Playoff saving FG?

[bacane]

Is it possible the FG, sketchy at the time, prolongs our season? Let’s be real, chances of scoring from 10-yd line weren’t high. If we fail, D would have melted like butter and Syracuse would have marched down the field for an easy TD. So, we would have lost 49-35 instead of a more respectable 42-38.
If SMU beats Clemson this might matter.
We have two losses, both on the road, by total of 9 points.
Syracuse is 9-3. GT 7-5 after losing at UGA in 8 OTs.
It appears top contenders for playoff spot, assuming Lashlee and Co take care of Clemson, are 3-time losers Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina.
Bama losses include Vandy, Tenn and 24-3 to Oklahoma (6-6). Loss total by 33 points vs Miami’s 9.
Mississippi losses to LSU, Kentucky (4-8 record) and Florida - a Miami rout. Loss total by 13 points.
South Carolina losses to LSU, Mississippi (27-3 rout) and Alabama. Loss total by 29 points vs Miami’s 9 in two losses.
Again, if Clemson wins ACC title game none of this matters. And yes, Miami’s defense would get lit up by whoever it faced in the playoffs.
But the questionable FG may help make our case.

 

[ristwasdown]

I don't know. And I didn't feel like making a thread on it...

But the more I contemplate, the fg was the right choice. Their rushing offense is their weakness. Passing their strength. We couldn't stop their passing all game. A stop was needed no matter what. Kicking the 3 forced them to go under center.

The issue is, the supposrd strength of our D couldn't stop their bottom tier rushing attack. **** me.

 

[Ispyin]

Is it possible the FG, sketchy at the time, prolongs our season? Let’s be real, chances of scoring from 10-yd line weren’t high. If we fail, D would have melted like butter and Syracuse would have marched down the field for an easy TD. So, we would have lost 49-35 instead of a more respectable 42-38.
If SMU beats Clemson this might matter.
We have two losses, both on the road, by total of 9 points.
Syracuse is 9-3. GT 7-5 after losing at UGA in 8 OTs.
It appears top contenders for playoff spot, assuming Lashlee and Co take care of Clemson, are 3-time losers Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina.
Bama losses include Vandy, Tenn and 24-3 to Oklahoma (6-6). Loss total by 33 points vs Miami’s 9.
Mississippi losses to LSU, Kentucky (4-8 record) and Florida - a Miami rout. Loss total by 13 points.
South Carolina losses to LSU, Mississippi (27-3 rout) and Alabama. Loss total by 29 points vs Miami’s 9 in two losses.
Again, if Clemson wins ACC title game none of this matters. And yes, Miami’s defense would get lit up by whoever it faced in the playoffs.
But the questionable FG may help make our case.

 

[SaiyaMan305]

Wait til tuesday for the rankings. Most likely we are #12 and the first team out.

 

[mcnaire2004]

The FG is fine if you have the time outs and your defense has proven they could get a stop. Absent one of those things it's a terrible decision.

 

[TemplarCane]

Syracuse ran the ball fairly well during the game. A few sacks took away some yardage.

I still think Miami should’ve gone for the touchdown on fourth down. Score and tie with the PAT and you have a chance for overtime and still win the game. All other options and outcomes result in little-to-no chance to win because you put all the pressure on your defense that failed nearly all game.

 

[insaneinthecane]

Is it possible the FG, sketchy at the time, prolongs our season? Let’s be real, chances of scoring from 10-yd line weren’t high. If we fail, D would have melted like butter and Syracuse would have marched down the field for an easy TD. So, we would have lost 49-35 instead of a more respectable 42-38.
If SMU beats Clemson this might matter.
We have two losses, both on the road, by total of 9 points.
Syracuse is 9-3. GT 7-5 after losing at UGA in 8 OTs.
It appears top contenders for playoff spot, assuming Lashlee and Co take care of Clemson, are 3-time losers Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina.
Bama losses include Vandy, Tenn and 24-3 to Oklahoma (6-6). Loss total by 33 points vs Miami’s 9.
Mississippi losses to LSU, Kentucky (4-8 record) and Florida - a Miami rout. Loss total by 13 points.
South Carolina losses to LSU, Mississippi (27-3 rout) and Alabama. Loss total by 29 points vs Miami’s 9 in two losses.
Again, if Clemson wins ACC title game none of this matters. And yes, Miami’s defense would get lit up by whoever it faced in the playoffs.
But the questionable FG may help make our case.

 

[PennsylvaniaCane]

The FG is fine if you have the time outs and your defense has proven they could get a stop. Absent one of those things it's a terrible decision.

I didn’t see it discussed on here but what was the explanation on TV for the timeout they stole early in the 2nd half?

 

[QuattroCane]

I didn’t see it discussed on here but what was the explanation on TV for the timeout they stole early in the 2nd half?

They said they checked it and the play clock was reset correctly...

 

[PennsylvaniaCane]

They said they checked it and the play clock was reset correctly...

Didn’t seem that way at the game. Official made the announcement about the spot and a couple seconds later cam took a timeout. Was disappointed in Mario. Should have went full on Saban on the official. Just stood there talking to him for a minute

 

[Odin]

I don't know. And I didn't feel like making a thread on it...

