Was EMU's 2-point play at the end of Toledo game right call to make?
Should Eastern Michigan have played for overtime against Toledo? Is EMU justified for its fade route call to Terry Lockett?
Was going for two the right decision?
Was an isolated fade the right play call?
You be the judge.
Here’s the situation Eastern Michigan found itself in upon that play. Entering the fourth quarter, EMU led Toledo 19-7. It wasn’t a dominant first 45 minutes of football, but a two-score lead over Toledo is better than not leading at all.
It was also a very familiar place to be in; Toledo’s offense finally got going in the fourth quarter.
A 78-yard throw and run from QB Tucker Gleason to TE Anthony Torres was helped out by S Bryce Llewellyn who bumped into S David Carter and stumbled to blow coverage on the play. Then, just three minutes later, Toledo got the ball back off an interception, then needed just two plays to get on the board again and take the lead, 22-19. WR Oran Singleton picked up 42 yards on a reception over the middle to set up K Jesus Gomez for his third field goal of the day to tie the game back up with 7 minutes left in the game.
After an exchange of punts, Toledo drove 60 yards in 5 plays for Gleason to finish with his third touchdown throw of the day. The Rockets took a 29-22 lead with 1:00 remaining. Singleton had a couple of catches to move EMU along, then WR J.B. Mitchell got a short grab to set up QB Cole Snyder for his penultimate game-deciding throw with the clock down to 0:07. A 36-yard throw into the end zone wound the clock to zero as WR Terry Lockett came through with the touchdown grab in the middle of a handful of Toledo defenders.
Down by 1, what’s the call? Is it wise to kick a field goal, or is a 2-point gamble the smart play?
If EMU kicks the PAT and it’s successful, then the game is tied back up at 29-all to force overtime. The two teams would’ve met at midfield for a coin toss to see which team would get the first and second possessions on each others’ 25-yard line. Teams that score a touchdown in the first overtime still get to kick a PAT for a 7-point play. But in the second overtime, teams must try a 2-point play after they score a touchdown. Then, if we were to reach a third overtime, teams would just run 2-point plays back and forth until there’s a final winner.
Considering how Toledo forced overtime with a 22-9 fourth-quarter score, the question EMU needed to answer for itself seemed like it had an obvious answer to it: Do you really think you’re going to stop Toledo on a shortened field?
The other question EMU might’ve had to figure out internally: Do we have a third or fourth two-point play that we think we’ll be successful with if these overtime periods continue?
Remember, the fade to Lockett wasn’t the only two-point attempt by EMU in the afternoon.
After RB Joey Mattord recorded his first career rushing touchdown late in the third quarter for EMU to take that 19-7 lead, EMU went for two to try and give themselves a full 14-point lead. On that play, Lockett motioned into the quarterback role as Snyder split to his left as a receiver. Lockett took the snap, ran left and reversed it back to Snyder, who rolled to his right as the passer. With enough pressure from the Rockets, Snyder scrambled until he threw a duck in the end zone that wound up being intercepted by UT’s CB Avery Smith — the same guy who had the pass breakup against Lockett on the game’s final two-point try.
So that didn’t work. EMU was 2 for 2 on two-pointers coming into the game (1 of 1 at UMass and vs. Central Michigan), now it’s 2 of 4 on the year.
After the game, I asked Chris Creighton a question in two parts. What was the decision-making process the coaching staff had to choose to go for two at the end, and then why that play specifically where Lockett, isolated with a single cornerback in man coverage, fades away from his quarterback?
The coach’s response: “So obviously, we have two-point plays ready. Had one earlier in the game, and we made that decision when we were going to let them score if they hadn't called it a touchdown, but they ended up reviewing it and calling it a touchdown, and we made that decision. Talked to both coordinators about going for two to a play that we've practiced a ton and believe in.”
The Ypsilanti Eleven is local, independently run, and is the only sports media hub on the internet (or anywhere) with this much coverage dedicated to Eastern Michigan. Your contributions will help pay for the year-round labor and improvements required to make this your favorite place to read about EMU and MACtion.
SECOND-HALF OFFER: Support the work of Ypsi11.com with a 50% off subscription for a year!
Thumb up: Going for two at the end
I don’t know when the EMU fans first heard the uncited adage “Go for the win on the road, but play for OT if you’re home,” but it was probably before the overtime rules changed. Overtime puts so much on the 2-point plays anyways, which means the more overtime you play, the more you better have 2-point plays lined up.
If EMU ultimately ran a fade route like it did, I will personally read that to mean that there weren’t many more 2-point plays EMU wanted to run and try to win with later on.
The changing overtime rules have been dictating this sort of behavior for a while, and if this sport was still stuck in 2012, then maybe I’ll hear the argument out.
But even then, having watched the way Toledo came back in the fourth quarter and watching EMU’s defense let plays slip by more than it had earlier in the game, I liked Toledo’s chances to execute plays better on a shortened field.
So to me, yes, I’m still going to say that subscribing to old theories is silly to do in endgame moments in 2024, and EMU wasn’t completely wrong to go for two at the end.
