Skip to main content

Bonehead call may have cost Georgia the game today against Michigan State

In the Outback Bowl today, Michigan State came back to tie Georgia 27-27 to send the game to overtime. In their first possession, Spartans' quarterback Kirk Cousins was intercepted, so all Georgia needed to do was score some points, any points, to win the game. On the first play, the Bulldogs ran the ball for a yard to reach the 24-yard line. On the second play, the quarterback, Aaron Murray, centered the ball and went down. Head coach Mark Richt then sent the kicking team out to attempt a game-winning field goal of a little over 40 yards on 3rd down. The kicker had made just over 60% of his kicks on the season. For every 3 he made, he missed about 2. Yet, Richt played the ultra-conservative card, ran the ball on first down, centered it on 2nd and went for the three on 3rd, in case something wrong happened and they could attempt it again on 4th. It doesn't get much more conservative than that and it backfired. The field goal was missed and Georgia wound up losing 33-30 in triple overtime.

I don't understand why teams get so conservative in overtime if all they need is a field goal. Do with what has worked. This is especially the case if the kicker isn't very accurate. The last thing I'd want in that situation would be to place the game in the inconsistent kicker's hands (leg). The Dawgs offense had been pretty inconsistent in the game and was out of rhythm for most of the 2nd half, but were effective in both the running and passing game in spurts. In any case, their running and passing games were more consistent throughout the course of the season and just today's game than the kicking game. Playing prevent defense, running the ball up the middle constantly or just centering the ball in overtime for a field goal do more harm than good and often times prevent teams from winning football games.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more