Gamecocks fans, watch this YouTube video of SC defensive player #1. Advanced the video to 18:60...almost the end of the O.T. Watch the Bama player running down the sideline and SC player #1 could have pushed him out of bounds or tackled him! HE RAISED HIS ARMS AND LET HIM RUN BY. THIS COST S.C. THE GAME. COACH BEAMER NEEDS TO CHECK THIS!!!
Gamecocks football player #1 DQ Smith
- Thread starter Rabidfan
- Start date
Gamecocks fans, watch this YouTube video of SC defensive player #1. Advanced the video to 18:60...almost the end of the O.T. Watch the Bama player running down the sideline and SC player #1 could have pushed him out of bounds or tackled him! HE RAISED HIS ARMS AND LET HIM RUN BY. THIS COST S.C. THE GAME. COACH BEAMER NEEDS TO CHECK THIS!!!
Which was patently stupid once our timeouts were gone and that much time had elapsed. We would have been better off trying to strip it or hopefully forcing a field goal, however short. If we couldn't get a stop, we didn't deserve to win anyway.
I would think the chances are better that the kicker misses the field goal or we block it... rather than a forcing us to go 75yrds for a td..with no time outs
As other said, he was instructed to do it. Somehow our coaches (and tons of fans on the insiders forum) thought the odds were better for us to drive 75 yards in 30 seconds with no timeouts than for a 69% FG kicker to miss a high pressure kick.
I get the concept but it was idiotic to let him score right there with as bad as our offense is. Maybe if we had Shaw at QB and Spurrier dialing up plays it would've made sense.
I get the concept but it was idiotic to let him score right there with as bad as our offense is. Maybe if we had Shaw at QB and Spurrier dialing up plays it would've made sense.
Not enough time any doggone way. If letting them score was the call, you don't hold off that long - especially with all the timeouts burned - one of them early in the second half for no apparent benefit.
It was a weird decision but there really was nothing we could do. Conventional wisdom is use your timeouts, try to force a kick and get the ball back with as much time on the clock as possible. We used our timeouts, but then the runner picked up the first down. At that moment: game over. Yeah, the Bama kicker is only 69%, but that's due to his low % beyond 40 yards. Inside 40 yards, he's perfect. If we stop the runner at the 13 instead of DQ backing off, they're looking at a 30 yard kick. They probably would have taken a timeout. Run a play to center up the kick and then stopped the clock with a few seconds left for a chip shot kick down the center. Have we blocked a FG this year?
Reality is, the second that ball popped out of Sellers' arms we were done for. IF we could have stopped them on 1st and 2nd down, maybe a different story, but they easily picked up the first 1st down. Even so, we only had 2 timeouts. If we stop them on 1st and 2nd down and take timeouts, then they run a 3rd down play and if we stop them there, they bleed the clock for a likely game winning FG.
Beamer's plan was a long shot, but us blocking the kick was a long shot as well. You're probably looking at a 1% chance of success vs a 5% chance of success.
Reality is, the second that ball popped out of Sellers' arms we were done for. IF we could have stopped them on 1st and 2nd down, maybe a different story, but they easily picked up the first 1st down. Even so, we only had 2 timeouts. If we stop them on 1st and 2nd down and take timeouts, then they run a 3rd down play and if we stop them there, they bleed the clock for a likely game winning FG.
Beamer's plan was a long shot, but us blocking the kick was a long shot as well. You're probably looking at a 1% chance of success vs a 5% chance of success.
Yeah, that about sums it up. I would still think the chances of is driving the field were terrible, so force them to convert a kick. But thats also using hindsight.
I thought Shane had some secret playbook full of "Beamer Ball" plays that he can dial up whenever he needs a big play? All he had to do was call a blocked fg returned for a score and we win. It's simple really.
Seriously, I am sick and tired of hearing announcers talk about "Beamer Ball".
Yeah, I mean, you're grasping at straws either way.
I don't know which ending is more heart breaking. Watching helplessly as they kick a short FG as time expires. Or getting your hopes up for that 0.01% chance your offense can go 91 yards in 29 seconds to tie the game only to be brought back to reality 29 seconds later.
Fittingly, in a game in which the OL apparently fared somewhat decently, the game ended on a sack.