Thumb down: EMU shouldn’t have found itself in that situation
Even with the fourth-quarter comeback by Toledo, that game was probably the most impressive EMU’s defense had looked all year. Sure, it gave up some scores. Sure, Toledo squeaked by with some chunk plays here and there. But the defense pressured Toledo’s QB a ton and even had as good of a start as anybody could ask for: two straight turnovers for the offense to take over from the 50 and opponent 41-yard lines.
Unfortunately, EMU’s offense threw itself off the field with a three-and-out, then missed a field goal on those possessions. Gomez made the best of his next three field goal opportunities, but if Singleton would’ve held onto his pass in the end zone in the second quarter, maybe EMU would’ve never needed to settle for a field goal moments later, and maybe EMU wouldn’t have needed to run its (failed) two-point play that followed Mattord’s third-quarter TD.
The final two-point play should get a lot of focus, but so should everything else that led up to that dramatic finish. For as hot as the defense started, EMU has to feel like it was in a position to realistically win this game by two or three scores.
The moments were there.
Instead, it folded to Toledo in the fourth quarter at home yet again. And by again, I mean again. Remember 2022? EMU hosted Toledo and led the game through three quarters. EMU wasted away its four offensive possessions in the fourth quarter while Toledo ground back with 10 unanswered points for the comeback win at Rynearson.
Thumb to the side: The fade route itself
I’m not going to be an extremist on the topic — goal line fades can be OK. For context, I grew up a Detroit Lions fan, so when you have an athletic receiver that you trust and love, all you need is a well-placed ball for the receiver to make a play.
The reason why fade routes at the goal line don’t work out is because they’re longer-developing throws as the routes continue. Those plays end up being easier to judge by a good cornerback as the ball is on its way to the receiver.
Also, like I said earlier, it’s an easier play to pull off if you have a Megatron at the X. Lockett’s had a good season as one of EMU’s top receivers, but with all due respect, he’s not Calvin Johnson.
Even if EMU was running its offense at an NFL level, goal-line fades would still be considered a poor choice. In the summer of 2020, ESPN’s Mina Kimes found that 13.5% of the fade routes (37 ran in 2019, down from 51 in 2017) run by NFL offenses in 2019 from inside the 5-yard line end up being caught for touchdowns. Kimes compares that to 57% on flat routes, 42% on slants, and 42.5% on out routes.
I’d be totally unqualified to call football plays in the first place, but I definitely reacted to that play Saturday by thinking to myself, “Why not slant and come to the pass instead?”
Having re-watched the play a few times since Saturday, Toledo’s corner, who transitioned out of being a quarterback, knew his assignment and was well-positioned to make a slant difficult right off the snap. If Lockett would’ve run a slant and got jammed by him, I’m not buying that a bunched-up screen pass with Delbert Mimms behind Daniel Warnsman, Jere Getzinger, and Max Reese on the other side of the field is an ideal second option with the game on the line.
Had Lockett run a slant and at least got the favorable, inside positioning on the route, would Snyder have had enough of a throwing window? The fade kept the battle to Lockett vs. Smith on the route, but a slant might mean a Toledo linebacker could clog up Snyder’s passing lane. At which point, Snyder would have to be precise, not just accurate, with a bullseye for the win.
Do I love the fade route at the goal line? Even if Lockett would’ve caught it, I think I still would’ve looked back on the play with the same conclusion — EMU chose to run the play it did because that was, in the coaches’ eyes, the best card it had in its hand.
Just kicking around a question
One more question that I don’t think EMU followers are giving enough attention to. For everybody that thinks going for two was the wrong choice no matter what the play call was — fine. But be honest here, is a PAT kick as automatic as you think it is? Gomez, who was 3/4 on field goals in the afternoon, hasn’t been perfect lately and that can’t be ignored.
Not only has he missed a field goal in four of the last five games (7 for 11 in that span), but he did whiff on a PAT kick last week against Akron.
During last week’s week-opening press conference, Creighton said Gomez is healthy and there’s no injury issues hindering his kicks. That’s fine, I’ll take him at his word. But that doesn’t mean Gomez has played up to his standard.
That also doesn’t mean that Gomez, no matter how off he’s looked lately, still couldn’t knock an extra point through (made his one PAT attempt in the first quarter, is 91 of 96 on career PATs), but the possibilities of things not going his way are very much on the table.
And if that’s at all part of the equation, then how would you like to have the game finish out from there? Is it worth putting Gomez out there in that situation? Or would you rather give one of your offense’s biggest playmakers a chance to make the team’s two biggest plays of the year in back-to-back fashion?
Me pareció bien ir a por dos pero quizás otra selección de jugada hubiese sido mejor. ¿Una ruta cruzada entre dos WR, posiblemente? No sé. De todas formas, el partido se perdió en la remontada final de Toledo no en esa jugada
-----
I was fine with going with two. But maybe a different play selection would have been better. Maybe a cross route between a couple of WRs? I don't know. In any case, the game was lost on Toledo's final comeback, not on this play.
It was the right call but the play wasn't executed as designed.