Last Drive Play Calling

[JHallCanes]

The best play of the whole drive IMO was the whip route to Berrios, Langham running the go to clear space.

Haven't seen that route combo that I can remember. Berrios is uncoverable in that situation vs man D. Hopefully we see more of that from our route trees.

I've been waiting for that play since Berrios ran the shuttle at The Opening. It was beautiful. And for all the **** he gets about getting tackled on punts, he blew right through that tackle.

 

[dookie blaylock]

I was fine with the running calls.

I was NOT fine with not taking a timeout after each. It all worked out for the best, but I was freaking the fvck out.

I can understand saving one TO for a FG, but not both.

might have been just to keep the pedal to the metal. It also maybe prevented some subs on their side. They were probably gassed. Why give them time to regroup? Personally I thought it was fine. Gave them just enough time to try one more play in the endzone and last second field goal with no time left on clock .

For the millionth time, we can talk about what-ifs all day long.

The bottom line is that if you are comparing, you know, ACTUAL TIME ON THE CLOCK to some sort of a strategy to minimize substitution, TIME ON THE CLOCK wins every single motherfvcking time.

If we do not get first downs, if we do not have incompletions, then the clock keeps running and we might never get in range for a FG, we might never get guys on the field to kick a FG, we might miss a FG.

Oh, but sure, we should waste time to prevent them from substituting.

Sometimes I wonder if some posters have ever actually played football.

It all worked out, so I'm fine as it played out, but it was certainly an unnecessary risk. ****, even the F$U defender could have committed pass interference on that play, which would have forced us to kick a FG.

NO GUARANTEES when kicking. NO GUARANTEES in OT.

I thank God it worked out as it did, but it was idiotic to not use one of our TOs after a running play on that drive.

****s on poster about what-ifs. proceeds to make an entire rant based on what-ifs.

their defense was on its heels on both of the last drives. as soon as the 3rd down to berrios was completed they lost all confidence in what they were doing. it's like they went out with a single mindset of forcing a 3-and-out, then had zero clue what to do after that. don't give them a chance to regroup when you're moving on them.

What a dopey buffoon you are.

What-ifs BASED ON THE ACTUAL CLOCK are valid.

Instead, you are talking about "confidence" and a bunch of retarded psychological stuff.

Bottom line, if that idiot DB committed pass interference, we would have been forced to kick a FG and risk losing in OT.

But sure, a bunch of moron posters are going to talk about "confidence" and "regrouping" and a bunch of worthless stuff that they invent in their own heads.

The clock is real. We've seen plenty of teams mismanage the last few seconds and lose the chance to run a final play. If we take a timeout AFTER A RUN and not AFTER AN INCOMPLETION, we have another chance to win the game if the desperate ACC replay officials try to place the ball on the half-yard line (actually, the 15 and a half yardline after the penalty).

I'm not playing what-if games with intangibles like "confidence", I'm logically analyzing the what-ifs that every coach must consider when managing the clock.

Lots of dolts trying to rationalize taking a timeout after an incompletion (just because we eventually won). Ridiculous.

you really need to watch that last drive again.

play 1- 1:24, incomplete
play 2- 1:19, incomplete
play 3- 1:13, complete, first down
clock stops to reset chains at 1:08, then runs on the reset, 13 seconds between reset and snap
play 4- 0:55, run, first down
clock stops to reset chains at 0:48, runs on reset, 6 seconds between reset and snap
play 5- 0:42, run, first down
clock stops to reset chains at 0:35, runs on reset, 6 seconds between reset and snap
play 6- 0:29, incomplete
play 7- 0:23, incomplete
timeout before 3rd and 10
play 8- 0:19, complete, first down, out of bounds
play 9- 0:11, complete, touchdown

the clock stopped after every play we ran on the drive between first downs and out of bounds, and we lost more time between snaps on the berrios first down in our territory than we did on the two homer runs combined.

we take a timeout after an incomplete pass because it's 3rd and 10 on the 35 yard line. seems like a smart place to use it to try for a first down.

12 seconds off the clock to keep a timeout is a take every ******* time when you have more than 45 seconds left in plus territory and only need 3, doubly so if you're up against a disorganized and reeling defense. what happens if you run another play into the middle of the field because the coverage gives it to you and you don't get the first down? timeout would be nice if you can't get up to the line and spike it. maybe langham doesn't catch that ball and you want to shift it to make the kick more comfortable? run a quick play then take a timeout with 2 seconds left.

your analysis of clock management isn't analysis. it's a hot take.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

might have been just to keep the pedal to the metal. It also maybe prevented some subs on their side. They were probably gassed. Why give them time to regroup? Personally I thought it was fine. Gave them just enough time to try one more play in the endzone and last second field goal with no time left on clock .

