Playing Time for Jordan Yates

[ibeattetris]

If you bring in Tobias, everyone knows it's a run. Just like when we would rotate Lucas in, everyone knew it was a pass. Graham and Yates are dual threats.

Tobias has certainly never succeeded in a situation where we lined up and everyone within 300 miles of the stadium knew we were running.

Hell, Tevin Washington had 20 rushing touchdowns in 2012, and I think you, me, and everyone on the opposing side knew what was happening when GT lined up inside the 5 yard line.

I am not saying we need to run the flexbone, but any offense we do run should be able to make use of one of our single biggest threats with the ball in his hands. Plenty of teams have a wildcat formation where everyone knows the player receiving the snap is going to run, yet, teams find a way to succeed while doing it. Even a barebones zone read with TO would have been a better play call then the play we attempted on the 2pt conversion we are discussing. CGC's own words is that TO is one of the most athletic guys he has ever coached. If CGC was being honest, then in my opinion for this specific 2pt conversion, you send your guy out there who up until that week was a QB (and even has a start at the position) and let him try to make a play.

 

[ibeattetris]

While it is interesting to hear different points of view on the play, the craziness to me is that this is seen as some sort of indictment. I just can't get there, especially with the redshirt discussion. And I can get there on some other coaching decisions this year.

Here's potentially something new, though I would be happy to be proven wrong that this was discussed already. Did the coaches know that our back-up QB was only going to play 1 play? Graham just went out with injury. Was it possible they didn't know the extent yet? You could argue what the right decision is still, but I'm not convinced it was pre-determined that Yates was only going to run that play then come out for the remainder of the game.

I think you are right. But I think putting Yates in for that play ignores the context of the situation at hand. In the scenario you suggest, I still think you march out TO for the 2-pt conversion, and then let Yates take over next time the offense gets the ball. I am sure plenty of people will disagree with that statement, but that is what I think.

This is a statement that I cannot reconcile that you and a few others have made. It seemed so obvious to me that going for the 2-point conversion was the right decision in order to maintain the best chance at winning the game.

• If we kicked the XP, we'd have been down 17, requiring us to have three more scoring drives in the 4th quarter to tie (7+7+3)
• Whereas converting the 2-point conversion, we'd have been down 16, which would have required two more scoring drives to tie (8+8)
• OR failing to convert the 2-point conversion would have required us to have 3 more scoring drives (7+8+3)

So if the difference in the missed 2-point conversion means we have to convert a 2-point conversion later, in order to catch up to the XP scenario, why would you choose to kick the XP? I would have assumed the coaches gave up on winning if they kicked the XP.

I agree @CuseJacket . Kicking the XP is admitting defeat. I also think Yates was the number two QB, so they decided to throw him to the wolves since that is what the script said to do. The problem I have is it seems to be a very low percentage play there. I find it hard to believe that Yates had a higher chance to convert that 2-pt than TO did. It is certainly with the realm of possibilities, but it is not something that I personally believe. To me this is like in baseball where some coaches still think that bunting helps, where in the majority of the situations, it is a worse proposition then swinging away. Has bunting ever helped a team win? Sure. Could Yates have got the 2pt conversion and helped lead the team to a victory? Sure. I just personally think TO had a higher chance of making the conversion.

 

[smokey_wasp]

I think you are right. But I think putting Yates in for that play ignores the context of the situation at hand. In the scenario you suggest, I still think you march out TO for the 2-pt conversion, and then let Yates take over next time the offense gets the ball. I am sure plenty of people will disagree with that statement, but that is what I think.



I agree @CuseJacket . Kicking the XP is admitting defeat. I also think Yates was the number two QB, so they decided to throw him to the wolves since that is what the script said to do. The problem I have is it seems to be a very low percentage play there. I find it hard to believe that Yates had a higher chance to convert that 2-pt than TO did. It is certainly with the realm of possibilities, but it is not something that I personally believe. To me this is like in baseball where some coaches still think that bunting helps, where in the majority of the situations, it is a worse proposition then swinging away. Has bunting ever helped a team win? Sure. Could Yates have got the 2pt conversion and helped lead the team to a victory? Sure. I just personally think TO had a higher chance of making the conversion.

Your opinion is as valid as any of ours, but I'll still go with the ones who watched every practice if they thought that particular play was better for Yates. Since Yates is practicing as a QB and Oliver is not, Yates had surely practiced the play more recently. I wouldn't have questioned either one, though, and I think it's much ado about nothing.