The 4th and 3 that UT failed to pick up at the end...

[VolDaddy61]

I re-watched the game and noticed on the 4th and 3 with just over a minute left. If we pick that up, the game is over and UT wins by 17, covers the spread, and no one complains about Heupel being too conservative at the end. And we don't have to sweat out the onside kicks and heave towards the end zone at the end.

Bru McCoy was wide open for the 1st down about 5 or 6 yards deeper than Fant, but Hooker didn't see him. One of the few mistakes HH made all game. If he makes that throw, game, set, match. Take a knee, 17 point win.

It's a learning opportunity for all involved, we as a fan base need to give Him some grace. He's taken this program from a dumpster fire to a top 10 ranking in seventeen games. I like where this is trending.

 

[bpalmer28]

As I said this offense isn’t built to run over teams late in the fourth quarter. Now give it time with better quality and better depth then you may see that. But you don’t stop doing what you’ve already done to a team for nearly the whole game. This isn’t the old days where you can pound the ball out cause the other team is tired. This was Florida! They have depth and talent…..

We had a two-score lead with less than 3 minutes left and Florida only had one timeout. I respect your opinion but if we throw an incomplete pass there and stop the clock for Florida, the same people questing Heupel's game management today would be here blaming Heupel for not running another 0:30 off the clock - especially if it would have resulted in us losing the game.

Hindsight is always 20-20 with these things. It would have been nice if our defense wouldn't have allowed Florida to get back in it but I'm thankful for win and glad to have the monkey off our backs.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Btw, youre not actually Greg Amsler, right? Just a guy like me who watched him run over half the Virginia team in a bowl game when i was a wee lad? We had Amsler and Roland Poles both as FBs...and a stable of NFL tailbacks of course because it was that era.... that was a great comeback. Maybe 89 or 90? Seems like i was 12 or 13.

 

[DaddyChad]

You have to look at the worst vs best: is the worst case scenario for going for it (not converting, Florida gets the ball there down 11) better than the best case scenario for kicking the field goal (kicking off, which all but 1 was a touchback, and up 14). In the worst case of going for it, Florida needs a TD+2 and a FG to tie (or 2 TDs to win). In the best case of kicking it, Florida needs 2 TDs+1 to tie, which is a lot less likely to happen.

Yes, going for it and getting it is the absolute best case, but you have to weigh all options. To me, going up 2 full TDs especially with Florida having 0 timeouts is better than failing to convert.

Worst case is you try a fg that’s blocked and returned for a score. Or you go for it and turn the ball over for a score. Game on the line are you going to trust the kicker to hit a long fg or are you going to give the ball to Hooker and trust him to get the job done? This would be completely different if McGrath was a guaranteed FG kicker but reality is he’s 50% this year from 40plus yards.

 

[Vol8188]

That was a terrible series. Run 3 straight plays and only got 7 yards. It will forever baffle me as to why Heupel didn’t go for the throat. We could have easily put that game away.

The offense did put that game away. We had them in a situation with no timeouts and needing to get an onside kick and score twice with very little time

 

[whobethis16]

Worst case is you try a fg that’s blocked and returned for a score. Or you go for it and turn the ball over for a score. Game on the line are you going to trust the kicker to hit a long fg or are you going to give the ball to Hooker and trust him to get the job done? This would be completely different if McGrath was a guaranteed FG kicker but reality is he’s 50% this year from 40plus yards.

That's the worst case (and not very likely) on EVERY snap, so it's really not worth using that as consideration. If you're going to use that as a reason to not do anything, you should just take a knee each play.

And 1 for 2 is a very different 50% than, say, 5 for 10. It's not like he completely shanked it, either. If you can't trust him in that situation, are you going to trust him to win one? And with that logic, if it was a 50+ yard attempt, would you say he needs to kick it because he's 100% from 50+?

 

[ksgovols]

No, the risk/reward is not the same. The risk is the same (I would argue that the risk was higher on the FG, since we're less likely to hit a 47 yarder than to convert a 4th and 3 with this offense, but for the sake of this discussion, we'll say they're equally likely). However, the reward for making the 4th down is that the game is over. Florida was out of timeouts There was about a minute left. Tennessee takes 2 knees. The reward for hitting the FG is that UT is up 14 and is kicking off to Florida. Florida can still get a quick score, get an onside (which they did) and have a chance to tie and win in OT.

