End of game strategy

#1
A

allvol123

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
50,179
Likes
50,304
#1
The last time Florida got the ball, I was somewhat hoping that UT would let them score on purpose. That would have made it an 8 point game and gave us the ball back with 2 minutes. I did not think we could stop them from getting a first down, D was too tired. Anyway it is just a different strategy, I still wonder if the UT coaching staff was smart enough to even think of it. Don't blame them for not doing it, just wonder if they considered it.
 
#2
#2
allvol123 said:
The last time Florida got the ball, I was somewhat hoping that UT would let them score on purpose. That would have made it an 8 point game and gave us the ball back with 2 minutes. I did not think we could stop them from getting a first down, D was too tired. Anyway it is just a different strategy, I still wonder if the UT coaching staff was smart enough to even think of it. Don't blame them for not doing it, just wonder if they considered it.
Click to expand...

Who knows really. We should have done what we did and try to make a stand. Our defense was just too gassed to be effective.
 
#3
#3
Our offensive line was not playing well enough to take that kind of risk and employ that kind of strategy. We had to hope to keep it within a field goal and stop them or we didn't have a chance. Of course, because we couldn't stop them from getting a first down - we didn't really have a chance either way!
 
#4
#4
I felt it was better to have the ball and be 8 down, rather than being 1 down and not having the ball.
 
#5
#5
I think with no timeouts that would have been a pretty foolish plan. Had you tired it, I'd give you about a 5 % chance of making it work. And had it not worked, I don't think they'd have let Fulmer even show up for work tomorrow morning.
 
#7
#7
No, but with your defense so tired and no timeouts, the truth is that the game really did end when the gators stopped you on 4th and long.
 
#8
#8
That's an interesting idea, but I think I agree with LG. If we had stopped them on 3rd and 6 at the end of the game, we'd have gotten the ball back around our own 30 with about 50 seconds to go. We still would have had about 3 plays to move it 35 yards to get in FG range.
 
#9
#9
Going for it on 4th and 27 tells me the coaches did not think they could get the ball back from Florida if they punted. So once they lost posession, citing what I think they felt, above. Then my strategy makes sense.
 
#10
#10
GAVol said:
That's an interesting idea, but I think I agree with LG. If we had stopped them on 3rd and 6 at the end of the game, we'd have gotten the ball back around our own 30 with about 50 seconds to go. We still would have had about 3 plays to move it 35 yards to get in FG range.
Click to expand...

So you think you can go 35 yards in 3 plays, but can't go 80 in 2 minutes.
 
#11
#11
allvol123 said:
So the one they chose worked out so well?
Click to expand...


The one we chose was to stop Florida's rushing attack on consecutive running plays that were obviously coming. And we couldn't keep them from getting 10 yards. We should have been able to stop them and get the ball back to atleast try to get in FG range
 
#12
#12
It was 4th and 16 and we had just 1 timeout left. No way we were going to punt.
 
#13
#13
allvol123 said:
The last time Florida got the ball, I was somewhat hoping that UT would let them score on purpose. That would have made it an 8 point game and gave us the ball back with 2 minutes. I did not think we could stop them from getting a first down, D was too tired. Anyway it is just a different strategy, I still wonder if the UT coaching staff was smart enough to even think of it. Don't blame them for not doing it, just wonder if they considered it.
Click to expand...

:crazy: I'm pretty sure that they are "smart enough" to not think of doing such a thing. Needing a FG and needing to go all the way for a TD, and THEN convert the 2-pointer, just to get a tie, are two different cookies.
 
#14
#14
Jasongivm6 said:
The one we chose was to stop Florida's rushing attack on consecutive running plays that were obviously coming. And we couldn't keep them from getting 10 yards. We should have been able to stop them and get the ball back to atleast try to get in FG range
Click to expand...

I think the coaches felt differently, as going for it on 4th and 27 would signal otherwise.
 
#15
#15
I think maybe if Florida had the ball on our 5 yard line, it might be a strategy slightly worth considering.
 
#16
#16
kiddiedoc said:
:crazy: I'm pretty sure that they are "smart enough" to not think of doing such a thing. Needing a FG and needing to go all the way for a TD, and THEN convert the 2-pointer, just to get a tie, are two different cookies.
Click to expand...

As I said, there choice worked out well didn't it? In your factoring above, you forgot to consider the defense had to get the ball back for your supposed field goal attempt. So the cookies are not as different as you see. If the coaches don't consider every possibility, that is not smart.
 
#17
#17
allvol123 said:
I think the coaches felt differently, as going for it on 4th and 27 would signal otherwise.
Click to expand...

Why not give it a try? We still should have been able to stop them from getting 10 yards when we knew exactly what they were going to do. We didn't. And our punt return coverage wasn't exactly "on" last night.
 
#18
#18
allvol123 said:
I think the coaches felt differently, as going for it on 4th and 27 would signal otherwise.
Click to expand...

It wasn't 4th and 27. If it had been 4th and 27, I'm sure we would have saved the timeout and punted it to them and played defense with 2 timeouts.
 
#19
#19
GAVol said:
It wasn't 4th and 27. If it had been 4th and 27, I'm sure we would have saved the timeout and punted it to them and played defense with 2 timeouts.
Click to expand...

I got the yardage wrong, but the idea remains. Going for it on fourth and long says the coaches did not think they had a good chance of causing a 3 and out for Florida.
 
#20
#20
allvol123 said:
I got the yardage wrong, but the idea remains. Going for it on fourth and long says the coaches did not think they had a good chance of causing a 3 and out for Florida.
Click to expand...

But there is a big difference between 4th and 27 and 4th and 16. 4th and 16 at least leaves the possibility of some intermediate length pass routes. Both of them are low percentage plays though.

I'd never do it, but your idea is at least interesting. In fact, I think I remember somebody doing that in the Super Bowl a few years ago, but from inside the 5 yard line.
 
#21
#21
allvol123 said:
The last time Florida got the ball, I was somewhat hoping that UT would let them score on purpose. That would have made it an 8 point game and gave us the ball back with 2 minutes. I did not think we could stop them from getting a first down, D was too tired. Anyway it is just a different strategy, I still wonder if the UT coaching staff was smart enough to even think of it. Don't blame them for not doing it, just wonder if they considered it.
Click to expand...
Very interesting thought and plausible.This is what makes this Board enlighting. I guess the coaches were hoping to strip the ball as there was too much time for Florida to go into the Victory formation.
 
#22
#22
I would have been just as concerned about getting the "2" as getting the TD. Without any rushing game whatsoever, there ain't a whole lot of room for pass routes in the endzone.
 
#23
#23
rockydoc said:
Very interesting thought and plausible.This is what makes this Board enlighting. I guess the coaches were hoping to strip the ball as there was too much time for Florida to go into the Victory formation.
Click to expand...

Yea, I am not blaming the staff for not using this strategy. I am more interested in whether they even thought of it. If they did not, that bothers me. You should be aware of all of your alternatives.
 
#24
#24
kiddiedoc said:
I would have been just as concerned about getting the "2" as getting the TD. Without any rushing game whatsoever, there ain't a whole lot of room for pass routes in the endzone.
Click to expand...


So you think completing a 3 yard pass is more difficult than stopping UF from 10 yards in 3 plays. We knew every time Tebow came in what was about to happen and we could not stop it.
 
#25
#25
The real issue was 3rd and 16. We knew we were in 2 down territory, therefore throw underneath and get 7-8 yards and then you have a makable 4th down. However, we tried to go for the whole ball of wax on both 3rd and 4th down. Not the best strategy....
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top