Apologize if this has already been posted. I'd agree with most of this as i was having very similar thoughts in the last 55 seconds. Glad things worked out the way they did. http://cfn.scout.com/2/557921.html
Don't worry about the thread. BTW...Miles is an Evil/Madman/Genius! LOL :helmet::helmet::helmet::helmet:
OK, I only glanced at the article. But the words "subpar" and "breathtaking stupidity" jumped out at me, and I couldn't disagree more. I don't necessarily agree with every decision Miles made in the last minute, but I vehemntly disagree that his performance at that point in the game was "subpar", etc. A brief case in point from the article: Moreover, since Miles took only one shot at the end zone instead of two or three, his actions were insufficiently bold in this situation. I don't know a ton about football, but even I understood that the Flynn to Byrd play was in response to what the defense was doing and what they thought was being set up. The play was called to exploit a specific situation regarding both the timing and the coverage on Byrd. Had Flynn started lobbing passes into the endzone, Auburn 's safeties would have dropped back to stop the pass. And every ****ing "monday morning quarterback" would still be bitching about telegraphing our intentions by running the same type of play over and over. :dis: No coach is perfect, and I'll be the first to admit that Miles sometimes frustrates me, but he's 2-1 against Tubby and Meyer, so I'm trying to figure out here why I don't see the same kind of **** being written about them (maybe I haven't looked hard enough).
Man, that was a long read, but I hung in there. One issue that has not been mentioned that I think about a lot in close games is not letting the defense get set. This guys article completely misses that point. Again, yes time was running down. The driving factor in all the chaos is that Byrd was signaling to Crowton that he could beat his defender. The coaches chose to go with that call. If we had stopped the clock by calling time out, running another play or whatever, Auburn would have had time to talk it over and be better prepared on defense. Our players and coaches took advantage of Auburn being on defense trying to stop us. I think we took advantage of the situation and the players executed the play and situation perfectly. It's rare coaches let this happen. It's what I love in college basketball when the coach doesn't call time out with 12 seconds left down by 1 and signals his team to go win the game without calling time out. And yes, Matt Flynn took longer then needed to get the play off. But the coaches hung in there with him and let him run the play. How many times have you seen coaches jump in and call time out which breaks everything down. Great job Tigers! It was gutsy to go for the TD and not the FG. What's wrong with calling that move gutsy? The coaching staff showed confidence in the players and they delivered. This will pay huge dividends in any close games remaining. They know they can execute and win. :geauxtige
Because it's not, IMO. I think a lot of good coaches would take one shot at the endzone in that situation. It good coaching, not gutsy. A lot of nervous nelly fans and conservative coaches would claim it's risky, but the odds of throwing an INT is probably lower than missing the FG. Nothing wrong with the call. Not gutsy, either. Now, the clock management on that play can be debated. We cut it pretty close.
Speaking of clock management, this is probably a question red55 can best answer. Is the Tiger Stadium time keeper hired by LSU or the SEC? If it's the former and had the pass been incomplete, I don't think the clock would have come close to 0:00.
I think it was correct to take a shot at the end zone. It's common sense to try it. But to cut the time so close was not very wise. But I believe it was an incomplete the clock would've stopped sooner than one second left. The only risk was the interception risks. With the inconsistency of Colt David the risk was worth taking it. That way you have 2 shots at the win instead of one. That is common sense to me.
i like cfn because they're stuff is usually well thought out. while this column is thought out, i disagree a little. he was conservative in the fact that miles wasn't playing for anymore first downs. but i do think this was a setup by miles. the bad side of this risk is colt david still getting a shot to win from 39. but he played it like a conservative coach using the clock to set up a last second FG attempt. then took off his mask and had flynn launch a killshot to see if it would hit. it did, game over. the main risk in the situation was the risk of interception. since the safeties were playing the run (b/c everyone in the free world myself included thought that miles would just run a runnning play to grab 2 or three more yards and center the ball before calling a timeout). but on man coverage even with a bad ball by flynn, byrd could play DB and guard against the INT. that was the risk, not the clock. miles made the coaching decision that he wanted to bleed the clock to guard against an AU comeback had we made a FG. he was actually showing confidence in david the way he played it. the shot at the endzone was just that, a shot, that paid off. if you watch the replay, the ball even if bobbled and dropped would hit the ground with 3 seconds left. your friendly neighborhood death valley clock operator could've stopped the clock at :04 when the TD was caught but a few seconds trickled off after. time wasn't an issue, downs were. if miles tries unsuccessfully to gain yards or another first down there may have been more time on the clock if david makes the FG and AU would have a shot at victory. instead miles sticks with the downs he has. after the dickson play went for minimal gain, and tubby failed to stop the clock for his offense, miles had two downs to play with, obviously 1 of those 2 for a FG chance. i think the dickson play dictated the rest. if that play goes for a first down, you have a stopped clock and a timeout to take some minimal risks at bettering david's chances but you also take a couple of shots at a TD. when the play sputtered, and tubby kept his timeout, it was time to pull out the ace in the hole that they tought was set up well meaning a long pass to byrd in man coverage. if the pass falls incomplete miles sends david out to try a 39 yarder with :02 on 4th down and we win or lose on that play. the gamble paid off and we'll never know if david woulda made the kick or not. but it didn't matter.
The writer seems to be a legend in his own mind. Let me state some facts: Flynn did not get the snap until 8 seconds were left. The pass was caught with 4 seconds left. The clock did not stop until the ref signaled touchdown with 1 second left. First, I completely agree with TenTex' analysis as to Miles decision to throw for the endzone. As the writer of the article states so profusely, I do not know everything about college football either, but please allow me to speculate. I do not buy the media hype that a missed pass would have automatically lost the game. Even if the pass had been dropped, it should have hit the ground/gone out of bounds with at least 3-4 seconds left for a field goal. I agree it was a gamble - but a good one, given the circumstances.
Another terrible writer who unfortunately can call himself a professional. LSU took a shot deep because they didn't want to hang their entire season on the foot of Colt David. CLM thought there'd be 5 or 6 seconds left when the play ended. Matt took an extra couple seconds to read the D and bark out the signals. Turns out there would've been 3 or 4 seconds left. Had time run off (unlikely in Tiger Stadium), CLM would have challenged and won the challenge. Colt would've got his FG attempt. I'm glad they got a TD and are 7-1. Twenty years from now, Tiger fans will be talking about (and celebrating) the play, not the silly controversy.
