(10-13-2013 10:31 AM)At Ease Wrote: (10-13-2013 12:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: (10-13-2013 12:13 AM)At Ease Wrote: This is a reach. Especially since A&M comes out running their offense right away and wins.
WTF?
I lack your misplaced penchance for lecturing, but as you ask..
Your argument that you don't come out passing in your own territory in that situation is immediately counter-argued by the fact that A&M did exactly that and won. Their first 3 plays are 5-wide no back sets and they pick up huge yardage from all 3.
Ole Miss didn't lose because they didn't burn clock. They lost because they didn't move the ball. Whether Manziel had 2:34 or 0:54 to move the ball wasn't going to matter, and it didn't.
And ultimately neither of these come very close to resembling the situation in Tulsa where the field position, offensive performance, and clock were significantly less optimal.
TTF.
My comments were directed at Ole Miss, not A&M, and Ole Miss did lose because they didn't burn clock. They also lost because they didn't move the ball. But if they had taken two minutes off the clock, they would most likely have been able to go to overtime. Manziel might be able to get them in position to kick a FG with 0:54 left, but he has a much better chance to do it with 2:34 left. In the end, they used the entire 2:34. Din't necessarily have to, probalby could have kicked a FG 30 or 40 seconds further back up the field, maybe a bit more. But the idea that there is no differnce between giving Manziel, or any QB, the ball with 0:54 of 2:34 is absurd.
A&M started on their 29, not the 13, that's a big difference. And relative to our situation last week, their offense compares more favorably to Ole Miss's defense than our offense to Tulsa's defense. And they had exactly one play that was counter to the approach I've mentioned, the first pass. That's actually not a bad gamble, depending on what kind of defense you get, and obviously they got a defense against which they could execute that pass play. Once they were out to their 43, then they're essentially in phase 2, where you do go for the score. At that point, three incompletes would mean you punt the ball with two minutes left. But from there you are giving the ball away around the opponents' 20, not midfield, so they are a lot further away from a FG.
As you note, neither of these situations are exactly the same as in Tulsa. But the conditions you note--field position, offensive performance, and clock--would all be more favorable to Bailiff's approach than to either the Ole Miss or A&M approach.
The one thing I don't understand is the coaching point with the Ole Miss quarterback. Don't remember which one was in the game, they play two, one is a better runner than the other, but both are decent. That being the case, and given the situation, I would have instructed my QB to take off running if his receivers didn't pop open early, rather than sit in the pocket and ultimately throw incomplete. It's pretty obvious from the play by paly that Manziel was operating on that basis. Of course, he pretty much operates that way most of the time anyway. If the Ole Miss QB had taken off and been able to gain the kind of yardage that Manziel did on his scrambles, then they would have gotten up to midfield with about a minute left and been able to go to two-minute offense.
Ole Miss followed a different strategy and lost. The Aggies did one thing at variance with the strategy, the first pass. But they also hit the pass, suggesting that they knew what they were going to get from the defense and knew how to exploit it. And if you know that, you might as well go ahead and do it, no need to save it until a later that might never come. Once A&M was essentially at midfield, which they were after the first pass, then you open up and go for it.
Sorry if you think this is lecturing. But this doesn't really lend itself to one-line commentary. Watching the game live, I kind of figured Freese might throw three times from his 25, since he has that kind of philosophy. But I thought the strategy as it unfolded was exactly wrong for Ole Miss. And what worked right for A&M is not really inconsistent with the strategy, considering that if the defense was giving them something on alignment, no reason not to take it. Would have been interesting if the first A&M pass had been incomplete. I think Sumlin would have come back with runs on 2nd and 3rd downs, or maybe a short very high completion percentage pass, because he didn't want to give the ball back with no time off the clock either. But he never had to make that decision because they completed their first pass.