Bits & Pieces: Florida vs. Mississippi State

[lagator]

I was on the fence about that at the time as well. But I don't think it was about being confused, or poor clock management. He clearly was ok to get into half and make the adjustments that ultimately won us the game. The reason he called the TO with :01 was to force a punt and give us either a chance to block it, or return it. The only thing he could've changed there was calling it with :10, so they couldn't just heave it and call it a day.

But otherwise, I'm totally fine with that decision. It was 3rd and 18, from their 15. And they gained 17 on the next play. If by some chance they'd converted, they'd be approaching midfield with :30 left, which gives them time to try to set up a FG or deep pass. The defensive adjustments were night and day in the second half, and I'm pretty sure he just wanted to get to the locker room down 3 in that environment. Maybe hope for a fluke ST's play to close. But he was not going to risk being down more. Especially with us getting the ball to start. Considering the second half play, I think it was clearly the right move.

There's no question he was confused. Go watch his face as he is running up the sideline trying to figure out what's going on.

It was a a really poor decision. If you're not going to call TO in that situation and try and get at least a FG and actually a good shot at a TD then you never are, and all you are interested in is ball control and TOP.

3 TO and sacked them deep in their territory. You're seriously trying to make the point that in a one score game when you sack a team putting them in 3rd and 18 inside at their 15 yard line you shouldn't try to force them to punt because you are scared they might score?

Come on, you're one of the most logical posters here, you can't honestly believe that is winning coaching. It doesn't get any better than 3 TO, 3rd and mega long with them pinned back inside their own redzone. Even Muschamp doesn't hate offense that much.

 

[Zambo]

There's no question he was confused. Go watch his face as he is running up the sideline trying to figure out what's going on.

It was a a really poor decision. If you're not going to call TO in that situation and try and get at least a FG and actually a good shot at a TD then you never are, and all you are interested in is ball control and TOP.

3 TO and sacked them deep in their territory. You're seriously trying to make the point that in a one score game when you sack a team putting them in 3rd and 18 inside at their 15 yard line you shouldn't try to force them to punt because you are scared they might score?

Come on, you're one of the most logical posters here, you can't honestly believe that is winning coaching. It doesn't get any better than 3 TO, 3rd and mega long with them pinned back inside their own redzone. Even Muschamp doesn't hate offense that much.

Yup, plus with the timeout you get the chance to coach the defense on how to keep the third down play in front of them. It was just a bad moment. No other way to put it IMO.

 

[Marine1]

It seems just about everyone would have called the a TO.

The debate is whether he was confused. He’s on a headset. They’re talking. They can see the clock, the chains and the yard marker. He just chose to run it out which we all disagree with.

Unless he tells us otherwise I think it was that simple. A bad call.

Someone said it was that the stage was too bright or the moment was too big for him. Well the fact that he devised, implemented and executed a brilliant game plan suggests otherwise. I would bet this was a conversation today in a meeting room and it will likely be handled differently in the future.



I

 

[Gatormb]

Exactly. Somehow we demand FF to be flawless and literally critique his every play and decision and break it down endlessly. Every QB throws bad passes or misses a read in the course of a game. I have never seen a QB held to this standard.

I could do it in reverse.....he threw 1 INT and 1 near INT. He also had 1 dropped, 1 blocked and 1 thrown away. He had another incomplete under heavy pressure avoiding a sack. Otherwise he was 22-25 with another deep pass called back.

Actually a very, very good game and executed the game plan masterfully.

I’ve read where FF was affected last year by all the negativity directed at him and Mullen had to work hard on getting him to tune out that noise. Makes you wonder if the opposite would hold true....what if the base really got behind this kid and took his confidence to another level? Interesting thought.

I'm behind him. Would be more so if he shaved the bird nest off the chin. Goofy looking.

 

[Marine1]

I'm behind him. Would be more so if he shaved the bird nest off the chin. Goofy looking.

Lol. I understand...I have sons twenty something and they have gone through that phase....one even did the whole mountain beard thing once. My youngest had that scraggly looking wannabe goatee. It looked like a few hairs looking for a leader. We live out in the sticks and all their friends did the same. I hate it but every generation has their thing.

