re: The Loss to Tech

quote:

---

The reality was we were WINNING with 18 seconds left and the probability of GT running the ball back from deep in the end zone to the 43 yard line was very low.

---

Yet the probability of the guy tapped to return footballs on special teams taking the return to the house was much higher than the probability of anyone else returning the football for a touchdown. We were winning by 3 points. A FG ties the game and we have a shot to win in overtime, but a TD ends the game, period.

quote:

---

The short squid kick put GT in the position of only having to gain 20+ yards to be in FG range in the time remaining.

A deep kick would have made the probability of getting into FG range with the time remaining even lower.

---

The squib kick did not go far enough. I'm sure in CMR's mind, if they recover the ball at the 30 or 35, they still have to pick up over 30 yards in one play to get within field position. The kick went short, but they still had to pick up over 20 yards. Their passing game was garbage at that point, so it was a calculated risk. Poor execution allowed them to actually get within range, and frankly, the kicker should have missed. He made the kick of his life and earned those 3 points. It sucked, but those 3 points were likely even with the squib kick.

Ultimately, the choice was between possibly giving up a TD to lose the game, or giving just enough yards to tie it. The tie is the safer option between those two options, since we would have at least one more possession in OT to win the game if we had to.

quote:

---

Yes it is no matter how many times you continue to deny it.

---

No, it wasn't. The kick, itself, did not give away any points; none. All it did was give them better field position while taking some clock time away. That's it.

If the decision was to kick an extra point to tie the game or go for two points to win it and he chose to go for two and didn't make it, that would be an example of calling a play that lost us the game. The squib kick did not give away any points, though. The subsequent bad coverage on the QB keeper and the perfect execution by the GT kicker put 3 points on the board.

And even with that said, if that was all there was to it, it would still be a tie. We would not have lost the game there. We actually lost the game when we couldn't keep GT out of our end zone while throwing the ball at a GT defender for an interception. Literally, the interception lost us the game, because it was the final decider in the outcome. We lost because we did not score a TD in overtime.

But keep thinking that the kick that eventually led to a tie (not a loss) lost us the game.

quote:

---

There wouldn't have been an OT if it wasn't for the squib kick.

---

And there wouldn't have been a squib kick (or any controversy around it, at least) if we didn't make a lot of mistakes early on.

Instead of blaming the INT or the lack of a stop on the defense for the loss, you are blaming it on a single play that potentially led to the tie. Not sure how that works in your mind, but if you are going to say that the loss wouldn't have happened if we don't squib it, then I can just as easily say the squib wouldn't have happened (or at least the controversy around it) if we didn't fumble the ball twice on the 1 yard line.

You're pissed that we were even in the position to play for overtime instead of coming away with a clean win but you don't seem to care that we shouldn't have had to be in the position to choose between a TD or a FG (potentially) on the kick; we should have had a bigger lead by that point. If that doesn't matter, then technically the squib doesn't matter. Once overtime began, it was a new game. If we execute, it doesn't matter what happened in the 60 minutes prior. We still could have won the game, so again I say that the squib did not lose us the game. At the very worst, you can only say that it kept us from a regulation win, but even that wouldn't have been the case had we stopped the QB scramble.

quote:

---

You are the one saying woulda shoulda coulda. I'm saying we were winning with 18 seconds left and the squib kick cost us the game.

---

Technically we both are saying "woulda shoulda coulda". You are saying we would have won if we didn't squib the kick, even though you don't know that for certain. I'm saying we should have been in a position where the kind of kick we went with didn't matter. You blame the kick for the loss even though the only certainty we know is that we did not lose the game because of the kick.

Even if you ignore the bad defensive performance on the QB scramble, you are still left with a tie at the end of regulation, not a loss. The game was still ours to win or lose at that point, and we lost it because we couldn't keep GT out of the end zone and we threw an awful interception to put the nail the in coffin.

quote:

---

Yes, it did.

---

No it didn't, but I've explained why it didn't several times already.

quote:

---

The reality is the squib kick put the team in the position of having to stop the 20+ run which they didn't.

Since the squib kick did that it was the squib kick that cost us the game not the 20+ yard run.

That's it. I'm through trying to talk to a fool.

---

Yes, the squib kick put the team in the position of having to stop the 20+ run, and yes, they did not accomplish that goal, which is really what led to the FG and the tie.

You are playing a strange game of cause and effect here. GT needed a FG to tie it. Instead of blaming the FG on the tie, you blame the 21 yard run that led to the FG. Oh, no you don't. You blame the squib kick which led to the field position which led to the 21 yard run which led to the FG. You arbitrarily choose the squib kick because it's easy to blame it rather than the defense for giving up the 21 yard run which put them in FG range (even just barely). Since you aren't blaming the defense for containing the QB and giving up a 21 yard run, I can arbitrarily blame the loss on the 2 fumbles at the 1 yard line that led to a 3-point lead with 18 seconds left instead of 10- or 17-point lead that would have rendered the play call moot. If we can pick and choose which link in the chain to break, why not go further back? It's all part of the same game, after all.

But in reality, the game was lost in overtime. At the end of those 18 seconds in the 4th quarter, the score was tied. If you really want to blame the loss on anything, blame it on the defense's inability to stop the run and Mason's forced throw that really ended the game. Saying "it shouldn't have gotten to that point" (which is essentially what you are doing) is a bad argument, since I can say the same thing about the kick, itself.

If you're done, then so be it. I'll try not to resort to name calling in my arguments