For the millionth time, we can talk about what-ifs all day long.

The bottom line is that if you are comparing, you know, ACTUAL TIME ON THE CLOCK to some sort of a strategy to minimize substitution, TIME ON THE CLOCK wins every single motherfvcking time.

If we do not get first downs, if we do not have incompletions, then the clock keeps running and we might never get in range for a FG, we might never get guys on the field to kick a FG, we might miss a FG.

Oh, but sure, we should waste time to prevent them from substituting.

Sometimes I wonder if some posters have ever actually played football.

It all worked out, so I'm fine as it played out, but it was certainly an unnecessary risk. ****, even the F$U defender could have committed pass interference on that play, which would have forced us to kick a FG.

NO GUARANTEES when kicking. NO GUARANTEES in OT.

I thank God it worked out as it did, but it was idiotic to not use one of our TOs after a running play on that drive.

****s on poster about what-ifs. proceeds to make an entire rant based on what-ifs.

their defense was on its heels on both of the last drives. as soon as the 3rd down to berrios was completed they lost all confidence in what they were doing. it's like they went out with a single mindset of forcing a 3-and-out, then had zero clue what to do after that. don't give them a chance to regroup when you're moving on them.

What a dopey buffoon you are.

What-ifs BASED ON THE ACTUAL CLOCK are valid.

Instead, you are talking about "confidence" and a bunch of retarded psychological stuff.

Bottom line, if that idiot DB committed pass interference, we would have been forced to kick a FG and risk losing in OT.

But sure, a bunch of moron posters are going to talk about "confidence" and "regrouping" and a bunch of worthless stuff that they invent in their own heads.

The clock is real. We've seen plenty of teams mismanage the last few seconds and lose the chance to run a final play. If we take a timeout AFTER A RUN and not AFTER AN INCOMPLETION, we have another chance to win the game if the desperate ACC replay officials try to place the ball on the half-yard line (actually, the 15 and a half yardline after the penalty).

I'm not playing what-if games with intangibles like "confidence", I'm logically analyzing the what-ifs that every coach must consider when managing the clock.

Lots of dolts trying to rationalize taking a timeout after an incompletion (just because we eventually won). Ridiculous.

you really need to watch that last drive again.

play 1- 1:24, incomplete
play 2- 1:19, incomplete
play 3- 1:13, complete, first down
clock stops to reset chains at 1:08, then runs on the reset, 13 seconds between reset and snap
play 4- 0:55, run, first down
clock stops to reset chains at 0:48, runs on reset, 6 seconds between reset and snap
play 5- 0:42, run, first down
clock stops to reset chains at 0:35, runs on reset, 6 seconds between reset and snap
play 6- 0:29, incomplete
play 7- 0:23, incomplete
timeout before 3rd and 10
play 8- 0:19, complete, first down, out of bounds
play 9- 0:11, complete, touchdown

the clock stopped after every play we ran on the drive between first downs and out of bounds, and we lost more time between snaps on the berrios first down in our territory than we did on the two homer runs combined.

we take a timeout after an incomplete pass because it's 3rd and 10 on the 35 yard line. seems like a smart place to use it to try for a first down.

12 seconds off the clock to keep a timeout is a take every ****ing time when you have more than 45 seconds left in plus territory and only need 3, doubly so if you're up against a disorganized and reeling defense. what happens if you run another play into the middle of the field because the coverage gives it to you and you don't get the first down? timeout would be nice if you can't get up to the line and spike it. maybe langham doesn't catch that ball and you want to shift it to make the kick more comfortable? run a quick play then take a timeout with 2 seconds left.

your analysis of clock management isn't analysis. it's a hot take.

What an idiot you are.

So, again, with SEVENTEEN SECONDS on the clock instead of eleven, do we have time for one extra play? Of course we do.

I can understand the first run, we caught them napping, we picked up a first down. Only 6 seconds were lost, sure. But now you do the EXACT SAME THING, and you have to be prepared to call a timeout on THAT one.

Plus, if we have more time to discuss our next pass play or two, we might do better than 2 straight incompletions.

Again, you are just a buffoon. I said that I had concerns AT THE TIME, and I wasn't going to argue with anyone, until people who (seemingly) didn't watch the game started telling me things that were the opposite of what I actually saw.

As if the timeout we called was smart. Give me a break. You take the timeout after the second run, not after an incompletion, and you call multiple pass plays during the discussion.

Every other play after that was a pass, and even if EVERYTHING happens identically, that means you start the final play with 17 seconds on the clock, giving yourself options in case Langham is ruled down before the goal line or in case there is a penalty.

That's not a "hot take", that is pure solid logic. Unlike your ramblings about "confidence".

