Why not?

[WVAPPeer]

In most instances there is a REASON a coach calls a certain play - he just doesn't pull a number out of the hat - no, the outside zone run didn't work on that play - what is our bread and butter??? - What did you think APP would call - a pass maybe? My guess is our coaches felt WF would be guessing pass like you - the play didn't work - However, if we had caught WF and broken off a 20 yard run it would have been a great call - Give the WF defense credit for not being suckered ---

[Yosef84]

Some serious second guessing going on. It's tempting to do that when you know the outcome of the decision, but the coaches made the right calls. The odds were WAY higher of success and WINNING by kicking the field goal. I really don't understand the pleasure some folks seem to take in questioning every call that doesn't work out.

[The Rock]

It was the right call. We were on the 27 yard line then the 22 yard line. Even with Rubinho struggling, that is well within his range. We executed a drive that put us in position to score and win the game, but we didn’t execute on the final play.
If we attempted a 50 yard plus field goal, I would agree with questioning why not take a shot, or if Rubinho had missed every kick, maybe we take a shot, but he had made 2 decent FG’s. I hoped he would redeem himself from the Tennessee game last year and earlier misses much like Matics did in our first camellia bowl win, but it wasn’t in the cards. I agree with the thinking about the run call was a bad idea, but again, we were in a good position to win, and just didn’t do it. Can’t blame that on the coaches

[Stonewall]

Play calling got us where we needed to be, execution cost us the game.

[bcoach]

Play calling got us where we needed to be, execution cost us the game.

and THAT really is the answer

[teeter88]

Play calling got us where we needed to be, execution cost us the game.

Agree 100%, best statement I have read concerning the outcome of the game and could be applied to more than just the last drive.

[EastHallApp]

I’m surprised no one has mentioned the 2nd down running play we ran on that last drive. What two minute offense has a running play wide? That lost a lot of clock time and set up the situation of relying on the pass interference to keep the drive alive. Special teams and clock management were the nail in this one. And no, I still haven’t gotten past this game.

People don't really complain about play calls, they complain about results. If that play gains 8 yards no one has a problem with it - we had enough time left to run the ball, just not to lose a ton of yards doing it. But it did lose a bunch of yards, so all the armchair QBs will second-guess it.

If clock management were so bad then we wouldn't have been lining up for a potential GW 39-yard FG with 10 seconds left.

[AtlAppMan]

I wish the Falcons would have kicked a field goal last year in the Super Bowl after they got within field goal range on Julio's catch but they tried for more and see what that got them. Probably would have been SB champions now. App did the right thing, breakdown was not on that play but on execution of FG. But it happens.

[bigdaddyg]

Clock management was not a problem. I'll admit that running play seemed horrible and when we punted I almost lost my mind but when we got into position to win with a FG I was ecstatic. We have learned over the years that FG's are not a given. Liberty a few years back, a certain playoff game even farther back. I believe maybe 3 games our first seaon in the belt. UT last year. Heck NCSU beats Clemson with a chip shot and if I'm not mistaken Clemson beats Pitt with the same. It ain't easy in college friends

[WVAPPeer]

Play calling got us where we needed to be, execution cost us the game.

Which "execution" are you referring to? - if you mean the last FG that was blocked why wouldn't you credit WF with making a huge play instead of us not executing? - the snap got to the holder, the holder caught the ball and got it placed and our kicker hit the ball solid - ?????????

[appfanz]

A play is a great call if it works and a terrible call if it doesn’t. That’s the way it’s always been. Simple.

[t4pizza]

It's just measuring risk against reward. Sure it's possible he throws a TD if we try that. I just think the likelihood of a bad outcome probably outweighed that of a positive one.

If the rationale is "other teams do it," my guess (not that I've researched it or anything) is that the large majority of other teams would do the same thing in that situation. Seemed like a no-brainer to me at the time.

