Good take, but I think I disagree. In the post-turnover series, UGA basically dared Tennessee to run: 6 defenders against 8 Tennessee players in the box. Any throw would have been into double coverage. On top of that, Tennessee was already in field goal range and near the end of the game. Yeah, in hindsight, three runs didn’t work—but it took a confluence of penalties, missed blocks, and good plays by the other team to keep Tennessee from converting a first down. If similar events had happened in the pass game—like a missed block or a big defensive play—you might be looking taking a sack or worse. In the end, getting 3 points and running down the clock is a species of success, even if not the dagger you wanted.
As for trusting the kicker, I thought Huepel was playing game control. Winning by kicking is the most likely result, and he got his team into position by taking a minimum number of risks.
Kirby clearly wanted to make Huepel run plays at the end. He called timeouts just to make Tennessee make decisions and snap the ball, all but daring Huepel to take a risk. Maybe Huepel could have been more aggressive in the face of these timeouts, but I think he had a plan and stuck with it. He ended up taking the game down to a situation where Tennessee could not lose in regulation and had a good chance to win. That’s good coaching—even if it’s not perfect in hindsight.
I think Huepel is a better coach when he’s coaching from behind. The pressure is real.