 

[DiegoCane]

The best play of the whole drive IMO was the whip route to Berrios, Langham running the go to clear space.

Haven't seen that route combo that I can remember. Berrios is uncoverable in that situation vs man D. Hopefully we see more of that from our route trees.

I've been waiting for that play since Berrios ran the shuttle at The Opening. It was beautiful. And for all the **** he gets about getting tackled on punts, he blew right through that tackle.

Its kind of mind blowing that it took 4 years to use him properly. He's definitely a better athlete then Renfrow from Clemson and he's been doing work since his FR year.

Like I said pre-FSU. Berrios should be getting 6+ targets a game, anything less is criminal.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

might have been just to keep the pedal to the metal. It also maybe prevented some subs on their side. They were probably gassed. Why give them time to regroup? Personally I thought it was fine. Gave them just enough time to try one more play in the endzone and last second field goal with no time left on clock .

For the millionth time, we can talk about what-ifs all day long.

The bottom line is that if you are comparing, you know, ACTUAL TIME ON THE CLOCK to some sort of a strategy to minimize substitution, TIME ON THE CLOCK wins every single motherfvcking time.

If we do not get first downs, if we do not have incompletions, then the clock keeps running and we might never get in range for a FG, we might never get guys on the field to kick a FG, we might miss a FG.

Oh, but sure, we should waste time to prevent them from substituting.

Sometimes I wonder if some posters have ever actually played football.

It all worked out, so I'm fine as it played out, but it was certainly an unnecessary risk. ****, even the F$U defender could have committed pass interference on that play, which would have forced us to kick a FG.

NO GUARANTEES when kicking. NO GUARANTEES in OT.

I thank God it worked out as it did, but it was idiotic to not use one of our TOs after a running play on that drive.

I don't get this. You are a good poster for the most part as best I recall. You understand that the clock stops (until the ball is spotted) after a first down, right? Even if it's a running play. A well coached team that gets up to the line of scrimmage immediately after the play can be ready to run another play almost immediately once the ball is spotted and clock restarted, which is basically what happened as I recall. I thought it was played perfectly. The TO is FAR more valuable to be used after a sack, or when the runner gets stopped in bounds short of the first down than it is after a first down play. If I recall correctly, we had one time out left in our pockets when the game winning TD was scored. That TO would have been absolutely CRITICAL to have if DH had been stopped just short of the goal line, or if Malik had to scramble or took a sack on that play.

Respectfully, you are just wrong on this one.

Look, I'm not wrong.

We burned our second timeout AFTER the second incompletion to Cager (AFTER both Homer runs).

So, yeah, we wasted one timeout.

Again, respectfully, you are just wrong on this one.

Roger Dodger... Agree to disagree.

Take issue if you want with the timeout following two incompletions facing 3rd and 10, I guess I won't argue with you on that, and I'm done arguing with you on this point as it is, but you don't call TO following a first down with the clock stopped and the D reeling... unless you're Al Golden.

Have a great day, Cane. Enjoy the win.

I'm not arguing with you.

I'm pointing out your misunderstanding of the rules.

The clock stops TEMPORARILY after a first down. Once the ball is set, the clock begins to run again. After BOTH of Homer's runs, we lost 6 seconds on each because of not calling a timeout. Six seconds is enough to run another pass play if Langham is called down at the 1 or if the DB commits a penalty.

I'm enjoying the win. I am an alum who went to UM in the late 80s and early 90s, so I am greedy about winning. But let's not pretend that everything went perfectly according to plan. We had some luck mixed in there.

I'll take it. But I **** sure don't want to lose another game to stupid mistakes or terrible refs. I had enough of that in 1988 at Notre Dame, and in 2003 at the Fiasco Bowl.

Miami's coaching needs to be perfect. We clearly saw how much the ACC refs wanted to steal our victory.

 

[dookie blaylock]

For the millionth time, we can talk about what-ifs all day long.

The bottom line is that if you are comparing, you know, ACTUAL TIME ON THE CLOCK to some sort of a strategy to minimize substitution, TIME ON THE CLOCK wins every single motherfvcking time.

If we do not get first downs, if we do not have incompletions, then the clock keeps running and we might never get in range for a FG, we might never get guys on the field to kick a FG, we might miss a FG.

Oh, but sure, we should waste time to prevent them from substituting.

Sometimes I wonder if some posters have ever actually played football.

It all worked out, so I'm fine as it played out, but it was certainly an unnecessary risk. ****, even the F$U defender could have committed pass interference on that play, which would have forced us to kick a FG.

NO GUARANTEES when kicking. NO GUARANTEES in OT.

I thank God it worked out as it did, but it was idiotic to not use one of our TOs after a running play on that drive.