I completely agree that it is a risk reward situation and in that game, the risk seemed small and reward was large. Taylor is a senior qb having one of his best passing games of his career and the WR were playing well too. I trust Taylor to either get the ball in the end zone to an open wr or te or throw it away in less than 12 seconds. If it works we win, if not we STILL have time for the FG. I am not advocating only going for the TD instead of a FG attept as I believe there was enough time for both options. As far as the risk of a bad snap or sack or something, that also holds just as true for a FG attempt and you could make a strong argument that it was greater for a FG attempt since our regular holder was injured and not in the game. In fact, a bad snap did happen on the FG attempt. I think everyone can agree that TL was having a great game and in command and moving the ball whereas our kicking game had already shown significant signs of difficulty on the day. Seems to me that relying solely on a FG attempt in that situation was a greater risk than trying for a TD knowing we still had enough time for a FG attempt. I would always rather take 2 shots at scoring than 1. If we had less than 8 seconds on the clock and no time outs than I would completely agree that there is only time for 1 play, but with 12 seconds 2 plays are possible.

[EastHallApp]

I might agree with you t4 except for one factor - the running clock. Having to rush up to the line, get in the proper formation, check the defense, identify blocking assignments, etc., all with the clock ticking down, just increases the chances that something would go wrong IMO.

[bcoach]

Play calling got us where we needed to be, execution cost us the game.

Which "execution" are you referring to? - if you mean the last FG that was blocked why wouldn't you credit WF with making a huge play instead of us not executing? - the snap got to the holder, the holder caught the ball and got it placed and our kicker hit the ball solid - ?????????

My take on that is if all our players execute WF can't make that play. It is the same on every play in a game. If both sides execute as they are supposed to there really is no play. Example is if the defensive line executes as they should then the OF line can not open a hole. Back to the kick. If we block, snap and hold, then kicker gets the ball higher we have executed. If all those things do not happen we get the result we had. We had plenty of chances to win the game before that. My only point in this mindless ramble I am executing is that in every single play there is a lack of execution by someone. He did not lose the game on that single play but we did not execute as designed.

[bcoach]

It's just measuring risk against reward. Sure it's possible he throws a TD if we try that. I just think the likelihood of a bad outcome probably outweighed that of a positive one.

If the rationale is "other teams do it," my guess (not that I've researched it or anything) is that the large majority of other teams would do the same thing in that situation. Seemed like a no-brainer to me at the time.

I completely agree that it is a risk reward situation and in that game, the risk seemed small and reward was large. Taylor is a senior qb having one of his best passing games of his career and the WR were playing well too. I trust Taylor to either get the ball in the end zone to an open wr or te or throw it away in less than 12 seconds. If it works we win, if not we STILL have time for the FG. I am not advocating only going for the TD instead of a FG attept as I believe there was enough time for both options. As far as the risk of a bad snap or sack or something, that also holds just as true for a FG attempt and you could make a strong argument that it was greater for a FG attempt since our regular holder was injured and not in the game. In fact, a bad snap did happen on the FG attempt. I think everyone can agree that TL was having a great game and in command and moving the ball whereas our kicking game had already shown significant signs of difficulty on the day. Seems to me that relying solely on a FG attempt in that situation was a greater risk than trying for a TD knowing we still had enough time for a FG attempt. I would always rather take 2 shots at scoring than 1. If we had less than 8 seconds on the clock and no time outs than I would completely agree that there is only time for 1 play, but with 12 seconds 2 plays are possible.

In my humble opinion an interseption would be a greater risk than a field goal. One thing for sure is that we will never know.

[WVAPPeer]

Yes bcoach you are exactly correct --- my high school coach would say every day - "on offense, if all 11 guys execute then every play is a touchdown" - of course, that doesn't happen because the 11 guys on the other side are executing what they have been taught to do ---

[t4pizza]

I might agree with you t4 except for one factor - the running clock. Having to rush up to the line, get in the proper formation, check the defense, identify blocking assignments, etc., all with the clock ticking down, just increases the chances that something would go wrong IMO.

