I have to disagree. As was said, going for the TD was not a bad call, IMPO. However, when you’re going against a top-shelf D you’d better take the points you can get. That forsaken 3 points was critical and made the game a score closer the rest of the afternoon. Had we kicked that FG, Clem never would have led the way the rest of the game played out.
“sexy” and I haven’t collided in the same thought for a loooong time… I appreciate you!
The saddest thing to me was that was pretty obviously a “get what you can” play to set up the punt. I see that play as the equivalent of a TO in our territory.
Not quite… As it turned out, pinning them deep gave us a short field turnover, which resulted in the three points we “left on the field” the previous possession. No guarantee they cough the ball up if they’re starting with better field position, and also no guarantee that we get back in field-goal range if they made it across midfield before coughing it up.
Yeah, but you notice the situation is “typical.” Again, I submit that Clemson’s D is not typical. If it were about any other ACC team I would say go for it. Still, as I said, it was not a bad call. However, this is a top shelf D in a part of the field where top-shelf D’s can become extremely difficult to score on.
Had a very nice view of it from my seats and that was exactly my understanding of that play. I was counting the defenders along with Haynes. 4 receivers in the quads bunch. 3 Clemson defenders out there to defend. Throw the screen. Unfortunately, one of the blockers didn't even get a hand on his guy. Could have been a pick six.
The point is taking the 3 didn’t guarantee us the lead, as you assert. In fact, giving Clemson O the ball “on schedule” from the 25 makes them very comfortable for their first drive, which might have looked very different. It could’ve just as easily been 7-3 Clemson after a drive for each team.
That’s fine. Again, I don’t consider it a bad decision to go for it (this is not to be taken as criticism of the decision). As it turned out, we got the ball back and scored. But CBK couldn’t have known that. It was a higher risk decision that had bigger potential upside than the FG would have had. I’m only saying that CBK passed it off like a no-brainer and I’m saying it wasn’t a no-brainer at all. There’s a good case to be made both ways.
I agree, he overthought it, line up quick with King under center and push him over
??
Turnovers caused by great defensive plays can’t be part of a well played game?
Yep. I had zero problems with the call. We had Clemson’s vaunted defense on their heels. It was a good time to try to strike before they settled into game rhythm. And knowing that if we didn’t make it they would be pinned deep was an added bonus.
You called it "virtually flawless". I'll guarantee you Clemson coaches did not consider it "virtually flawless".
This play worked more than perfectly the previous time we ran it (vs. Duke, 12:30 first quarter.) The Clempy DL stuffed it (which would have happened no matter who was taking the snap) and J.T. dropped it.
Just curious, how would a KO after a FG result in a short field? Birr routinely puts the KO into the EZ. That’s a 75 yard field, which is pretty long IMO.