****s on poster about what-ifs. proceeds to make an entire rant based on what-ifs.

their defense was on its heels on both of the last drives. as soon as the 3rd down to berrios was completed they lost all confidence in what they were doing. it's like they went out with a single mindset of forcing a 3-and-out, then had zero clue what to do after that. don't give them a chance to regroup when you're moving on them.

What a dopey buffoon you are.

What-ifs BASED ON THE ACTUAL CLOCK are valid.

Instead, you are talking about "confidence" and a bunch of retarded psychological stuff.

Bottom line, if that idiot DB committed pass interference, we would have been forced to kick a FG and risk losing in OT.

But sure, a bunch of moron posters are going to talk about "confidence" and "regrouping" and a bunch of worthless stuff that they invent in their own heads.

The clock is real. We've seen plenty of teams mismanage the last few seconds and lose the chance to run a final play. If we take a timeout AFTER A RUN and not AFTER AN INCOMPLETION, we have another chance to win the game if the desperate ACC replay officials try to place the ball on the half-yard line (actually, the 15 and a half yardline after the penalty).

I'm not playing what-if games with intangibles like "confidence", I'm logically analyzing the what-ifs that every coach must consider when managing the clock.

Lots of dolts trying to rationalize taking a timeout after an incompletion (just because we eventually won). Ridiculous.

you really need to watch that last drive again.

play 1- 1:24, incomplete
play 2- 1:19, incomplete
play 3- 1:13, complete, first down
clock stops to reset chains at 1:08, then runs on the reset, 13 seconds between reset and snap
play 4- 0:55, run, first down
clock stops to reset chains at 0:48, runs on reset, 6 seconds between reset and snap
play 5- 0:42, run, first down
clock stops to reset chains at 0:35, runs on reset, 6 seconds between reset and snap
play 6- 0:29, incomplete
play 7- 0:23, incomplete
timeout before 3rd and 10
play 8- 0:19, complete, first down, out of bounds
play 9- 0:11, complete, touchdown

the clock stopped after every play we ran on the drive between first downs and out of bounds, and we lost more time between snaps on the berrios first down in our territory than we did on the two homer runs combined.

we take a timeout after an incomplete pass because it's 3rd and 10 on the 35 yard line. seems like a smart place to use it to try for a first down.

12 seconds off the clock to keep a timeout is a take every ****ing time when you have more than 45 seconds left in plus territory and only need 3, doubly so if you're up against a disorganized and reeling defense. what happens if you run another play into the middle of the field because the coverage gives it to you and you don't get the first down? timeout would be nice if you can't get up to the line and spike it. maybe langham doesn't catch that ball and you want to shift it to make the kick more comfortable? run a quick play then take a timeout with 2 seconds left.

your analysis of clock management isn't analysis. it's a hot take.

What an idiot you are.

So, again, with SEVENTEEN SECONDS on the clock instead of eleven, do we have time for one extra play? Of course we do.

I can understand the first run, we caught them napping, we picked up a first down. Only 6 seconds were lost, sure. But now you do the EXACT SAME THING, and you have to be prepared to call a timeout on THAT one.

Plus, if we have more time to discuss our next pass play or two, we might do better than 2 straight incompletions.

Again, you are just a buffoon. I said that I had concerns AT THE TIME, and I wasn't going to argue with anyone, until people who (seemingly) didn't watch the game started telling me things that were the opposite of what I actually saw.

As if the timeout we called was smart. Give me a break. You take the timeout after the second run, not after an incompletion, and you call multiple pass plays during the discussion.

Every other play after that was a pass, and even if EVERYTHING happens identically, that means you start the final play with 17 seconds on the clock, giving yourself options in case Langham is ruled down before the goal line or in case there is a penalty.

That's not a "hot take", that is pure solid logic. Unlike your ramblings about "confidence".

there's really no arguing with you if you're going to double down and go ad hominem at the same time. on that second run, i was thinking timeout initially because i didn't think he got the first down, but when they stopped the clock i was glad richt didn't take one. you said you're basing this off of how you felt at the time and maybe you were thinking the same thing that i was at that moment. if not, then we just think about managing clock differently.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

****s on poster about what-ifs. proceeds to make an entire rant based on what-ifs.

their defense was on its heels on both of the last drives. as soon as the 3rd down to berrios was completed they lost all confidence in what they were doing. it's like they went out with a single mindset of forcing a 3-and-out, then had zero clue what to do after that. don't give them a chance to regroup when you're moving on them.

What a dopey buffoon you are.

What-ifs BASED ON THE ACTUAL CLOCK are valid.

Instead, you are talking about "confidence" and a bunch of retarded psychological stuff.

Bottom line, if that idiot DB committed pass interference, we would have been forced to kick a FG and risk losing in OT.

