Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'RayGator's Swamp Gas' started by gator07, Sep 8, 2013.
There is no strategy, it's a dumb move. To do that in the first qtr was dumb.
Issue is that will it be executed again. Did Muschamp ever answer that question?
Some of our MO turned on that play.
Again...the play call was right. It was an easy two. The execution was bad. Moore blocked the wrong guy. If he gets his man, its an untouched 2 points.
Call was fine. We do it (like Oregon and other west coast teams) if they defense gives us a certain look. We should have a pretty high percentage rate successfully completeing the play if the defense gives us that look. If the OL didn't completely wiff, Burton would have walked in. It's only 3 yards.
Muschamp was asked about that call and he defended it. I agree with him.
Agree, champ said he would do it again if he sees the same thing, he won't and we will never know what he saw or sees!
It was dumb, every play is great if executed properly what does that mean? He won't go for two in first again I would wager.
By that same notion, you should never try any play because it may not be executed properly.
Truth is, If we succeed and win, hes a genius....
Not really as you could say the exact same thing for the defense on any given play. The conversion should have been as easy as a qb sneak, but we also struggled with that. It's not a bad call, it's a bad offense.
? U lost me
You guys are baffling. We should have taken the extra point and moved on. We decided for the riskier option and it failed, in the first qtr I bet we do not see that decision again.
The problem with going for 2 is if your offense isn't that good you need to avoid risk whenever possible.
We played the Miami game WAY TO AGGRESSIVELY, and the problem is, UF doesn't have the QB or the players on offense to BE that aggressive.
UF needs to be conservative, play within themselves, and rely on the kicking game and defense.
Muschamp WANTS to be a better offense, you can see that he wants us to be strong on both sides of the ball. But we aren't there yet, and I hope to christ we see a more conservative game plan next week, because anything other than conservative, taking points when we can get them (FG's, xp) and playing field position will get us beat. By just about anyone.
So the play call was fine...the problem was not having the players properly prepared to execute it.
Or the player just screwed it up. But yeah, the play was beautifully designed. If we can't execute we don't deserve to win. We couldn't so we didn't
No, it wouldn't have been just as haunting for Miami to be down by 1 as it was for us. Miami was on defense, they hadn't just scored a TD like we had, a TD in a rivalry game on the road that was a quick answer to Miami's TD. Our maligned offense (not by me) did great, everyone's excited and we're about to tie the game up. But then we go for two, they stuff it, so instead of being tied we're still behind despite our TD, our offense has failed again, and the air has just been let out of our balloon.
By going for two and missing we effectively converted our TD into two FGs. I think it was considerably more demoralizing for us to miss the two and still be behind in a rivalry game on the road than it would have been for UM to give up the two at that point in the game.
I've seen a fair number of games over the years when not kicking the PAT ended up being a significant factor in the outcome of the game, usually in a situation where a team is down by 4 points rather than 3 near the end of the game so on their final drive they have to score a TD rather than being able to kick a FG and send the game into OT. Maybe there have been an equal number where making the extra one point from a two point conversion early in the game had an equally big effect on the outcome but if so I don't remember them.
One thing I can say for sure - I've seen many many more games where the extra point has been kicked after a team's first TD in the first quarter of a 7-6 game than I have seen a two-point conversion tried at that point.
Why does it matter that Miami is on defense? And if we got the two we could have effectively turned our td into four safeties, right? Seems like you're trying really hard to make your point. There's a lot of momentum and excitement and rah rah in your post that I just don't believe in. I believe in execution.
You don't have to convince me about going for two early I hate it. But what we did was different. We drew up a brilliant play that gave us a huge advantage that we just couldn't capitalize on.
Honestly it was a breath of fresh air to see a smartly drawn up play that was aggressive in nature. There aren't that many nowadays! Just let me enjoy it ok? ! ! ! haha
It was stupid unless you're willing to go all in and go for 2 after every TD so that the odds are in your favor, but given the sad state of our offense in the red zone, it was just dumb.
It also affected the game. We could have gone for 2 at the end of the game to get us within 3 for a tying field goal and we then wouldn't have had to go for the onside kick and could have relied on the defense to hold them to a 3 and out - like they did - and been within field goal range shortly after returning the punt.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Not possible to know how poor the scoring would be during the game from the first scoring drive...regardless, it was a dumb move and the fact the Muschamp cant see that is more troubling than the fact he went for it.
Trying hard to make my point that it was a stupid call? I didn't think it was that hard, I thought it was pretty easy because going for two at that point in that game was IMHO stupid. But if you enjoyed it that's good. I found very little to enjoy in that game.