The reward for making the 4th down was much higher...basically, a win. The reward for hitting the FG is making a win highly probable, but far less definite, especially with the way our secondary was playing. Coach made the right call, it just wasn't executed.

So, inside the 20, same scenario and time left we don't kick a field goal? I don't buy that at all. You always take the points. Inside the 20, we might take a delay of game and knock more time off the clock, but we kick a field goal there. 14 > 11 2 touchdowns much harder to overcome.

I have no problem with the call, but if it's a little closer, we kick the field goal and kick off to Florida. Because of the reward of 4 extra points.

 

[WiseOlVol]

That was a terrible series. Run 3 straight plays and only got 7 yards. It will forever baffle me as to why Heupel didn’t go for the throat. We could have easily put that game away.

The answer is that he's not been in the UT-Florida game enough times.

He won't make that mistake again.

 

[OrangeTsar]

Or even punt and hope FL uses more clock.

Quick kick on third down could have surprised them and pinned them inside the five with no timeouts

 

[OrangeTsar]

The answer is that he's not been in the UT-Florida game enough times.

He won't make that mistake again.

Let us hope not

 

[Hbd10]

I re-watched the game and noticed on the 4th and 3 with just over a minute left. If we pick that up, the game is over and UT wins by 17, covers the spread, and no one complains about Heupel being too conservative at the end. And we don't have to sweat out the onside kicks and heave towards the end zone at the end.

Bru McCoy was wide open for the 1st down about 5 or 6 yards deeper than Fant, but Hooker didn't see him. One of the few mistakes HH made all game. If he makes that throw, game, set, match. Take a knee, 17 point win.

Be careful speaking facts like that in here. No way our offense had the chance to ice the game and failed to do so after a great game on that side of the ball. It’s always a team effort. Good post

 

[NighthawkVol]

So, inside the 20, same scenario and time left we don't kick a field goal? I don't buy that at all. You always take the points. Inside the 20, we might take a delay of game and knock more time off the clock, but we kick a field goal there. 14 > 11 2 touchdowns much harder to overcome.

I have no problem with the call, but if it's a little closer, we kick the field goal and kick off to Florida. Because of the reward of 4 extra points.

Yes, inside the 20, you take the points. Because the FG is more certain. But Tennessee wasn’t inside the 20, so the FG was less likely to be successful.

You entered an irrelevant hypothetical factor into the equation. I’m not sure where you were going with that.

 

[tennrich1]

Clearly there were multiple issue we were trying to address in that situation. All options have their own extreme risk/benefits. And a couple of them very likely could have lost us the game. I personally wanted the clock and timeouts to be drained. I was sitting with a close friend who wanted to stay aggressive. As the ole saying goes “only 3 things can happen …and two are bad!” We got the win…let’s be happy with that.

 

[GVol1966]

Nobody’s talking about the consequences of an incomplete pass on 1st, 2nd, or 3rd down.

How might the outcome have changed if Florida had time to run 2 or 3 more plays?

How might the outcome have changed if we pick up another first down or 2.
History is on the side of the offense when they are actually running it.
About 8 times better chance the O picks up a 1st than the D gets a stop.

 

[snappervol]

Btw, youre not actually Greg Amsler, right? Just a guy like me who watched him run over half the Virginia team in a bowl game when i was a wee lad? We had Amsler and Roland Poles both as FBs...and a stable of NFL tailbacks of course because it was that era.... that was a great comeback. Maybe 89 or 90? Seems like i was 12 or 13.

Greg was a beast, from NJ if I recall. Used to play pick-up ball in the HPER building back in the day. He, Vic Peppers, and Alvin Harper ran with me one game. Great memories of some really good Majors lead teams. I was in NOLA for the uva game as well. I remember their band throwing shade @ The Pride during halftime (was weird). We beat them late in the 4th, great bowl game!

 

[savannahfan]

I get the sentiment, Savannah, but keep in mind: unlike many teams (including past versions of us) who alternate between scat backs and big, bruising halfbacks depending on the situation, down and distance, this offense usually won't do that.

