Damn...Honorable mention in the bottom 10
- Thread starter roengardner
- Start date
The goal line play gets most of the press, but there were several plays earlier in that drive where we burned way too much clock. For starters, I think we ran the ball straight up the gut the first 3-4 plays(maybe more), acting like we had another quarter to play. Then, when we got down to a minute and a half or so to play, I remember a point where the clock was running and Relf just casually walks towards the sideline to get the playcall. After it gets signed in, Relf and the rest of the team casually line up to the point where they burned about 20-25 seconds off the clock by just taking their time.
I get that they didn't want to leave Auburn a lot of time on the clock, but after going through the LSU debacle two years ago and now this, I firmly believe that you need to score first and worry about the stop later.
I get that they didn't want to leave Auburn a lot of time on the clock, but after going through the LSU debacle two years ago and now this, I firmly believe that you need to score first and worry about the stop later.
I thought we handled the clock just fine at the end. Not to mention, we had two shots at the end zone, and could have been three/four if we tried to pass. And if we had scored, we could have tied/won. Just cause the dude on ESPN said it was bad clock management doesn't make it so.
I would have liked to have had a few more seconds at the end, but we still should have been able to score. 10 seconds from the 2 yard line is enough time for 2 plays. Mullen knew that we were most likely going to spot them the ball at the 35 (at worst) if we had to kick off, and they had a kicker (Parkey) that could probably drill one from about 55 for the win. <div>
</div><div>The true problem was playcalling/execution at the goal line. We should have attempted a pass before going to the option. What really kills me is that Mullen has said multiple times that he was going for 2 if we scored. Really, that option play was the perfect call for a 2 point play, meaning we would have either had to have gone to the well twice in a row, or switched up and thrown the ball for the conversion, which would have been a low percentage play. Keeping that in mind, it makes the last play call even more questionable. It should have been saved for A) 3rd down or 4th down (after one or two pass attempts with 10 seconds left) or B) the 2 point conversion. </div>
</div><div>The true problem was playcalling/execution at the goal line. We should have attempted a pass before going to the option. What really kills me is that Mullen has said multiple times that he was going for 2 if we scored. Really, that option play was the perfect call for a 2 point play, meaning we would have either had to have gone to the well twice in a row, or switched up and thrown the ball for the conversion, which would have been a low percentage play. Keeping that in mind, it makes the last play call even more questionable. It should have been saved for A) 3rd down or 4th down (after one or two pass attempts with 10 seconds left) or B) the 2 point conversion. </div>
Sure, at the time, I may have been slightly freaking out at how much time we were taking. But looking back, Mullen didn't want to leave any time for Auburn. Given how our defense and special teams had performed, he wanted no part of giving the ball back with any amount of time. Remember how the first half ended? They got the ball back with 40 seconds. Five plays and a personal foul later, they kicked a FG. Nevermind our defense...all they'd need for a chance was a kickoff return.
That said, I'd say it worked out pretty well. We just didn't execute at the goal line.</p>
That said, I'd say it worked out pretty well. We just didn't execute at the goal line.</p>
Your #1 goal in that situation is to SCORE THE 17ING TOUCHDOWN. If we'd had time at the end to run another play or two, we probably would have done it. I'd much rather score on 2nd down and give Auburn the ball back with 30 seconds left than let the clock run out on me when I still had downs remaining. Dan's a great coach, but everybody screws up sometimes. And he screwed up at the end of the Auburn game.
told Relf to make the call....he left it up to the guys who would know best given the situation ... all day Relf drug or ran over players ... I say it was a good call ....and if he had gotten in, all of you guys would be saying he was a genius ... it didn't work, tough loss, that's SEC football
You are right about the play calling after Ballard's airborne sideline play. This MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AND DECIDED OUTSIDE OF THE CONTEXT OF A GAME. You have to ask yourself, "Dan, given the ball on the 1 yard line with 11 seconds (or any other situation under 20 seconds), 1 TO, and trailing by a touchdown, would you prefer 2 plays to try to score or 3? This is not even close to being debatable and I would have considered it to be an utter failure in strategy even if Relf had scored. Put yourself in AU's shoes. Would you prefer to defend 2 plays or 3 plays from the 1? When you are losing by a TD with 10 seconds, you don't have the luxury of running the plays that you prefer to run. Everything is dictated by the clock and giving yourself the best chance to win.
After your TO, it has to be a roll-out pass play, throw it if its open, throw it away quick if its not. With some QBs you can trust them with the option of running it in if its WIDE open. With Relf, he probably thinks every run play for him is WIDE open, so its risky. You have to get your QB to understand this. Then on the last play of the game, you just run your best play to score.
After your TO, it has to be a roll-out pass play, throw it if its open, throw it away quick if its not. With some QBs you can trust them with the option of running it in if its WIDE open. With Relf, he probably thinks every run play for him is WIDE open, so its risky. You have to get your QB to understand this. Then on the last play of the game, you just run your best play to score.
but the bottom line is that we lost the game when we ran out of time while still having two downs left. It would be one thing if we had been hustling the entire drive and that was all we could come up with, but we burned a ton of time off the clock during that drive by not having much urgency.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that it was horrible clock management, but I just don't like wasting time when you're the team that needs to score. Take care of step one by scoring and then worry about step two. Maybe this is just one of those coaching philosophies where half the crowd thinks one way and the other half thinks the other, but again, we wasted a good bit of time and then ran out of time at the end. Sorry, but that is not good clock management.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that it was horrible clock management, but I just don't like wasting time when you're the team that needs to score. Take care of step one by scoring and then worry about step two. Maybe this is just one of those coaching philosophies where half the crowd thinks one way and the other half thinks the other, but again, we wasted a good bit of time and then ran out of time at the end. Sorry, but that is not good clock management.
regarding whether or not it was the right call. Anytime you coach yourself into having only 2 plays to score on the goalline instead of 3, that is utter failure. If we had run a pass play and had to throw it away, we then could have asked Relf what he wanted to do.
everyone would be asking why did we throw the ball with Relf's previous success running the ball. There's always what if questions after a failure.