I think it was an incredibly stupid move. Anything can happen with a field goal attempt. If we had been trailing by 1 point at the time, letting the Bama player score would have made sense since they would have only had to run out the clock. But our staff acted as if the made FG was a foregone conclusion. Heck, even after getting the first down, the offense could have gotten a penalty to push the kick back a bit. Or their RB could have fumbled. Or you could have a bad snap. Or we could block the kick. Or the guy could just miss it.
But under no circumstances was our offense going to drive 75+ yards in 30 seconds without timeouts.
But under no circumstances was our offense going to drive 75+ yards in 30 seconds without timeouts.
Fact of the matter is we pissed the game away. Bama did all they could to hand it to us and our chumps weren’t good enough to even take it. Then when they needed to turn it on they did, marched it right down our throats on two consecutive drives and won the game. Same old **** we’ve been seeing for 100 years here.
When they got the first down, the game was effectively over barring a miracle. Bama would have made the fg with basically no time on the clock and Carolina loses by 3. Letting them score was really the only way to ensure getting the ball back where the odds were only slightly better than .000. Harbor bringing the ball out and getting tackled deep was dumb on two levels. First, it used some time off of the clock and, second, pushed the ball 15 or so yards farther away from scoring.
That game was a microcosm of everything that is South Carolina football.
That game was a microcosm of everything that is South Carolina football.
Agree that was incredibly stupid - looks like D.Q. was following instructions. Is Alabama not capable of fumbling the ball or throwing an interception? Are we not capable of blocking a field goal attempt? Are they incapable of missing a field goal attempt? Could they have been pushed out of FG range with penalties? All of those - and probably some I hadn`t thought of - were much more likely than us scoring a TD with so little time left. Never thought I would see us do that and I hope to never see that again.
I can’t tell if you’re a troll or serious. He let him score on purpose so we could get the ball back versus watching a chip shot field goal go through the upright as time expired. There are some people that say the chances of missing the field goal are greater than scoring in 37 seconds, but had we run the kickoff back decently either one was a longshot. But you and I both know they weren’t missing that chip shot field goal against us. DQ Smith made a smart play at the time.
Last edited:
Anything was an extreme long shot at that point, so I don't think it's a big deal how Beamer called it. Unconventional, for sure, but conventional would have, as you say, led to us watching helplessly as they kicked a chip shot FG as time expired.
It's worth noting: we only let him score after he got a first down.
Probably think a pressure field goal might be the thing. There’s only one problem, that kicker was 7 for 7 inside the 40. If they just kneeled on the ball, he was looking at about a 30 yard field goal, which is nothing. Also, had we gotten a decent run back, who’s to say we would’ve started on the 25 yard line. We may have gotten a good return. I’ve seen numerous kick returns up to the 4o-45 in that situation. At that point it’s a new dilemma.
And reality is, we weren’t probably winning that game, regardless of what we chose to do.
Oh yeah, the first down was the kicker. If he had done that and it was 4th down coming up, I would’ve been pissed. It’s like you said, it’s all a longshot and we weren’t going to win once sellers fumbled the ball.
The defense throughout history, with few exceptions and possibly even last year a couple of games is porous when it counts the most. They just can't make the stops when needed. Even last year's Clemson game. Saved by a bone -headed play by what we now know is an average QB.
We don't have Oline or Dline strength to win games in this conference. And no Oline with what could be a really good quarter back. truly sad and pathetic the way Sellers has to scramble almost every play. Spurrier had an Oline and that is when we won games. We can't score a lot of points and can't stop teams when we need to so... recipe for losses. Again. Gamecock football. Good enough to be a tough game but not enough to grab the win.
We don't have Oline or Dline strength to win games in this conference. And no Oline with what could be a really good quarter back. truly sad and pathetic the way Sellers has to scramble almost every play. Spurrier had an Oline and that is when we won games. We can't score a lot of points and can't stop teams when we need to so... recipe for losses. Again. Gamecock football. Good enough to be a tough game but not enough to grab the win.
Yeah, someone earlier said it was a choice between the option with a 1% chance of working and the option with a 3% chance of happening.
Pretty bad odds either way.
In DQ's defense he did not know we would bungle the kickoff return, but probably should have known that would happen.
I think the choke was unstoppable no matter what anyone did, at that point.
I think the choke was unstoppable no matter what anyone did, at that point.
5% chance. 5 X better than a 1% chance.