But the more I contemplate, the fg was the right choice. Their rushing offense is their weakness. Passing their strength. We couldn't stop their passing all game. A stop was needed no matter what. Kicking the 3 forced them to go under center.

The issue is, the supposrd strength of our D couldn't stop their bottom tier rushing attack. **** me.

We should have gone for the TD.And after the FG we should have onside kicked.Relying on the defense to get a critical stop with 3 minutes left was as bad as not kneeling against GT last year.

 

[ristwasdown]

We should have gone for the TD.And after the FG we should have onside kicked.Relying on the defense to get a critical stop with 3 minutes left was as bad as not kneeling against GT last year.

We can disagree. They essentially got into field goal range by running the ball to clock it. A stop was required regardless. In a all three scenarios. We kick 3. We need a stop. We score. We need a stop. We go and don't get it, we need a stop. In all three scenarios, we probably lose.

The right thing to do was to try and score running hurry up. With 7-8 minutes on the clock. Which we didnt do

 

[AutoCANE]

The choice to kick a FG is the right choice, sure - IF YOUR DEFENSE HAS A ******* PULSE! At that point in the game it was clear we had no answers. He coached that scenario as if it were an NFL game - when it is highly likely you stop three running plays and get the ball back. There was absolutely zero evidence that we would be able to do that, and - shocker - we didn’t!

Debating whether the loss by four or fourteen leaves the door open for us to steal a playoff bid is kind of silly. A loss is a loss, and we choked with everything on the line.

 

[hoops156]

The choice to kick a FG is the right choice, sure - IF YOUR DEFENSE HAS A ******* PULSE! At that point in the game it was clear we had no answers. He coached that scenario as if it were an NFL game - when it is highly likely you stop three running plays and get the ball back. There was absolutely zero evidence that we would be able to do that, and - shocker - we didn’t!

Debating whether the loss by four or fourteen leaves the door open for us to steal a playoff bid is kind of silly. A loss is a loss, and we choked with everything on the line.

In a game you led 21-0. the defense is the reason our viewpoint nationally is bad

 

[AutoCANE]

We can disagree. They essentially got into field goal range by running the ball to clock it. A stop was required regardless. In a all three scenarios. We kick 3. We need a stop. We score. We need a stop. We go and don't get it, we need a stop. In all three scenarios, we probably lose.

The right thing to do was to try and score running hurry up. With 7-8 minutes on the clock. Which we didnt do

I don’t disagree, but say we do. Ultimately the scenario is still the same, in that case we probably lose 49-42 instead, because you know they would score again.

 

[TRick72]

 

[ristwasdown]

I don’t disagree, but say we do. Ultimately the scenario is still the same, in that case we probably lose 49-42 instead, because you know they would score again.

Eh. With 7 minutes on the clock, once they get in range, you try to let them score maybe? You're probably right in the sense that they take the full 5-7 mins off the clock and still score.

With our defense that game, we probably lose in all scenarios. So all of us debating what the right call was is pointless lmao. ******* defense man.

 

[The canesman]

In the secondary we had midgets covering giants.

 

[UMercury21]

lol clemsons only losses are to SEC schools so that's as good as 2 wins... even if clemson loses to SMU clemson would get a playoff spot before us.

 

[Canaanite]

I don't know. And I didn't feel like making a thread on it...

But the more I contemplate, the fg was the right choice. Their rushing offense is their weakness. Passing their strength. We couldn't stop their passing all game. A stop was needed no matter what. Kicking the 3 forced them to go under center.

The issue is, the supposrd strength of our D couldn't stop their bottom tier rushing attack. **** me.

In the moment i agreed with taking the field goal and here's why hear me out...

The offensive momentum had sputtered in the redzone thanks to George's stupid f'n headbutt penalty, and a near interception on that same play.
There's more than 3:40, We had 2 timeouts, and the 2min warning. Our front 7 had done a decent job all game of holding their run game in check. At that point they were right around 60 total rush yards for the game.
Remember McCord had carved up our secondary & corners. By taking the FG, you essentially force them to be conservative, 1 dimensional and run the ball only. After a stop you'd get the ball back with ard 2mins with a chance to Win with a score. You have to believe that your D can get at least 1 stop in that situation, and if we can't then guess what We Don't Deserve to WIN!

Let's say we do take the shot and score to tie, Well now you still have the exact same problem of getting a stop Except now Syracuse has the ball with 3:30+, 3 timeouts and their FULL PLAYBOOK. All they need is a field goal to win. McCord definitely would've continued to carve our secondary and score in some fashion.

Let's place the blame squarely where it actually belongs on the D & Guidry. He still had the DEs stunting and twisting which gave up contain and allowed RB Allen to turn the corner. They beat us with the same stuff other teams had.. motions sweeps & edge runs. The D committed penalties lost contain & got bullied by Syracuse's oline when everyone knew exactly what was coming.

This one wasn't on Mario this was on Guidry as usual this season. Their was NO coaching decision that Mario could've made in that situation that would've removed responsibility from the Defense of getting a critical stop, None.