But sure, a bunch of moron posters are going to talk about "confidence" and "regrouping" and a bunch of worthless stuff that they invent in their own heads.

The clock is real. We've seen plenty of teams mismanage the last few seconds and lose the chance to run a final play. If we take a timeout AFTER A RUN and not AFTER AN INCOMPLETION, we have another chance to win the game if the desperate ACC replay officials try to place the ball on the half-yard line (actually, the 15 and a half yardline after the penalty).

I'm not playing what-if games with intangibles like "confidence", I'm logically analyzing the what-ifs that every coach must consider when managing the clock.

Lots of dolts trying to rationalize taking a timeout after an incompletion (just because we eventually won). Ridiculous.

you really need to watch that last drive again.

play 1- 1:24, incomplete
play 2- 1:19, incomplete
play 3- 1:13, complete, first down
clock stops to reset chains at 1:08, then runs on the reset, 13 seconds between reset and snap
play 4- 0:55, run, first down
clock stops to reset chains at 0:48, runs on reset, 6 seconds between reset and snap
play 5- 0:42, run, first down
clock stops to reset chains at 0:35, runs on reset, 6 seconds between reset and snap
play 6- 0:29, incomplete
play 7- 0:23, incomplete
timeout before 3rd and 10
play 8- 0:19, complete, first down, out of bounds
play 9- 0:11, complete, touchdown

the clock stopped after every play we ran on the drive between first downs and out of bounds, and we lost more time between snaps on the berrios first down in our territory than we did on the two homer runs combined.

we take a timeout after an incomplete pass because it's 3rd and 10 on the 35 yard line. seems like a smart place to use it to try for a first down.

12 seconds off the clock to keep a timeout is a take every ****ing time when you have more than 45 seconds left in plus territory and only need 3, doubly so if you're up against a disorganized and reeling defense. what happens if you run another play into the middle of the field because the coverage gives it to you and you don't get the first down? timeout would be nice if you can't get up to the line and spike it. maybe langham doesn't catch that ball and you want to shift it to make the kick more comfortable? run a quick play then take a timeout with 2 seconds left.

your analysis of clock management isn't analysis. it's a hot take.

What an idiot you are.

So, again, with SEVENTEEN SECONDS on the clock instead of eleven, do we have time for one extra play? Of course we do.

I can understand the first run, we caught them napping, we picked up a first down. Only 6 seconds were lost, sure. But now you do the EXACT SAME THING, and you have to be prepared to call a timeout on THAT one.

Plus, if we have more time to discuss our next pass play or two, we might do better than 2 straight incompletions.

Again, you are just a buffoon. I said that I had concerns AT THE TIME, and I wasn't going to argue with anyone, until people who (seemingly) didn't watch the game started telling me things that were the opposite of what I actually saw.

As if the timeout we called was smart. Give me a break. You take the timeout after the second run, not after an incompletion, and you call multiple pass plays during the discussion.

Every other play after that was a pass, and even if EVERYTHING happens identically, that means you start the final play with 17 seconds on the clock, giving yourself options in case Langham is ruled down before the goal line or in case there is a penalty.

That's not a "hot take", that is pure solid logic. Unlike your ramblings about "confidence".

there's really no arguing with you if you're going to double down and go ad hominem at the same time. on that second run, i was thinking timeout initially because i didn't think he got the first down, but when they stopped the clock i was glad richt didn't take one. you said you're basing this off of how you felt at the time and maybe you were thinking the same thing that i was at that moment. if not, then we just think about managing clock differently.

Look, this is very simple.

The analysis of clock management must be done without knowledge of what will eventually happen. You have to prepare for as many eventualities as possible, and leave yourself as many options as possible.

Everyone knows that a running play, any running play, EVEN IF IT PICKS UP A FIRST DOWN, is a significant risk when you have less than 90 seconds, 75 yards to go, and only 2 TOs. That was why we didn't run earlier in the drive. We passed and passed, and then when we caught them napping, we ran twice.

As has been pointed out, we ran TWICE with 55 seconds or less on the clock. The refs had screwed us the entire game with ridiculous penalties (some of which might require time to be run off the clock in late-game situations).

As has been pointed out, we took 26 seconds (between 55 seconds and 29 seconds) for 2 run plays. That is, literally one-third of all the time we spent on the entire drive (1 minute and 18 seconds).

Every pass play, except for one, resulted in the clock stopping until the snap. Both runs resulted in temporary clock stoppages.

Oh, and as I continue to point out, we took our ONE timeout on an incompletion.

I thank the good Lord that we did score, and I am grateful. But with all the factors cited above, EVERYTHING had to fall into place PERFECTLY for us to score with time on the clock.

I simply believe that we can do a better job of clock management, and if we continue to stick our heads in the sand and act as if the final drive was "masterful", and had no mistakes, then we will surely and eventually lose a game that we should have won.

