It was kind of both - I'm giving Richt credit for the sentiment, but not for any assumed innovative call there. I think that getting a Langham a TD on Senior Day in that situation was important to Richt...seemed obvious from the stands as myself and others watched it happen and pretty much said the same thing. I also think that this wasn't "breaking tendency" to catch a team off guard when we didn't need to. We were up big late...where was this innovation in other parts of the season when we actually could have used it? Call it a shot if you want to...at this point, if making a decent assumption on why something happened up 24-3 versus Pitt is taking a shot at CMR...so be it.
While I can obviously say I don't know for 100% certain what Richt's thinking was on that play (and neither do you), I don't think that it's a far cry to make the assertion I and several others have made regarding that particular play call.
NOW who's making stuff up...just because he didn't dole out snaps to Rosier like you wanted doesn't mean that he didn't make that play call to Langham with the thought of getting him a TD on Senior Day. Your Rosier red herring doesn't have to be true for my thought on why he called the play to Langham to be true. Mutually exclusive scenarios there.
**** - at least we were up 24-3 and could afford to make that kind of call to throw a ball up to Langham on Senior Day to try and get him a TD as a final send off...if that was indeed Richt's thinking. I don't think it stemmed from Richt deciding to all of the sudden be clever with the playcall out of that formation as the OP was implying, however.
As for all this Rosier BS that didn't happen you tried to throw into the conversation...take that up with CMR with you want. I don't ******* know one way or another what his thinking was on that. I gave you my thinking about it. You don't like it, move along.