 

[soflagator]

There's no question he was confused. Go watch his face as he is running up the sideline trying to figure out what's going on.

It was a a really poor decision. If you're not going to call TO in that situation and try and get at least a FG and actually a good shot at a TD then you never are, and all you are interested in is ball control and TOP.

3 TO and sacked them deep in their territory. You're seriously trying to make the point that in a one score game when you sack a team putting them in 3rd and 18 inside at their 15 yard line you shouldn't try to force them to punt because you are scared they might score?

Come on, you're one of the most logical posters here, you can't honestly believe that is winning coaching. It doesn't get any better than 3 TO, 3rd and mega long with them pinned back inside their own redzone. Even Muschamp doesn't hate offense that much.

You know, we can both remain some of the more logical posters here, and still arrive at different conclusions on a subject. It is possible.

I guess I'd have to watch it again, because that's not the impression I got in the moment. I thought it could go either way, but definitely did not see it as a no-brainer. The announcers seemed to favor your position, so there's that. But even they didn't allude to it being a mater of confusion or disarray. They just thought he should try to capitalize on the situation.

I just see in the overall context of a game that I thought he handled really well. Between the adjustments at half, the playcalling throughout, and the near perfect clock management to close--including some gutsy calls that had a huge impact on Msu's last possession--I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he was content to go in down 3 and saw more potential risk than reward. Just me, and I'm also fine with a differing view.

 

[Marine1]

You know, we can both remain some of the more logical posters here, and still arrive at different conclusions on a subject. It is possible.

I guess I'd have to watch it again, because that's not the impression I got in the moment. I thought it could go either way, but definitely did not see it as a no-brainer. The announcers seemed to favor your position, so there's that. But even they didn't allude to it being a mater of confusion or disarray. They just thought he should try to capitalize on the situation.

I just see in the overall context of a game that I thought he handled really well. Between the adjustments at half, the playcalling throughout, and the near perfect clock management to close--including some gutsy calls that had a huge impact on Msu's last possession--I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he was content to go in down 3 and saw more potential risk than reward. Just me, and I'm also fine with a differing view.

Great post.

 

[lagator]

You know, we can both remain some of the more logical posters here, and still arrive at different conclusions on a subject. It is possible.

I guess I'd have to watch it again, because that's not the impression I got in the moment. I thought it could go either way, but definitely did not see it as a no-brainer. The announcers seemed to favor your position, so there's that. But even they didn't allude to it being a mater of confusion or disarray. They just thought he should try to capitalize on the situation.

I just see in the overall context of a game that I thought he handled really well. Between the adjustments at half, the playcalling throughout, and the near perfect clock management to close--including some gutsy calls that had a huge impact on Msu's last possession--I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he was content to go in down 3 and saw more potential risk than reward. Just me, and I'm also fine with a differing view.

Well we won so I guess that argues strongly for your position. It was just ultra-conservative if it was intentional, but if he knew what was up, then how can you explain the TO he eventually called that did absolutely nothing. Even if they punted and we blocked it the clock would have expired. Of course they didn't even have to punt.

Anyway, I see how it can be viewed from either perspective, but that's about as conservative as you can get if it was intentional.

 

[soflagator]

Well we won so I guess that argues strongly for your position. It was just ultra-conservative if it was intentional, but if he knew what was up, then how can you explain the TO he eventually called that did absolutely nothing. Even if they punted and we blocked it the clock would have expired. Of course they didn't even have to punt.

Anyway, I see how it can be viewed from either perspective, but that's about as conservative as you can get if it was intentional.

It’s definitely being conservative. No argument there. To your question though, I’m guessing he was basically playing a card that either we get a punt block/return possible TD to close the half, or nothing. But they’re not getting a stoppage and possible momentum to end the half.

It’s honestly not all that uncommon for coaches to work the clock to where either they benefit, or no one benefits. Now, leaving :10 would’ve made more sense to me because it forces them to actually punt. But I just don’t think he was completely oblivious to things and confused, and then scrambled to call a TO at :01. If he had truly messed up, I think he would’ve just said screw it and gone in. In my opinion, he clearly had an idea of how he wanted to play it.

 

[lagator]

Yup, plus with the timeout you get the chance to coach the defense on how to keep the third down play in front of them. It was just a bad moment. No other way to put it IMO.

Agree, and I was thinking the exact same thing about they probably don't get such a big gain on 3rd down if we take a timeout. All MSU was trying to do was run the clock out and they had to be thinking WTF, Mullen is trying to help us run out the clock? The players also looked like they were expecting the TO. Mullen gave them a gift that I think surprised everyone.

It’s definitely being conservative. No argument there. To your question though, I’m guessing he was basically playing a card that either we get a punt block/return possible TD to close the half, or nothing. But they’re not getting a stoppage and possible momentum to end the half.

It’s honestly not all that uncommon for coaches to work the clock to where either they benefit, or no one benefits. Now, leaving :10 would’ve made more sense to me because it forces them to actually punt. But I just don’t think he was completely oblivious to things and confused, and then scrambled to call a TO at :01. If he had truly messed up, I think he would’ve just said screw it and gone in. In my opinion, he clearly had an idea of how he wanted to play it.

I don't see how you can make any argument that he didn't screw up with the final TO. He didn't understand the clock and how many seconds he needed to force them to punt. He tried to force them to punt, but Moorhead understood the situation better than Mullen. Moorhead was probably thinking "hey dumbass, next time you want to force someone to punt to try and get the block, you need to call TO with more than 4 seconds on the clock." There's not 2 sides to that one in my opinion. He thought he forced them to punt, they didn't punt and Mullen looked like a goofball.

But I agree with you that overall he called a solid game overall. However, we aren't going to win any more games scoring 13 points so the offense is still definitely a work in progress.

 

[oxrageous]

I tend to agree with sofla, as I thought at the time that Mullen had every intention of letting that clock down and getting into halftime down 3. I didn't think it was a mistake.

 

[Zambo]

I tend to agree with sofla, as I thought at the time that Mullen had every intention of letting that clock down and getting into halftime down 3. I didn't think it was a mistake.

I’m quite sure that was his intention when MSU snapped the ball on 2nd down. After the sack he certainly should have recognized the opportunity he had been given and taken advantage of it.

 

[lagator]

I tend to agree with sofla, as I thought at the time that Mullen had every intention of letting that clock down and getting into halftime down 3. I didn't think it was a mistake.

Then why did he call an impotent TO? If he wanted to just let the clock expire let it expire. If you want to force the punt, then force a punt. What he did was lame honestly, but hopefully it isn't a pattern.

Anyway I'm done with it. We won and it's time to move on to LSU. I think they are over-rated by a good bit and with home field we have a solid shot at the win.

 

[soflagator]

Agree, and I was thinking the exact same thing about they probably don't get such a big gain on 3rd down if we take a timeout. All MSU was trying to do was run the clock out and they had to be thinking WTF, Mullen is trying to help us run out the clock? The players also looked like they were expecting the TO. Mullen gave them a gift that I think surprised everyone.

I don't see how you can make any argument that he didn't screw up with the final TO. He didn't understand the clock and how many seconds he needed to force them to punt. He tried to force them to punt, but Moorhead understood the situation better than Mullen. Moorhead was probably thinking "hey dumbass, next time you want to force someone to punt to try and get the block, you need to call TO with more than 4 seconds on the clock." There's not 2 sides to that one in my opinion. He thought he forced them to punt, they didn't punt and Mullen looked like a goofball.

But I agree with you that overall he called a solid game overall. However, we aren't going to win any more games scoring 13 points so the offense is still definitely a work in progress.

Ok. Just watched the 3rd down play again. Because of the draw play going so far, by the time he was tackled, there was only :04 on the clock. So for the record, my :10 idea is moot and incorrect. But the most he could've left on the clock is probably :03 anyway, which still doesn't technically require anything more than what Fitzgerald did. So he couldn't have left any more time. I'm sure in a perfect world, we wrap up a lot quicker and do leave 10 or so seconds on the clock. But that went out the window with the big run. In any event, again, I think it's clear that he was ok with the outcome.

A) it's not a foregone conclusion that you get the stop on 3rd down(as we saw). B) there's no guarantee that they don't boom one 60 yards and leave us a long field. And C) Franks is not the guy to put undue pressure on in that environment, with roughly :35 to drive the field. Why do that, when you've played better than expected, are only down 3 and get the ball to start the 3rd? I can guarantee that if any of those scenarios had gone against us, and it led to a score and momentum just before half, there would be people on here railing against him for trying to run a 30-second offense with a still learning QB. I think people are letting their dislike of DM to distort things a little. It was a smart play to not let the half end on a bad note. Get into the locker room, regroup, get the ball first and get a win. There are times when you have to be content with things, and I think that's what he was doing.

 

[soflagator]

Then why did he call an impotent TO? If he wanted to just let the clock expire let it expire. If you want to force the punt, then force a punt. What he did was lame honestly, but hopefully it isn't a pattern.

Anyway I'm done with it. We won and it's time to move on to LSU. I think they are over-rated by a good bit and with home field we have a solid shot at the win.

That's been answered. And it literally happens all the time. Force them to punt, but leave only a few seconds so it doesn't backfire. Either we get something out of the punt, or we don't. Again, it probably happens once a week.

 

[Zambo]

Completely disagree. Anything can happen on any single play, sure. But having the other team with a 3rd and 18 at their own goal line and not trying to capitalize on it is like not splitting 8s when the dealer has a 5 showing. You’re not gonna win every hand but you are guaranteed to lose in the long run if you don’t play smart odds.

 

[Ancient Reptile]

Roger Dodger, nothing we do here either helps or hurts.

Keep telling yourself that. Are you trying to assuage your conscience?

 

[soflagator]

Completely disagree. Anything can happen on any single play, sure. But having the other team with a 3rd and 18 at their own goal line and not trying to capitalize on it is like not splitting 8s when the dealer has a 5 showing. You’re not gonna win every hand but you are guaranteed to lose in the long run if you don’t play smart odds.

To that point, we'd had 3 drives. One that went for 68 yards and took 8 minutes. The other two went for 17 and 16 yards respectively, and still took over 5 minutes total. How is asking that same offense to go minimum 30 yards in :30, at a non-critical point in the game, playing smart odds?

To your first point, I agree. Anything can happen on any play, which is why he wanted to at least force a punt. But by the same logic, they could have just as easily converted 3rd and 18, plus one more play and be the team setting up a shot at scoring to close the half. Or we muff a punt. Or we have a turnover. Etc. We can disagree with the philosophical side of things and that's fine. I'm sure some coaches would've done that, which may or may not have benefited them. But the initial dispute was that it was somehow too much for Mullen to compute and he was clueless on the clock management. I think that's wrong, and he did exactly what he wanted to do.

 

[Zambo]

To that point, we'd had 3 drives. One that went for 68 yards and took 8 minutes. The other two went for 17 and 16 yards respectively, and still took over 5 minutes total. How is asking that same offense to go minimum 30 yards in :30, at a non-critical point in the game, playing smart odds?

To your first point, I agree. Anything can happen on any play, which is why he wanted to at least force a punt. But by the same logic, they could have just as easily converted 3rd and 18, plus one more play and be the team setting up a shot at scoring to close the half. Or we muff a punt. Or we have a turnover. Etc. We can disagree with the philosophical side of things and that's fine. I'm sure some coaches would've done that, which may or may not have benefited them. But the initial dispute was that it was somehow too much for Mullen to compute and he was clueless on the clock management. I think that's wrong, and he did exactly what he wanted to do.

Not me. I think he screwed it up. Forcing them to punt with over 20 seconds on the clock would have been simple. Even a shanked punt means we only need a few yards for a FG and we were trailing by 3 at the time. If their punter booms one you just let it go and kneel in the ball. This **** is fundamental strategy, not some crazy roll of the dice.

 

[oxrageous]

I disagree with Zambo.