[stupac2]

Based on watching Shaw's teams play, Shaw is relentlessly risk-averse.

Because that 4th down conversion on our opening drive was definitely the risk-averse thing to do.  ::)

You can debate going for that FG, but I think it's at the very least a 50-50 decision. Williamson isn't exactly rock solid, even though he hit that same distance in OT it was still his career-long and you have to figure it's <50% chance to make it (hell, most NFL kickers are hardly automatic at 51). If he misses, which is likely, Utah just needs two first downs to get into their kicker's range, and he's going to be in the NFL some day. I can totally understand why Shaw punted there, since given the way our defense was playing you had to think:

1) Utah was never scoring after the punt.
2) We had a good shot of getting the ball back.
3) We had a very good shot in OT.

If we win in OT I don't think anyone is questioning that decision because it's just not a clearly bad call.

[stupac2]

Based on watching Shaw's teams play, Shaw is relentlessly risk-averse.

Because that 4th down conversion on our opening drive was definitely the risk-averse thing to do.  ::)

You can debate going for that FG, but I think it's at the very least a 50-50 decision. Williamson isn't exactly rock solid, even though he hit that same distance in OT it was still his career-long and you have to figure it's <50% chance to make it (hell, most NFL kickers are hardly automatic at 51). If he misses, which is likely, Utah just needs two first downs to get into their kicker's range, and he's going to be in the NFL some day. I can totally understand why Shaw punted there, since given the way our defense was playing you had to think:

1) Utah was never scoring after the punt.
2) We had a good shot of getting the ball back.
3) We had a very good shot in OT.

If we win in OT I don't think anyone is questioning that decision because it's just not a clearly bad call.