But we got the snap off with 12 seconds left on the running clock.....had we called 2 plays after the last spiked ball situation, we would have run that play with 12 seconds to go because that is when the snap got off. We were already in position and snapped the ball, we just spiked it instead of running a play. I think my frustration really comes down to my hope/expectation that when SS took over we would be more aggressive in situations and we are not. I think a well coached team, which I think we are, should be very capable of running 2 plays in 12 seconds and sometimes I would just like to see us do it, or at least try it. But you are right that if something goes wrong the game is over, however, that logic also applies to a FG attempt as we all witnessed. Once again, I would rather have 2 plays to score than 1. Lets go beat the snot out of NMSU and get this sour taste out of my mouth.

[APPRIDE]

My "why not" is this:

(and sorry if this was discussed elsewhere)

Why didn't we go for 2 after Watkins TD to get back the missed PAT?

The one point or no points by kicking it would not have made a difference but 2 points there would have been huge.

[EastHallApp]

I might agree with you t4 except for one factor - the running clock. Having to rush up to the line, get in the proper formation, check the defense, identify blocking assignments, etc., all with the clock ticking down, just increases the chances that something would go wrong IMO.

But we got the snap off with 12 seconds left on the running clock.....had we called 2 plays after the last spiked ball situation, we would have run that play with 12 seconds to go because that is when the snap got off. We were already in position and snapped the ball, we just spiked it instead of running a play. I think my frustration really comes down to my hope/expectation that when SS took over we would be more aggressive in situations and we are not. I think a well coached team, which I think we are, should be very capable of running 2 plays in 12 seconds and sometimes I would just like to see us do it, or at least try it. But you are right that if something goes wrong the game is over, however, that logic also applies to a FG attempt as we all witnessed. Once again, I would rather have 2 plays to score than 1. Lets go beat the snot out of NMSU and get this sour taste out of my mouth.

Mentioned this earlier, but I suspect it would take longer to snap the ball for an actual play than just to spike it. If you're just spiking it, not much need to ID blocking assignments, read coverage, etc. Also why my bigger concern than an INT would have been a sack - easy to miss an assignment when you're in a hurry.

[Yosef]

I might agree with you t4 except for one factor - the running clock. Having to rush up to the line, get in the proper formation, check the defense, identify blocking assignments, etc., all with the clock ticking down, just increases the chances that something would go wrong IMO.

But we got the snap off with 12 seconds left on the running clock.....had we called 2 plays after the last spiked ball situation, we would have run that play with 12 seconds to go because that is when the snap got off. We were already in position and snapped the ball, we just spiked it instead of running a play. I think my frustration really comes down to my hope/expectation that when SS took over we would be more aggressive in situations and we are not. I think a well coached team, which I think we are, should be very capable of running 2 plays in 12 seconds and sometimes I would just like to see us do it, or at least try it. But you are right that if something goes wrong the game is over, however, that logic also applies to a FG attempt as we all witnessed. Once again, I would rather have 2 plays to score than 1. Lets go beat the snot out of NMSU and get this sour taste out of my mouth.

Mentioned this earlier, but I suspect it would take longer to snap the ball for an actual play than just to spike it. If you're just spiking it, not much need to ID blocking assignments, read coverage, etc. Also why my bigger concern than an INT would have been a sack - easy to miss an assignment when you're in a hurry.

I agree that the right call on 3rd and 4 was to take a knee and set up for the 4th down field goal. Running clock, no time to ID blocks, etc. make it too risky to take a play. My initial reaction was that after the penalty, we had a 1st down with a stopped play clock and 10 seconds. I felt like we should have run another play, either a quick out or a shot at the end zone. Totally agree with other posters though if we didn't get a field goal try off, I would be pissed and say why did we run another play! We can't question the play calling here because (as someone mentioned earlier) the play call wasn't the problem, it was execution. It wasn't only a small lapse in our executive but a fantastic success in Wake's execution. No one to blame for the field goal miss. That was just the way cards fell this time.