HurricaneAce07
Class of 2007
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2015
- Messages
- 816
Still trying to wrap my brain around this one...
Tie game. 4th quarter. Under 30 seconds left. GT is out of timeouts. We have the ball 3rd and goal at the 5(ish) hard line on the right hash.
We run a fade route to KJ in the corner and it's incomplete. We then miss the FG.
Why in the world do we not run on that 3rd down and direct Harris to get back to the middle of the field? We run there and if we don't score, we can now run the clock down and then kick at end of regulation. More importantly, if we re-center the ball it is a much easier kick for a struggling kicker. The short yardage on-the-hash FG can be very difficult - we put our kicker in a horrible position there.
So by throwing the fade route on 3rd down, we stop the clock, give our FG kicker a tough kick, and give the ball back to GT with time on the clock. And we did it just to score 7 instead of 3 in a TIE game? I legit cannot fathom how Enos decided that was the right decision.
Tie game. 4th quarter. Under 30 seconds left. GT is out of timeouts. We have the ball 3rd and goal at the 5(ish) hard line on the right hash.
We run a fade route to KJ in the corner and it's incomplete. We then miss the FG.
Why in the world do we not run on that 3rd down and direct Harris to get back to the middle of the field? We run there and if we don't score, we can now run the clock down and then kick at end of regulation. More importantly, if we re-center the ball it is a much easier kick for a struggling kicker. The short yardage on-the-hash FG can be very difficult - we put our kicker in a horrible position there.
So by throwing the fade route on 3rd down, we stop the clock, give our FG kicker a tough kick, and give the ball back to GT with time on the clock. And we did it just to score 7 instead of 3 in a TIE game? I legit cannot fathom how Enos decided that was the right decision.