forums

Hey Mario...great call!

Advertisement
I would have used the timeout at 2:40 going into 3rd down but you also can’t leave them time on ththe clock as all they needed would be a field goal… I am not sure what the right call is honestly
 
LuCane said:
I believe it’s a mistaken strategy. You utilize a timeout after the SECOND down stop to control 40 seconds off the clock and, ideally, force them into an incompletion on 3rd. 40 seconds are more valuable. You can better control the clock when you’re on offense at the end of a game - spikes, for example, are an alternative strategy. But, you have no control over the 40 seconds that tick off when you’re on defense. I’m not advocating for using ALL the timeouts while on defense. But, just because the result turned out ok doesn’t mean it’s an optimal or sustainable strategy going forward.
Click to expand...
agree entirely. i was, however, in the minority amongst those watching with me
 
WE LEFT A TIMEOUT UNUSED ON THE LAST DRIVE. THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE GIVEN THE SITUATION. On defense with 2-3 minutes left, you need to keep as much time on the clock as possible. It's pretty simple, the coaches ****ed up the timeout strategy and then got bailed out by a 77-yard pass that allowed us to score way faster than we could have reasonably expected to.
 
Advertisement
Yeah whoever he hired to be his game management coach needs a raise. Well worth the money so far.
 
No right answer. Ultimately it worked out bc of 77 yard play. I would’ve called the TO but I’m a billionaire philanthropist/crimefighter/playboy, not football coach.
I was embarrassed for announcer wuss trying to make it an issue right away. Ultimately coach has to exercise judgment and ACTUALLY MAKE THE CALL.
Mario’s take not unreasonable or wrong.
Go canes!!
 
Last edited:
LuCane said:
I believe it’s a mistaken strategy. You utilize a timeout after the SECOND down stop to control 40 seconds off the clock and, ideally, force them into an incompletion on 3rd. 40 seconds are more valuable. You can better control the clock when you’re on offense at the end of a game - spikes, for example, are an alternative strategy. But, you have no control over the 40 seconds that tick off when you’re on defense. I’m not advocating for using ALL the timeouts while on defense. But, just because the result turned out ok doesn’t mean it’s an optimal or sustainable strategy going forward.
Click to expand...

Tough call - arguments on both sides but I think you have to also take into consideration gut feeling and whether you feel more confident in the offense or defense. I have a lot more confidence in Ward driving the length of the field with 1:30 left and 3 timeouts, and then hoping the D can keep them out of FG range for 26 seconds, than I do that the defense could keep them from getting into FG range if they have more than 1:00 to work. Defense looked better in the 2nd half but there were still plays where Cal was picking up chunk yardage. If we’d scored quickly and left too much time on the clock , I have very little doubt that Cal would have been able to move downfield and kick a 63 yard FG to win.
 
Advertisement
SouthsideAtl said:
Man stop Guidry ain’t out there missing tackles
Click to expand...
I'm a huge Guidry fan, but he has been outcoached/outschemed big time in the first half of these last 3 games. It's not just poor tackling that has these opponent's offenses running roughshod over us in the first half of games. Guidry's defensive plan/scheme has been exposed. Now, fortunately for us, he has made adjustments in the 2nd half.

I do blame the players a little more for the poor tackling, but some of that blame also has to go to the DC. If the defense is coming out flat and unprepared the last 3 games, that's on the DC as well as the players.
 
1728249965376.png

Go Canes!
 
3rd-43 said:
I did feel calling a TO right after 1st and goal run play was a poor decision as the clock should have been ran to a point to ensure only maximum of 4-5 plays could be ran. But it’s moot now
Click to expand...

In fairness decisions prior to this allowed for a miscalculation having extra time outs.
 
fraggle said:
The two point conversion was huge, great foresight by Mario...might even erase the GT decision. :clapping1:
Click to expand...
I don't think it's an exaggeration to say your threads add more value to the site than any other poster.

I wish you were my grandpa.
 
Advertisement
LuCane said:
I believe it’s a mistaken strategy. You utilize a timeout after the SECOND down stop to control 40 seconds off the clock and, ideally, force them into an incompletion on 3rd. 40 seconds are more valuable. You can better control the clock when you’re on offense at the end of a game - spikes, for example, are an alternative strategy. But, you have no control over the 40 seconds that tick off when you’re on defense. I’m not advocating for using ALL the timeouts while on defense. But, just because the result turned out ok doesn’t mean it’s an optimal or sustainable strategy going forward.
Click to expand...
I think you're making a good argument for why having called it earlier on 2nd down would make sense. However the people that were saying to call the timeout like right before the 2 min warning (I guess on 3rd down), that to me isn't really a big deal whether you call it before or after. Because you know if you stop them and it's a run the only difference really is like 10seconds max. But the thing is you COULD essentially steal a timeout if they chose to pass and it ended up incomplete. But if you call the timeout and they end up passing incomplete you are out of the timeout and they punt but clock stops after anyways. And in fact by calling the timeout before you actually incentivize the offense to potentially pass because they know they have that 2 minute stoppage or a punt stoppage coming up anyways while they already got you to burn a TO. Waiting till after the 2min warning I think makes them more likely to run, which was easier for us to stop.

Personally what I disagreed with was not going for 2pt conversion off our 2nd to last TD. Obviously ended up working in our favor, and maybe most even on here would disagree with me. But We were down 13. Situation is
- We get the TD and miss the PAT/2pt = Down 7
- Get the TD and make PAT = Down 6
- Get the TD and Make the 2pt = Down 5

Now when you put it just like that obviously it makes sense to go for the PAT because a TD and PAT can win you the game. HOWEVER, to me it ignores how the game has gone (Cal had multiple 40+ yard pass plays off misdirection or just 1 guy missing a tackle) and the situation regarding time on the clock (4minutes left after our TD) and expected posessions remaining, and how confident I'd be in A) us making a 2pt conversion and/or winning in OT and B) their kicker making a very long FG, which always seems to happen to us.

For me I think there is significantly more risk in not protecting ourselves from Cal kicking a FG than us missing the 2pt conversion and then losing in OT. Taking those same 3 decisions, *IF* Cal drives and scored a FG, which you'd assume is them gaining like 30-40 yards:
- We get the TD and miss the PAT/2pt + Cal FG = Down 10 = Need 2 more scores
- Get the TD and make PAT + Cal FG = Down 9 = Need 2 more score
- Get the TD and Make the 2pt + Cal FG = Down 8 = Need 1 more score

So yeah we can see how in the event we fully stop Cal from scoring any points how that heavily increases our likelihood of winning the game because we'd likely have a 1 pt lead like ended up happening. However to me I'd much rather rely on my offense to get 2pt conversions and/or have to take this to OT where imo we then still win as we still have all the momentum and were just outplaying them and give my Defense the flexibility to give up a big play and still pull out the win. Guess it's just all about how confident you are in our Defense to fully get the stop or that their kicker would miss....
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Back
Top