Should we have tried to get it closer?

by Jan221973 on Oct 25, 2009 5:08 PM EDT Comment 8 comments

After the great pass from Crompton to Stocker to set us up at the Bama 27 with about 45 seconds to go, why did we not hurry to the line and call a play or two to get it closer for Lincoln? I know we had no timeouts, but here is why we should have pressed to get it closer:

The clock stops to move the chains, and if UT was ready at the line at the 27 yard line, could have called a play without losing much (if any) time. Heck, we had 45 seconds, can't we get 2 plays off and still spike the ball?
Lincoln had alreay proven earlier in the game (and in his career) that he is not very good from distances where UT is not inside the opponets 25 yard line. He missed short on that long one before the half, had one blocked from about the same distance, and is still injured which makes his leg strength issues even worse.
We had Bama gassed on D (look at time of possesion in the 2nd half.) Crompton was hot on those final 2 drives and I think Jones or Moore could have gotten at least 7 - 10 more yards on a comeback or crossing route. Even if the ball is short of the first down, get up and spike it with about 10 seconds to go and bring on Lincoln.

FanPosts are most often submitted by users. The views and opinions expressed in FanPosts do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by the editorial staff of Rocky Top Talk or SB Nation.

0 recs | Comment 8 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Yes, we should've tried to get closer

I thought that when the play happened, and I still think it. We decided to take what we had (which was an attempt that had been blocked earlier that quarter) instead of risking improving. But the way our offense had been playing, risking another pass or two would’ve had a high reward/risk ratio. And we would’ve had plenty of time to stop the clock if need be.

I think Kiffin now agrees with this position too, but I can understand his reasoning at the time. And hindsight is 20-20.

by Incipient_Senescence on Oct 25, 2009 5:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, the hindsight bit is making it tough.

We’d have had no problem with it if the kick had been good, natch.

At the very least, I understand the decision and it was conceptually sound. He avoided the potential for a penalty or a turnover and gave the team a chance. Can’t ask for much more, really.

by Hooper on Oct 25, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, hindsight is always 20/20

seriously,
http://media.govolsxtra.com/media/img/photos/2009/10/24/Tennessee_Alabama_Football4_t607.JPG

it wouldn’t matter if it were from 20 yards, our line got demolished on that kick

by golfballs03 on Oct 25, 2009 5:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

OH

and if Kiffin had been more agressive and got a penalty or a turnover, he would have gotten BLASTED. We were better off with at least an attempted FG

by golfballs03 on Oct 25, 2009 5:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think so

Fly sweep, quick slant, something to get 5-10 or even three yards. Time was there to run a minimum of two plays. The angle of departure changes so much as you edge closer. He might have still kicked it too low, but distance is so critical to a kicker’s mentality, their mind is calculating as they line up and move toward the ball, any distance closing would be beneficial.

Hey, you’re taking a chance by kicking it too far out with this kid, if your kicking game is decent but not all world, and your offense is jazzed and bouyed by a scueess, and their D tiring, that’s the more competent unit so you go with that.

This raises the coaching issue: did Kiffin and team see something we could not, that the Offense simply had nothing left and the risk was too great? Did Kiffin (as I feel) panic as the game wound down and not act decisively enough? How has he reacted in other close ames as the clock wore down?

I thought you guys were going to get killed, I thought this was the one team you had zero chance against and I said tehy’d murder you; well I was wrong—Bowl Eligibility is yours to lose because everyone remaining on your schedule now is beatable.

Hats off and good luck rest of the season. I still don’t like your end zones, and I won’t pretend and lie to you about that or about rooting against you in some of your games, but you gotta give credit where it is due.

Question for you guys: What does the future hold for your defense? Will enough guys be coming back next year for it to carry the team again?

by MeanBobMean on Oct 28, 2009 9:21 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Our secondary is in good shape.

We’ll lose Berry, obviously, but I think that’s it. A bunch of them are just freshmen, too, so they’ll be around for a while.

Linebackers: we’ll lose McCoy, which will hurt, but should keep the rest. They’ve really improved, which is nice to see.

We’re losing both D-tackles, and that’s the concern. The young guys behind them are showing a lot of potential, though. That’s a ‘wait and see’ arrangement.

All in all, I don’t think the defense will regress next year or the year after that.

by Hooper on Oct 28, 2009 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs