What was GT thinking?

#1

fundamentals83

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
177
Likes
178
#1
I don't understand the play call (to go for 2) by GT. Your team has dominated most of the game. No need to try to steal a win when your offense is unstoppable and Tennessee is throwing up a 3 and out on 2/3 possessions. Conversely, I totally would have understood if Butch had gone for 2.
 
#2
#2
I don't understand the play call (to go for 2) by GT. Your team has dominated most of the game. No need to try to steal a win when your offense is unstoppable and Tennessee is throwing up a 3 and out on 2/3 possessions. Conversely, I totally would have understood if Butch had gone for 2.

I didn't have a problem with it at all. I was screaming for Coach 23 to do it in the first OT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#4
#4
I don't understand the play call (to go for 2) by GT. Your team has dominated most of the game. No need to try to steal a win when your offense is unstoppable and Tennessee is throwing up a 3 and out on 2/3 possessions. Conversely, I totally would have understood if Butch had gone for 2.

You have to gain 2 yards to convert the 2 point conversion. GT was falling down and gaining 4 yards
 
  • Like
Reactions: 14 people
#6
#6
Understood but you're betting the entire game on 1 play. And to boot, they ran a play that they hadn't ran all game.

Paul Johnson knew his team was gassed and probably couldn't sustain going forward. Tennessee's offense was fresh, they hadn't been on the field hardly at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#7
#7
I thought it was the correct decision. We had not stopped the dive play all night. That being said 16 tried to win it himself and be the hero. He got lit up.

Johnson also understood the Vols had finally found their groove and could not be stooped from the 25 with a 1st down at that point.

This game was eerily similar to the Air Force game under PF years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 people
#8
#8
Paul Johnson knew his team was gassed and probably couldn't sustain going forward. Tennessee's offense was fresh, they hadn't been on the field hardly at all.

Wow, that's an interesting thought. We wore their offense out by keeping them on the field. Seemed to work I guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#10
#10
The decision made complete sense to me. Somebody was eventually going to have to make a2 point conversion, PJ just decided to control his own destiny with an offense that was having an historic night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#13
#13
They were running all over us. It was a logical playcall, our defense just showed up when they needed to.
 
#14
#14
It was the exact call I would've made as well. Team has run for 500+ yards in one game. As another poster said, they were gaining 4 yards st will.
 
#15
#15
This thread is exactly why coaches don't try what PJ did. It's the easiest second guess there is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#18
#18
I don't understand the play call (to go for 2) by GT. Your team has dominated most of the game. No need to try to steal a win when your offense is unstoppable and Tennessee is throwing up a 3 and out on 2/3 possessions. Conversely, I totally would have understood if Butch had gone for 2.

The way Tech was moving the ball, a 2 pt. conversion from only 3 yards out should have been a gimme.
 
#19
#19
I was hoping Butch was do it at the end of regulation.

I agree with this.

And I think Marshall was running out of steam and GT thought they needed to go ahead and end it (and were obviously confident they could.) How many times did we hold their run to less than two yards?
 
#21
#21
I thought it was the correct decision. We had not stopped the dive play all night. That being said 16 tried to win it himself and be the hero. He got lit up.

Johnson also understood the Vols had finally found their groove and could not be stooped from the 25 with a 1st down at that point.

This game was eerily similar to the Air Force game under PF years ago.

Seems every decade or so we have to be reminded not to schedule option teams. I'm just glad there were no career ending injuries like the AF game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#22
#22
Thought it was a good decision, they were getting 3 to 4 yards every carry anyway so the odds that they would punch it in were high at that point. Also I believe they would of had to start going for 2 on the next possession anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#23
#23
That's kinda my point, one missed block -- one great defensive play -- one botched snap -- and the game is over. Not sure why you bet it all on 1 play when you're dominating.

You're betting it all on 1 play when you kick the extra point, too. One great defensive play -- one botched snap -- one slip of the foot -- and the game is over. Even if successful, the best you do is tie.

Tech probably had a lot more confidence in their offense (rightfully so) than in their kicker. They evaluated not just the risk, but also the reward, and made a decision I can't fault them for.
 
#24
#24
You're betting it all on 1 play when you kick the extra point, too. One great defensive play -- one botched snap -- one slip of the foot -- and the game is over. Even if successful, the best you do is tie.

Tech probably had a lot more confidence in their offense (rightfully so) than in their kicker. They evaluated not just the risk, but also the reward, and made a decision I can't fault them for.

I'm converting to you're side. I just read that they didnt have there regular kicker. (Injury)
 
#25
#25
I can't question that call at all. I think it was the right thing to do at the time, and would have called it myself. Our defense rose up at the right time and put a stop to it. Gutsy call to end it, and we had an answer. That's football.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

VN Store



Back
Top