Total bush league move by Dan...
- Thread starter treeddeep
- Start date
Would you have said the same thing had we returned that punt for a TD (which we almost did), and we were down 3 kicking on onside kick with 30 seconds to go? yeah, it's unlikely that we do anything to come back, but it isn't impossible.
That's for sure. If he hadn't used the timeouts, people would be calling for his head because he kept them in his pocket.
I think we'll have a pretty good team next year. We've actually got a pretty good one this year; they just need to get it all together at the same time.
I think we'll have a pretty good team next year. We've actually got a pretty good one this year; they just need to get it all together at the same time.
Disagree 100%! Run that punt back for a TD and we are an onside kick away from a tying FG. Unlikely yes, but I like playing until the end.
Couldn't be more wrong. We weren't far from returning that punt at least into fg range. Get in the end zone or kick a quick fg and you have an onside kick down 3 or 7. Not impossible by any means. Definitely worth playing for.
You are a 17n idiot. Dan was playing to get a win and you're a ***** for not knowing what Dan's strategy was. Loved the fight in the team today. Hope it carries over to Bama.
Exactly. Total agreement.
Wish he had done the same at end of first half when kept all 3 timeouts in our pocket...
This is just completely, totally, absolutely wrong. This may be the worst comment I have ever seen on a message board. That is including the past 11 years on this board. Wow. I only say this because all the cool **** you could have posted instead of this and all the stuff you have ever posted was all wiped out by this terrible comment. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Holy ****
Dan can't win for losing. If he had sat on it, you SOBs would be bitching that he gave up. Get 17ing serious.
Dan can't win for losing. If he had sat on it, you SOBs would be bitching that he gave up. Get 17ing serious.
Last edited:
And if we stop the clock twice in the previous aTm possession? Naturally, I'm not advocating using all 3 timeouts in the last 0:16 that we had the ball. But the fact that we pocketed all 3 of them at halftime -- when even a decent game manager of a coach would have burned them during the aTm drive and, given how it actually turned out, added 70 seconds to the clock prior to that drive. Then, we would have had 86 seconds and a timeout to try to strike back against a team that can't f'n slow us down.
I'm thrilled with his timeout usage at the end of the game. THRILLED. Like I said the first time, I just wish he had done it twice...
Last edited:
When would we have called a timeout on their drive? It was a 4 play 76-yard drive in 38 seconds. Why would we stop the clock during their drive when they started it with 54 seconds on the clock? We didn't want them to have enough time to score. You are just trying to find a way to blame his clock management.
No I'm not. You are projecting.
Would you call the timeouts at the end of the game when trying to get a stop and get the ball back with a chance? I would. I frigging HATE carrying all 3 timeouts into halftime -- especially when you get the ball back with 16 seconds left with 3 timeouts in your pocket. You call those timeouts ANY time in their last drive, even ending in a score the same way, and we've got time left on the clock.
I'd have called a timeout after the Malena run for sure. That would have saved us 20 extra seconds to try to get into field goal range.
Look -- I gave him a positive about how he managed the end of the game. I don't like how he managed halftime. Period.
Last edited:
Our clock management on offense the previous drive was just as bad. Our drive started at their 35 with 2:30 to go. After 3 plays we were at their 15 with 1:30 to go.
Our mindset set should have changed right there from 'hurry up' to let's not give them the ball back. It's compounded by the fact that we had timeouts to burn. The clock is basically a no factor at the 15 with 3 timeouts and over a minute to go.
Our mindset set should have changed right there from 'hurry up' to let's not give them the ball back. It's compounded by the fact that we had timeouts to burn. The clock is basically a no factor at the 15 with 3 timeouts and over a minute to go.
Dan saved us from a 2 minute long **** show by Johnny 17er Football. He was about to do a sprint around Kyle Field complete with a superman chest exhibition. Thank GAWD Dan called timeout to shut that 17er up!
Then you are a dumbass. You don't call timeouts to aid the other team in scoring just on the off chance that you may be able to score afterwards. We didn't want them to score. And there is no way of knowing they were gonna to score a touchdown there. You don't call a timeout to give them extra plays. I seriously thought you were more logical than this. If you want to complain about how we handled our previous scoring drive as stratdawg said, that is understandable. But your reasoning here is comical. I don't care if you hate taking timeouts to half, that doesn't mean you burn them just to burn them.
You can't possibly be this dense.
Correct. You call them to slow down a HURRY UP SPREAD TEAM -- get the personnel groupings and alignments you want -- in hopes of getting a STOP and thus getting the ball back with enough time left on the clock to score on a defense that hadn't stopped you at all.
What actually happened with them scoring just so happened to work just as well as a stop from a clock standpoint.
No ****.
How the 17 does it "give them extra plays"? It gives your defense a chance at a stop. Nevermind that aTm was in maximum overdrive and we were on our heels, reeling. They had all 3 timeouts as well(burned one themselves). So, in essence, they had "all the extra time" in the world already if we didn't get a stop. Fact of the matter is -- going fast = advantage aTm. Slowing down = advantage MSU.
Touche.
K
No -- you burn them hoping to give yourself a chance to score.
Let me just get this straight. You are advocating for stopping the clock on defense, when the other team is in the 1-minute drill, in hopes that after they score, we would have time on the clock? When have you ever seen a team do this? Your premise is valid with knowing the outcome, but as I said, we had no idea they were going to score. Our goal was to make the time run out on them. By your logic, we really botched the time management at the end of the auburn game too. I in shock at your stupidity right now.