 

[JimmyJohnsonsHair]

Richt was just saving the playbook for the last 90 seconds of the FSU game.

 

[Salt]

I was fine with the running calls.

I was NOT fine with not taking a timeout after each. It all worked out for the best, but I was freaking the fvck out.

I can understand saving one TO for a FG, but not both.

might have been just to keep the pedal to the metal. It also maybe prevented some subs on their side. They were probably gassed. Why give them time to regroup? Personally I thought it was fine. Gave them just enough time to try one more play in the endzone and last second field goal with no time left on clock .

For the millionth time, we can talk about what-ifs all day long.

The bottom line is that if you are comparing, you know, ACTUAL TIME ON THE CLOCK to some sort of a strategy to minimize substitution, TIME ON THE CLOCK wins every single motherfvcking time.

If we do not get first downs, if we do not have incompletions, then the clock keeps running and we might never get in range for a FG, we might never get guys on the field to kick a FG, we might miss a FG.

Oh, but sure, we should waste time to prevent them from substituting.

Sometimes I wonder if some posters have ever actually played football.

It all worked out, so I'm fine as it played out, but it was certainly an unnecessary risk. ****, even the F$U defender could have committed pass interference on that play, which would have forced us to kick a FG.

NO GUARANTEES when kicking. NO GUARANTEES in OT.

I thank God it worked out as it did, but it was idiotic to not use one of our TOs after a running play on that drive.

No need to get bent out of shape. Just posting a hypothetical. I guess in your mind there are no guarantees except what you think should have been done. Take it up with Richt.

Again, I'm not getting bent out of shape with posters, I had a legitimate concern DURING the game.

See my prior response. We burned our second timeout after an INCOMPLETION.

I'm very happy with the ultimate outcome, but it is just nuts to deny that we had a couple of mistakes in clock management.

We made mistakes. Fortunately, we overcame our mistakes.

That's just honesty.

So anyone that shares a different opinion is being dishonest? No, it's not about honesty. It's about admitting that your opinion is not an absolute truth. The only thing you uttered remotely true is that there are no guarantees but somehow didn't apply that to your own view. Then you start to act arrogant and question people's football knowledge because they don't agree with your view, that's when you are starting to get bent out of shape. Apparently, Richt had a different view of things than you did too. Are you going to question his knowledge or football experience because his decisions to manage the clock did not jive with yours? See how irrational you are being?

 

[Atlcane_72]

Honestly, there was no change in play calling. The plays just worked at the right time.

 

[Loose Cannon]

Durrr we needed to call timeouts with the clock stopped so we'd have an extra 6 seconds in case we got stopped short of the goal line instead of saving our timeouts to stop the clock if we got stopped short of the goal line.

Look, as you said, this is very simple. Neither of these are correct unless the plays happen just the right way. Regardless of what you think you know, Richt made the correct time management decisions for the plays he was calling and the outcomes he was getting. There is no denying this because the reality of the deal is that we scored the go ahead touchdown with 6 seconds to go. Had we burned our timeouts, we may have still scored, but we would have likely left them enough time for a Hail Mary try also.

 

[Gatorhater]

Credit to Homer for his leg drive and tenacity - He could have been stopped short on the second run but kept pushing.

Richt didn't try and out-think himself on that drive.

Also, props to Berrios - His broken tackle was also HUGE.

Still on a post-game high.

Berrios also used that 3.9 GPA and got his rear out of bounds as he crossed the 1st down yard marker instead of getting tackled and the clock running.

 

[NorthEastCane]

Just watched the replay and something jumped out at me and this could have really gone horribly for us. CMR calls 2 huge run plays which Homer gets back to back first downs. The balls you have to have to call those run plays in with very little clock left! Gotta give him a ton of credit for the play calling especially when he is often criticized for his play calls. And then the finishing touch was not settling for a FG, we all know Golden crew would have taken a knee in that moment. Very proud of the team! They officially look competent. All we need to do is stop with the miscommunication between safeties and corners, and start taking better angles in the run game. a few of those big runs were completely shut down until a horrible angle was taken by a safety or LB.

I was fine with the running calls.

I was NOT fine with not taking a timeout after each. It all worked out for the best, but I was freaking the fvck out.

I can understand saving one TO for a FG, but not both.

On a first down, the clock stops until the chains are set. It's all a question of if the OL can get lined up (without drawing an illegal procedure penalty), when the play clock is started. These were 10 yard running plays, it's not like receivers were spread out down field.

 

[RedSquare]

As someone who has coached I can tell you that when it works your a genius, when it doesn't work your an idiot.