Our lightning pace means no substitutions, often for an entire series of plays. That means your personnel for 1st and 10 is often the same as for 3rd and 2.

Which means we need 1 Swiss Army knife. Not a Bowie knife for some things and a stiletto for others.

And that fella is normally going to be more average-sized for the position, with speed and quickness.

There is a cost to every advantage. This is the price we pay for extreme hurry-up offense.

Go Vols!

I do understand your reasoning, and agree. But what I was speculating about (big back) was not necessarily asking for an "every down" guy. Just a serviceable big guy to come in for a few downs at key need times.

 

[titansvolsfaninga]

Yep, and even with the pass to Fant seems we got close. I know lots of people say kick the fg there, but that would’ve been a long try and I’d be interested to see the odds of making that verses picking up 3 yards.

I was one of those people until I rewatched and realized how long it would've been.

 

[ksgovols]

Yes, inside the 20, you take the points. Because the FG is more certain. But Tennessee wasn’t inside the 20, so the FG was less likely to be successful.

You entered an irrelevant hypothetical factor into the equation. I’m not sure where you were going with that.

The point being that the risk/reward is the same. Ten yards closer and the call is to kick the FG rather than go for it on 4th and 3 and 'ending the game'. The yards make a decision in the play calling rather than the clock. That's all. I don't have a problem with the play call either way. Try a long field goal or go for it on 4th and 3. Both are risky, but the ball is in the same place when they fail and the clock is about the same. Isn't the 1st down, 2 knees and go home reward the same from the 20 as it is from the 30?

I'm sure there's a chart, but maybe it's a gut call. It's not a 'no brainer' either way from the 30. Florida was throwing at the end zone for the win with the play call that was decided on. Just wondering.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I do understand your reasoning, and agree. But what I was speculating about (big back) was not necessarily asking for an "every down" guy. Just a serviceable big guy to come in for a few downs at key need times.

Yeah, absolutely.

The trouble though, is that he takes up a roster space and a scholarship. Two of them if you feel like he needs a backup in case of injury.

I think this is how the fullback became an endangered species.

Used to be, every team had a couple of fullbacks. But as the game got faster, the field more spread out, formations less tight, and the edges grew in importance compared to the area between the tackles, the fullback became a more and more expensive commodity. Having a couple of them on your roster became less and less worth it as fewer of your plays called for them. Eventually, teams dropped from a starter and one or two backups to just a single guy. Then most teams got rid of him, even.

Now you see hardly any teams with a fullback. Tight ends and "heavy packages" fill that role on the rare occasion it is needed.

So thinking in a similar vein, do we pay the roster cost of one or two heavier, larger halfbacks for those infrequent times when we really need one, and are willing to slow the offense down to substitute him in?

I don't know. Just thinking out loud. This could be the reason we don't see that kind of bruising back on our roster these days.

 

[VolMack——————$]

We had a two-score lead with less than 3 minutes left and Florida only had one timeout. I respect your opinion but if we throw an incomplete pass there and stop the clock for Florida, the same people questing Heupel's game management today would be here blaming Heupel for not running another 0:30 off the clock - especially if it would have resulted in us losing the game.

Hindsight is always 20-20 with these things. It would have been nice if our defense wouldn't have allowed Florida to get back in it but I'm thankful for win and glad to have the monkey off our backs.

Ditto on the win……20/20 yours 20/20 mine doesn’t matter….What matters is the fact this offense runs by what the Qb reads. (RPO’s) Not pounding the rock and slow playing the clock ! The lineman are standing around and already worn out. They don’t practice this in the fourth hour of football practice. There not the old mules of the day pound pound pound play the field position. Hooker isn’t going to just have a melt down all of a sudden….Run your plays get him out rolling and RPO it run/pass and get down. Don’t take the hit and stay in bounds be smart.

 

[dlturner00]

We don't have a power running game. Its not what we do. Our offense works on speed confusing the defense and quick hitting plays. I don't agree with the whole run it 3 tines and punt theory. I would say it fails about as often as it works. Do what you do best. We dominated the 3rd quarter. Make them stop it.

 

[chef3531]

HH had a guy in his face and two defenders near Bru so he probably didn’t have time or worse he throws a INT. Fant should have ran a 3 yard route.

Fant should have done lots of things better in that game