forums

Reasons last series rest on the ball was correct.

HerbieDaGawd said:
You guys are pussys. The reason why is had we actually lost in OT, you would be ****posting your misery about how it was the incorrect decision and we played not to lose, not playing to win, etc. Hindsight bias.
We had 87 seconds, which is almost a minute and a half, and a timeout to just get into FG range. Emory had started to come alive in the 2nd half and had already made good downfield throws to Colbie and a few other clutch throws. They should have absolutely tried at least once. The whole confused time wasting thing and then multiple runs up the middle I think is what frustrated people. The irony is that Mario would rather kneel while losing or in a tie than while actually winning lol.

At least we got the W. Glad it worked out and glad the defense held. Everyone needed this win.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t run.
 
Advertisement
many CIS posters can't figure out what Mario figured out in the game by 1 minute left in the 4th. We were the better team and the longer the game went the more it favored us. 31 rushing yards allowed. this team averaged 188 in the first 6 games. FSU gave up 146 to them.

just you wait.
 
A lot of posters are too used to playing Madden or NCAA 14. As we learned against GT there is no reset button that can be hit. True freshman against a top 10 D. We were moving the ball on the ground but not exactly getting chunk plays through the air. As another poster alluded to, once there was that confusion and 20+ seconds ran off the clock it was the smart play to do what he did.
 
ItsAUThing.com said:
If Van Dyke is healthy and playing, Miami doesn't sit on that ball. That was 100% due to a true freshman quarterback making his first start, with 15 career reps under his belt.

We literally just saw Georgia Tech go 74 yards on two completions—with no timeouts—in 25-seconds the last time Miami was on this field.

Talk about damned if you do as a coach and damned if you don't.

Go back to the aTm game after that terrible start; Miami trailing 17-14 with :53 left in the half—got super-aggressive and drove 75 yards on six plays for a touchdown to take the halftime lead—they didn't sit on the ball there.

Dawson has proven he's aggressive; the 3rd-and-8 hook-up with TVD and George to help close-out the Aggies... they just didn't want to do anything foolish with a true freshman quarterback when overtime was guaranteed at that point.
Click to expand...
If TVD played yesterday, probably several INTs and Miami loses.
 
I didn’t like being conservative there, at the time.
But, when you consider our 3 scoring drives were run heavy, the momentum, and the crowd I’m now 50/50.

If Tyler was in there, we would have gone for the win.
No question.

Going into this game i was saying I’ll take any kind of a win. Others were predicting a Clemson blowout.
We get the win…with our back-up QB for fricks sake…aaand here we are.
 
Advertisement
I think it would be interesting to see a comparison of posters who thought we were gonna get boat raced by Clemson because we were starting a true freshman QB and those who thought Mario should have let Emory Williams take some shots in the final minute of a tie game. lol
 
I bet us. Sometimes you only know the road you took. Emory was a right turn, TVD was a left. I like to think TVD would have thrown 3 pick 6. I think we would have won 40-10.
 
Bird4um said:
1. Hind sight is 20/20 it worked.
2. Freshman Qb. No 2 min drill. Lots of risks.
3. Borregales vs. Clemson kicker is night and day.
4. Clemson D line was gassed.
5. OT. has no clock. Can run at will. No way were we making it down the field without running. Wasn’t doable with the little time left.

Good call Mario.
Click to expand...

Uhh....#3 and #4 would be reasons to drive 20 yards and kick the field goal.
 
Advertisement
I understand the thinking, but I still think it was the wrong decision.

Do you chuck the ball 15-20 yards downfield? No. But you could have run a screen and potentially try to break a play. You don't just line up, run it straight ahead, and then huddle. You have to play aggressive.
 
Man, it's easy too find solace in hindsight after a succesful outcome.

That was soft coaching that showed our staffs hand in having an ill prepared back up.

Do you all not realize that we passed the ball forward with Emory on **** near every 3rd and long in the 1st half?

So explain the logic of throwing him to the wolves on 3rd and long when the defense knows wtf is coming, rather than a few easy passes(beyond the LOS) on 1st down?


Kid been in the offense for months and you, as a staff, knew before anyone TvD would be out.

Inexcusable and trash game plan.

Especially seeing as how the screens lack of success was less on the QB and talent of the defense and more on Wr and RBs outrunning their blocks. Basically looked like they didn't practice an all screen 1st half in practice all week with how poorly the screens were executed.

I've seen true freshman in their 1st start many of times and seen staffs have more trust and a better game plan for players no better or worse than Emory Williams.

We won so this is a debate solely for that alone. Otherwise. Gtfoh 🗣
 
Canezum5 said:
I've seen true freshman in their 1st start many of times and seen staffs have more trust and a better game plan for players no better or worse than Emory Williams.
Click to expand...

I would like to see this list of fantastic game plans that coaches have had for first-time true freshmen starters against a defense like Clemson's.

Oh, and include how many of those teams won like we did with our horrendous game plan.

Thanks in advance.
 
Advertisement
NC_Canes_11 said:
It was the “right call” bc you won the game. That’s it. The same way running 3 times and kicking a FG to force 2OT was only right bc you won.

In reality, both were incredibly soft and wrong.
Click to expand...

that's the thing, was this about the results or the process

There's a coach who says, "If it's not OK in losing, it's not OK in winning."

That coach?

Mario Cristobal
 
WanderFranco said:
I would like to see this list of fantastic game plans that coaches have had for first-time true freshmen starters against a defense like Clemson's.

Oh, and include how many of those teams won like we did with our horrendous game plan.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
You're literally the last sentence in my post. Like, to the T.

The gameplan was a few lucky bounces our way to victory. Imagine if Clemson fumbles don't bounce our way or we lose in Overtime?

2 very REAL narratives that make that game plan look like ****e in hindsight. Because there is no way in **** CLEMSON fumbling was in our vaunted gameplan.
 
Advertisement
Canezum5 said:
Your literally the last sentence in my post. Like, to the T.

The gameplan was a few lucky bounces our way to victory. Imagine if Clemson fumbles don't bounce our way or we lose in Overtime?

2 very REAL narratives that make that game plan look like ****e in hindsight. Because their is no way in **** CLEMSON fumbling was in our vaunted gameplan.
Click to expand...

So you're "iffing" your way to a loss? Big fan.

No, read it again. Tell me about those superior game plans with true freshmen against elite defenses. You made the claim. Let's hear it.
 
We lose in OT you wouldn’t be saying it was the right thing to do.

A competent coach wouldn’t sit on it in that situation. The looked lost and unprepared when they needed coaching the most.

We win despite our coaching, not because of them.

As someone said, even with a decent coach we are at least 6-1.

Glad for the kids!
 
Last edited:
Bird4um said:
1. Hind sight is 20/20 it worked.
2. Freshman Qb. No 2 min drill. Lots of risks.
3. Borregales vs. Clemson kicker is night and day.
4. Clemson D line was gassed.
5. OT. has no clock. Can run at will. No way were we making it down the field without running. Wasn’t doable with the little time left.

Good call Mario.
Click to expand...
The biggest reason is that he would have absolutely been crucified if the freshman threw an INT leading to a loss in regulation
 
Advertisement
Back
Top