**** straight. my head coach in college used to say, the difference between a genius and a moron is about 10 yards

 

[moshated305]

The thing that stood out to me was not only the play calling but the clock management was perfect. Remember the days of Shannon and Golden just disastrous clock management. Say what you will about his offense but it feels good have a coach that knows what the **** he is doing.

 

[RedSquare]

The best play of the whole drive IMO was the whip route to Berrios, Langham running the go to clear space.

Haven't seen that route combo that I can remember. Berrios is uncoverable in that situation vs man D. Hopefully we see more of that from our route trees.

I've been waiting for that play since Berrios ran the shuttle at The Opening. It was beautiful. And for all the **** he gets about getting tackled on punts, he blew right through that tackle.

agreed.

breaking the tackle on 3rd down was money. CMR did a nice job getting him in the position to execute for the offense, and the kid played out of his mind

 

[JHallCanes]

As someone who has coached I can tell you that when it works your a genius, when it doesn't work your an idiot.

**** straight. my head coach in college used to say, the difference between a genius and a moron is about 10 yards

No doubt.

Think about the last play. We are a FG away from OT. McFadden had his head turned around right away.

If Malik throws and INT there and costs us a chance to send the game to OT, what do you think this board would be saying?

But hey, it worked so all is well.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

might have been just to keep the pedal to the metal. It also maybe prevented some subs on their side. They were probably gassed. Why give them time to regroup? Personally I thought it was fine. Gave them just enough time to try one more play in the endzone and last second field goal with no time left on clock .

For the millionth time, we can talk about what-ifs all day long.

The bottom line is that if you are comparing, you know, ACTUAL TIME ON THE CLOCK to some sort of a strategy to minimize substitution, TIME ON THE CLOCK wins every single motherfvcking time.

If we do not get first downs, if we do not have incompletions, then the clock keeps running and we might never get in range for a FG, we might never get guys on the field to kick a FG, we might miss a FG.

Oh, but sure, we should waste time to prevent them from substituting.

Sometimes I wonder if some posters have ever actually played football.

It all worked out, so I'm fine as it played out, but it was certainly an unnecessary risk. ****, even the F$U defender could have committed pass interference on that play, which would have forced us to kick a FG.

NO GUARANTEES when kicking. NO GUARANTEES in OT.

I thank God it worked out as it did, but it was idiotic to not use one of our TOs after a running play on that drive.

No need to get bent out of shape. Just posting a hypothetical. I guess in your mind there are no guarantees except what you think should have been done. Take it up with Richt.

Again, I'm not getting bent out of shape with posters, I had a legitimate concern DURING the game.

See my prior response. We burned our second timeout after an INCOMPLETION.

I'm very happy with the ultimate outcome, but it is just nuts to deny that we had a couple of mistakes in clock management.

We made mistakes. Fortunately, we overcame our mistakes.

That's just honesty.

So anyone that shares a different opinion is being dishonest? No, it's not about honesty. It's about admitting that your opinion is not an absolute truth. The only thing you uttered remotely true is that there are no guarantees but somehow didn't apply that to your own view. Then you start to act arrogant and question people's football knowledge because they don't agree with your view, that's when you are starting to get bent out of shape. Apparently, Richt had a different view of things than you did too. Are you going to question his knowledge or football experience because his decisions to manage the clock did not jive with yours? See how irrational you are being?

Now you're just being silly.

I said that WHAT I SAID was just honesty. That means, what I am saying has no bias for or against the coaches, it is just an honest observation that we did not manage the clock as well as we should have.

It is NOT a statement that anyone else's opinion is "dishonest". This is the problem when people can't handle logic and vocabulary, they leap to a conclusion that when a person uses one particular word, there is some OTHER statement being made that all other viewpoints are the opposite of that word. That is just strange. Or poor reading comprehension. Or both.

Furthermore, I only questioned people's football knowledge when I was told that we used our one timeout correctly, when we did not.

I don't care if other people have a different "opinion". You are entitled to your "opinion".

But when people call the final drive "masterful" (we had four UGLY incompletions and a misused timeout sandwiched in-between some truly transcendent and successful plays), when people deny that we took our timeout at the wrong time, well then, it is fair to criticize those "opinions".

So, please, because you are so desperate to make all opinions equal and equally valid, and because you care SO much about arrogance and irrationality, please make your compelling argument for why our use of the timeout was our best use of the timeout. Tell me about the wonderful playcalling and execution on our four incompletions. Tell me about how Richt PLANNED to only have 6 seconds left on the clock for our one shot at the end zone. Tell me about what a GENIUS scheme it was to possibly have 6 seconds left on the 15 yardline (after the penalty).

In case you are still struggling with reading comprehension, yes, I am criticizing a flaw in the Mona Lisa. I get it. I am very happy that we won, but to think that we cannot point out the areas in which our coaching staff fell short of where they needed to be is just ridiculous.

