|
Post by coachwoodall on Dec 3, 2012 13:07:51 GMT -6
can anybody give me a quick run down on what happened? I know, I know call a shrink.... but I was watching the HS finals this past weekend.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Dec 3, 2012 13:45:29 GMT -6
the beginning and end of the decision-making comes down to personnel. Look what personnel groupings did to Alabama - Texas A&M. This is essentially what Richt said after the game, anyway. They had the right matchups on the field and rather than stop the tempo, they had the right scenario in play and had everything they needed for the situation. It came down to Alabama executing better on that given play. I know that I am being a butt this entire thread and sorry, but I call complete BS on that from Ritch. They were throwing a fade. Was Bama really subbing a different corner in that they didn't have in during a 2 minute defense. That is BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by mholst40 on Dec 3, 2012 13:53:39 GMT -6
the beginning and end of the decision-making comes down to personnel. Look what personnel groupings did to Alabama - Texas A&M. This is essentially what Richt said after the game, anyway. They had the right matchups on the field and rather than stop the tempo, they had the right scenario in play and had everything they needed for the situation. It came down to Alabama executing better on that given play. I disagree with this to a certain extent. If Bama had Nickel or Dime personnel in and Georgia wanted to keep them on the field to run the ball, then it makes sense. But, don't you think Bama had their best 11 to defend the pass already on the field for the prior play? If they didn't, we shouldn't be singing Saban or Kirby Smart's praises anytime soon. It always comes down to execution on any down. The goal as a coach is to put your team in the best situation on any given play and have them prepared for the different nuances of each situation. I know hindsight is 20/20 and it's easy to sit at a computer on Monday morning and make these decisions, but I would have spiked the ball, despite my disdain for doing so in most situations.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 3, 2012 15:33:11 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2012 19:17:10 GMT -6
This is good stuff! EXACTLY what I was talking about. Duece
|
|
|
Post by mholst40 on Dec 3, 2012 23:13:09 GMT -6
Good take. Things that jumped out at me right away from the article. Mark Richt notes there was a little bit of confusion. Confusion to me means they should have spiked the ball. I wouldn't want to run a confused play with the national title on the line. He continued to say... "Because if you have, I don’t know how many seconds there were, 15 or whatever it was, if you spike the ball, you might only have two plays after that. If you throw the ball in the end zone, you probably get three plays out of it. So once you spike it, it does take a little time to spike it, and you reduce the chance of having the third play, basically"Well, because Georgia took so long to call a play, they snapped the ball with nine seconds left, and they would probably only get two more plays anyway with one of them being the ill-fated pass that was thrown. Had they just got to the line and spiked the ball right as it was set in play, at worst they have 12 seconds left, which gives you the possibility of three plays and at least two "non-confused" plays. Then to complicate matters, Aaron Murray said, “We thought we would have time for two more plays." It's evident he wasn't on the same page as Richt and his thinking was, IMO, more correct. Now, this call didn't lose the game. The play was a fluke and Mosley made a great play for Bama, but I think this shows that not spiking the football was the wrong decision.
|
|