Another questionable call from Kent?

Am I the only one left scratching their heads after his decision to punt on 3rd and 3? Wouldnt you want the ball in your hands to score the winning points?

That's pretty much what happened in the Winterpeg game too. They give up the ball late and the other team drives down for the score. This time BC just had to get a few first downs and they could chew up the clock. Pathetic finish on this team game after game. It's getting hard to watch. I wanted so much more from them this year.

Sometimes you have to rely on the defence to make the stop and get the ball back. Unfortunately, the D couldn't get the job done and let the opposition have a long drive and score points two weeks in a row.

Thats exactly my point TCHABS. Sometimes you need to rely on your offence to score too and with 2 mins left down by 4 thats the time. Giving it back to BC gives them the chance to bury you. I want my QB to bury them!

I quite agree with the remarks above. With two minutes remaining and down 4 points, I think you put some faith in your offense to pick up 3 yards or better rather than ranting like a maniac on the sidelines when the defense gives up yards and
secures the win for BC.

But in the Ottawa game with 2 minutes left with 3rd and 2 down by 7, Campbell decided to gamble and they didn't make it. Last night the Ticats were in the exact same position on the field, same time left on the clock. Campbell was criticised for gambling with 2 minutes left, now Austin gets criticised for not gambling. What is the right decision?

I have no issue with the call. Too much time left to risk giving BC that field position.

I really question the previous 2nd and 3 incomplete pass play.
A Run play, even if you got 1.5 or 2 yards, it would have left a very makeable 3rd down and 1 or 1.5
It is what it is, hindsight

I'm in agreement with ryan3434 on this. It would have, or could have, been 2 and out for the Leos, and the Cats would have got the ball back with well over a minute left, had Reed not been called for P.I.

Not too mention, say we do score it would likely be quickly. We wouldn't be running plays to kill the clock. Than that would leave enough time for BC to do something.

I've come to believe that Austin is another ex-QB who simply has no confidence in a running game.

Quite possible. If I'm not mistaken CJ had a really low # of attempts last year as well.

But if Reed had not interfered with him he would have caught the ball in first down territory!! That wasn't even a close call he clearly threw his arms around the receiver before the ball arrived. If Austin had gone for it on 3rd and two and they had been stopped, we would all be saying why didn't they kick and allow the defense to get the ball back!!!

Dont get me wrong I see the merits of both decisions but I feel that was the time and place to win it not 2 possesions later.

The problem is we shouldn't have been in the situation to begin with, way too many two and outs and throwing for five yards instead of ten our 15 and so on, Gable got hurt fine deal with it, quit the crappy swing pass, if your receiver has crappy speed he won't outrun the defender. I like the fact that LeFevour can run but he also has to pass and control the offence, with time running out a good starting QB can take control and work his way down field with passes beyond the 10 yards, keep getting the first downs until you hit the Red Zone and the End Zone, we certainly have the receivers who can catch the ball, Now get the ball and let them do the Work!!

Which one is the true GRUMPY CAT!!!
http://content.forum.canucks.com/public/style_emoticons/default/2utgv3d.gif

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvC987HIcAAEJoY.jpg:small

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvC986aIIAApQDI.jpg:small

I agree. Sometimes a best defence is an offence that keeps the ball and that was the time we needed it.