted by halluxvalgus on September 5, 2007 at 4:02 p.m.
I'm prepared to live with that. Remember- Eberhart had already missed from 41. Hawk's not going to embarrass the kid by saying, "I didn't think he could make it." I'm sure the "playing to win" part comes into it as well. I mean, this guy shares philosophy with Chris Peterson.
I'm glad Hawk had the guts to go for it. If you kick it and miss, the media would blame the kicker. That's not great for his psyche. If you go for it and don't convert, the media blames the coach. For a guy coming off of a 2 win season, it would have been easy to go with the conservative call. Kudos, Hawk!
Posted by SnowBuff on September 5, 2007 at 4:56 p.m.
Actually, I think Hawk intended to go for it the whole time. At least, I hope he did. Because Eberhart has the leg to make that 45 yard field goal easily. It was his accuracy that was off. And when they went far right instead of centering the ball on 3rd down, I nearly fainted. Then I nearly fainted again on 4th down! I did NOT like that series of decisions... even if it ended up with us winning the game;)
Posted by rnorthro14 on September 5, 2007 at 5:51 p.m.
Hey the gamble worked so I'm all for it. Had it failed and CU had lost, I would think it was the dumbest thing ever.
Today he is a genius for it. Hawkins is of the same mold as Pete Carroll (with less talent at his disposition). He plays to win, not to tie. Remember everyone criticized Carroll going for it with a slight lead against Texas? It failed but he said he would have gone for it again....
Posted by homeontherange on September 5, 2007 at 6:31 p.m.
I agree with Hallux, As I was watching I couldn't decide which call I would make. Glad he's the one who has to do it. I would rather lose occasionally and have entertaining, no holes barred all out football, leave the conservative play it safe crap for the NFL.
Oh and Hallux... get those feet fixed!
Posted by MarquetteBuff on September 5, 2007 at 6:54 p.m.
I didn't really view the 4th down play as a major gamble as much as a measured decision. It comes down to whether it is more likely that Eberhart can make a 45 yard field goal or that the offense can convert a 4th and 4. I think Hawk's decision to go for it reflects more on his confidence in Eberhart to make the kick than anything else.
Knowing when to take risks in a game is a delicate nuance that the best coaches have mastered. It depends on your personnel, your opponent, and the specific game in question. It's fair to say that Barnett wasn't very good at it. The jury is still out on Hawkins, but, even though it didn't work out, I did like the flea flicker call.
As far as the two point conversion, did anybody else have a problem with that? Down 4 late in the third quarter is a no brainer to me.
Posted by seanspradling on September 6, 2007 at 7:14 a.m.
They are both bold calls but that nervous panic you are feeling is your metabolism adjusting to Hawkins football.
Remember watching Boise State beat OU? Remember them going for it again and again? The two point conversion to win in OT? That is the brand of football we are heading for.
It is a bit crazy but I would much rather watch our Buffs go for the win on every play and leave me on the edge of my seat and a bypass than go through more seasons of grinding out 3-5 yards artfully split between RB up the middle, left or right.
So grab a bottle of your favorite blood thinner and hang on. This only gets more exciting as our team gets better and more up to the challenge.
GOBUFFS!
Posted by dabuffs50 on September 6, 2007 at 9:16 a.m.
I am pretty sure Hawk was going for the win and not the tie and then his senses caught up to him and he decided to take it into OT. I loved the call especially with how well Patrick Williams was playing on Saturday. And what I loved most about it was that Patrick Williams still came down with the catch even though he was knocked out of bounds. I have alot of respect for him now and am glad he is playing up to his potential.
Posted by extrapoint on September 6, 2007 at 8:21 p.m.
Living on the edge is great. That is why I dont care that much for the NFL. There is so much money at stake the coaches are so conservative and chickens**t they might as well be turtles.
Posted by Saheeb on September 7, 2007 at 12:43 p.m.
I'm comfortable with it in general, but especially coming off a 2-10 season! I think Hawk felt we could score and put it away for good. And, with slightly better clock management at the end we would have had two shots at a touchdown before kicking to tie. We lost at least seven seconds before Cody called our last timeout, which limited us to one throw into the end zone -- the one nearly picked off -- instead of two tries. Anyhow, yes, when you were 2-10 you've got to roll the dice hard a bit more often.