If we do not improve, this will bite us. EVERYONE wants us to lose, right down to the refs. The next time that things are this close, we may not be as lucky, and that's why I want our coaches to execute flawlessly.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Just watched the replay and something jumped out at me and this could have really gone horribly for us. CMR calls 2 huge run plays which Homer gets back to back first downs. The balls you have to have to call those run plays in with very little clock left! Gotta give him a ton of credit for the play calling especially when he is often criticized for his play calls. And then the finishing touch was not settling for a FG, we all know Golden crew would have taken a knee in that moment. Very proud of the team! They officially look competent. All we need to do is stop with the miscommunication between safeties and corners, and start taking better angles in the run game. a few of those big runs were completely shut down until a horrible angle was taken by a safety or LB.

I was fine with the running calls.

I was NOT fine with not taking a timeout after each. It all worked out for the best, but I was freaking the fvck out.

I can understand saving one TO for a FG, but not both.

On a first down, the clock stops until the chains are set. It's all a question of if the OL can get lined up (without drawing an illegal procedure penalty), when the play clock is started. These were 10 yard running plays, it's not like receivers were spread out down field.

How silly.

Our drive lasted 1:18. We had time to run ONE shot at the end zone. And you are saying that we could not have used an extra 6 seconds for another play. Amazing.

It's just amazing how one success will make anyone forget about every other factor.

I'm not afraid to say that we got lucky at the end, that all the things that needed to fall into place actually did fall into place. And, yes, we took advantage of our luck when the game was on the line. No apologies, but we need to improve our clock management.

 

[DerekDohrman]

might have been just to keep the pedal to the metal. It also maybe prevented some subs on their side. They were probably gassed. Why give them time to regroup? Personally I thought it was fine. Gave them just enough time to try one more play in the endzone and last second field goal with no time left on clock .

For the millionth time, we can talk about what-ifs all day long.

The bottom line is that if you are comparing, you know, ACTUAL TIME ON THE CLOCK to some sort of a strategy to minimize substitution, TIME ON THE CLOCK wins every single motherfvcking time.

If we do not get first downs, if we do not have incompletions, then the clock keeps running and we might never get in range for a FG, we might never get guys on the field to kick a FG, we might miss a FG.

Oh, but sure, we should waste time to prevent them from substituting.

Sometimes I wonder if some posters have ever actually played football.

It all worked out, so I'm fine as it played out, but it was certainly an unnecessary risk. ****, even the F$U defender could have committed pass interference on that play, which would have forced us to kick a FG.

NO GUARANTEES when kicking. NO GUARANTEES in OT.

I thank God it worked out as it did, but it was idiotic to not use one of our TOs after a running play on that drive.

I don't get this. You are a good poster for the most part as best I recall. You understand that the clock stops (until the ball is spotted) after a first down, right? Even if it's a running play. A well coached team that gets up to the line of scrimmage immediately after the play can be ready to run another play almost immediately once the ball is spotted and clock restarted, which is basically what happened as I recall. I thought it was played perfectly. The TO is FAR more valuable to be used after a sack, or when the runner gets stopped in bounds short of the first down than it is after a first down play. If I recall correctly, we had one time out left in our pockets when the game winning TD was scored. That TO would have been absolutely CRITICAL to have if DH had been stopped just short of the goal line, or if Malik had to scramble or took a sack on that play.

Respectfully, you are just wrong on this one.

Look, I'm not wrong.

We burned our second timeout AFTER the second incompletion to Cager (AFTER both Homer runs).

So, yeah, we wasted one timeout.

Again, respectfully, you are just wrong on this one.

You mean the play right before the one where we won the game? You mean we wasted a time out to ensure everybody had the right play and were all on the same page? The time out we wouldn't have had if we had called timeouts after two first down runs that stopped the clock anyway?

Sorry dude, but I'm going to have to agree with [MENTION=14474]g8rh8rMD[/MENTION] on this one. Calling the timeout, even with the clock stopped, just to make sure we get the final play called correctly makes perfect sense. Calling a timeout after a 14 yard first down run that stopped the clock anyway does not.

the first timeout was used after Rosier had his helmet knocked off after the thomas hit. we used that timeout in order to allow rosier to stay in the game. the very next play he threw a TD to berrios.

the other timeout was used to settle the team down after 2 incomplete deep balls to cager & to make sure we got a good play off on the 3rd & 10 pass to berrios that setup the winning TD & ALSO to ensure everyone knew what to do in case something funky happened on that 3rd & 10, that wouldnt end up costing us the game. That was a crucial timeout, and im glad richt called it.


I thought both timeouts were extremely well used. and we still had one left at the end of the game, just in case.

this is a really, really bad take from my boy TOC