- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 1/19/17 at 1:52 pm to The Mick
quote:
I understand it just fine, frickface. Look at my edit above. If the ball is moved to the 4 and 1/2 yard line after the penalty, Clemson would probably have gone for it instead of a FG. Capiche?
Your post heavily implies you did not understand what he was talking about, but whatever buddy. Otherwise, why even post that they would get to run a play. The OP specifically talked about that in his post. Moron.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 1:54 pm to PeteRose
quote:
Like Clemson wouldn't kick the FG with 1 sec left
I don't think they would have.
Running that play with 6 seconds most times will end with the clock on 00.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 1:58 pm to monkeybutt
Pretty clear that initially I just responded to his first sentence. Then my edit addressed the last play (td vs. fg) issue by saying the ball would be that much closer to the endzone. Not real hard to understand chief.
Maybe YOU should read a bit closer before cursing and questioning other people. But guys like you are bad arse on the internet, I get it.
Maybe YOU should read a bit closer before cursing and questioning other people. But guys like you are bad arse on the internet, I get it.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 2:02 pm to The Mick
quote:
Pretty clear that initially I just responded to his first sentence.
And who does that? When in his own first post, he discusses more than just his first sentence. Which also showed that he understood there would be another play. That's dumb.
quote:
Maybe YOU should read a bit closer before cursing and questioning other people. But guys like you are bad arse on the internet, I get it.
You bitter because I cursed? I said no shite. I don't think that's the same level as calling someone frickface, but what do I know.
ETA: and actually this
quote:was his whole first sentence, so tell me... Where in your original post does it imply that you even understood what he was saying. Because your post was trying to be a smartass about how he didn't even realize Clemson would get to run another play, when he clearly did.
Why didn't Saban just take the penalty and force overtime instead of giving Clemson a free shot at a TD in addition to Overtime insurance instead of making them choose between them?
This post was edited on 1/19/17 at 2:06 pm
Posted on 1/19/17 at 2:10 pm to monkeybutt
quote:Maybe it was the "you people" or the "cant grasp the theory" part that got me going.
some of you people can't even grasp the theory that is being discussed here
Posted on 1/19/17 at 2:13 pm to Hold That Tiger 10
quote:Process vs results, yes I would.
If they would have defended the play and won the game would you be saying the same thing?
quote:It's about giving yourself the best chance to win the game. They gave Clemson 2 chances at it, when they could have just given them one.
Maybe they thought they were good enough to stop the play. Given the chance do you play for the win or play not to lose? Most competitors given the choice, would play to win.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 2:15 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:How so?
Tackle all receivers and leave the edges wide open for a QB run?
You'd have to guard those WRs if you don't tackle them, so what's the difference.
With tackling them, you don't need LB or safety help. Literally all 6-7 guys not guarding/tackling a WR would only have 1 focus, contain and tackle Watson. Seems like the tackle the WRs method would give them an even better chance of being able to contain Watson, no?
Posted on 1/19/17 at 2:20 pm to mylsuhat
quote:1. Bama doesn't have that choice, Clemson does
Clemson's offense in a college overtime situation was better than Bama's offense without Bo. So IMO you play that last play to win the game, not tie and chance OT
2. It wasn't going to be the last play, Clemson had 2 plays.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 2:29 pm to Choupique19
quote:I'd take that bet real quick.
The ball would have been placed at the 1 yard line. I bet 50% of coaches would go for the win from the 1 yard line.
Now Dabo may have gone for it with Watson as his QB, but I think that number is well below 50%. Saban wouldn't IMO.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 2:32 pm to shel311
quote:
I'd take that bet real quick.
Now Dabo may have gone for it with Watson as his QB, but I think that number is well below 50%. Saban wouldn't IMO.
Yea how often do you actually see a coach go for two after scoring a TD to pull within 1 point at the end of a game? That is way less than 50%.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 2:41 pm to monkeybutt
quote:Exactly, and it's a similar situation but the stakes are magnified times a thousand, so I think they'd be even less likely to do it then.
Yea how often do you actually see a coach go for two after scoring a TD to pull within 1 point at the end of a game? That is way less than 50%.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 2:41 pm to shel311
quote:If you're guarding someone, you can break off and make a tackle. If you tackle a WR, how are you going to tackle the QB?
How so?
You'd have to guard those WRs if you don't tackle them, so what's the difference.
With no outside help, now it's a footrace to the edge. You trust your LBs and D linemen to make that play?
This post was edited on 1/19/17 at 2:43 pm
Posted on 1/19/17 at 2:43 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
The real question is why didn't the cowboys take a cheap shot on the Packers kicker last weekend during the ice the kicker situation
You give up 15 yards but it's still a 41 yard FG they have to make without a kicker
Might not go over well with the league but you'd prolly win
You give up 15 yards but it's still a 41 yard FG they have to make without a kicker
Might not go over well with the league but you'd prolly win
Posted on 1/19/17 at 2:45 pm to bbap
quote:
They basically did. That's why the guy out of the flat was so wide open
This is the answer
Posted on 1/19/17 at 2:46 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:Well, you'd still have an extra guy or 2 that you normally wouldn't so yea I do still think your chances increase.
With no outside help, now it's a footrace to the edge. You trust your LBs and D linemen to make that play?
And sure fair point, they can break off and attempt the tackle on Watson, but he can also still throw the pass if they do break off.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 2:47 pm to tzimme4
quote:So the answer to the question "why didn't Bama tackle all of Clemson's WRs" is that they did and that's how a WR got wide open?
This is the answer
What am I missing here?
Posted on 1/19/17 at 2:56 pm to shel311
Pretty much, the outside CB engaged the outside WR, which helped Renfrow and #2 never had a chance
Posted on 1/19/17 at 3:31 pm to castorinho
quote:That gif makes it really obvious they were NOT trying to tackle all of the WRs.
Pretty much, the outside CB engaged the outside WR, which helped Renfrow and #2 never had a chance
The dude never even got close to Renfrow and chose to go outside. The DB at the bottom did not attack the WR who just stood there.
You can see the TE #16 blocking, no one even tries to hit him, much less tackle him. And then a LB hits a RB, but never wraps up or tries to tackle.
So yea, that gif proves without a doubt that Bama was NOT trying to tackle all of the eligible WRs.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News