Jump to content

3rd and goal from the 3.....


WaDE'05

Recommended Posts

Ok, I have to forward this post by saying.... I know it doesn't matter. I know we won and everything came out alright. I would also like to say that I love CAB. I thnk he is the best thing to happen to Auburn since Tater Tot packed his bags. But this is an auburn football board and if we didnt sit around try to be armchair QBs and coaches.....well, we wouldnt have much to talk about. So know that im just bringing up a topic for discussion. Im not criticizing just want to give my opinion and hear some more educated ones....

3rd and goal from the 3, and you have arguably the best backfield in the nation. You are playing the game for field position so you know that your in four down territory. I would have to assume that carnell and ronnie (or even campbell on a quick draw) could pick up 3yds on two attempts even against an LSU defense. Why did we put the ball in the air? CAB was coaching football when i was just a twinkle in my daddy's eye, so im sure he knows what he's doin' but i would go Carnell over the top, RB in the 3 or 4 hole, slaughter on the FB dive, or campbell on the draw before i put the ball in the air. But my dream game is one where we pick up 3.5 yds a carry and just pound it down the field, without even thinking about throwing it. What would you have done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The last short yardage situation they got Caddy in the backfield.

Its a bit harder to run in the red zone, and LSU was doing a pretty good job of stopping us from running, espcially in short yardage situations.

Campbell had thrown 3 or 4 nice passes to get us down there. He WAS the drive, so why not let him finish?

With hindsight being 20/20, I'd say running would have been a better option. =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole game it just looked like we wanted it more. I find it hard to believe that if we would have just lined it up and tried to punch it in, they would have stopped us twice. I would even like running it on 3rd down and then going to a play action roll out. i just hate to see us go straight for the pass that close to the goal line. It's what my old coach refers to as chicken$hit football. Florida does that. Auburn lines up and hits 'em in the mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This drove me crazy. I felt sorry for the team on that drive. They executed next to perfectly that entire drive, and when it should have been 2 up the middle for the TD, they were robbed of a score by their own coaches. That drive was pretty, and they deserved to score, dammit. But short yardage play calling was a problem all day. Whenn we did run it, it was always wide (usually off-tackle) - never up the gut. With LSUs speed, this will NEVER, NEVER work. What happened to "Thunder". That play worked 100%. I figure that Borges is just used to the Pac-10, and surely someone will get in his ear this week and let him know it doesn't work down here. But forget the goal line 3rd and 3. What about the 3rd and short on the final drive (I think), that we ran the freakin OPTION. It worked that time, but not exactly a high percentage call when the ends have been crashing down all day. Al is too good of a playcaller to screw up what has always been a gimme. He'll fix it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this may be a radical idea to all of you, but coaches can learn too. I have all the confidence in the world that when they go back and look at the tape, they'll re-evaluate what works and doesn't, and continue tweaking it. I will honestly contend that this team has gotten better each week. And this is after all only our 3rd game under the new OC, Rome wasn't built in a day. But just look at the execution as a whole of JC and the WRs from last week to this week. And I'm not just talking about the WRs catching the ball, and Campbell making better decisions, I'm talking about his audibles at the line, and the way our motion and shifting made the defense change their plans. Our offense was not great, but if Ronnie gets in on that one play where he was ruled out, and if we had made better play calls on 3rd and 4th and goal from the 3, we're looking at 24-9 against a defense that is still pretty damn good. As long as the players continue to work hard and improve, I honestly believe the offense will work pretty well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the third down play LSU busted through the line hard core, I think if we ran it on third we would have been on the 5 instead of the 3 on that play. They had stopped us several times on short yardage situations we tried to power through.

The 4th down play should have resulted in PI call. I watched the CBS tape today and the announcers were saying it should have been a PI after looking at it from the angles. Campbell should have pulled that one down though I think, Ronnie had the left side sealed off and I think Campbell would have gotten in.

I actually liked the option call, we hadn't showed the option the entire game. People on this board are always talking about we need to let Campbell show his legs and make some plays. That is exactly what Borges did right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I brought this up after the MSU game when we passed to Mix on the 5. Yeah it worked, but this time it didn't. We have two first round picks in our backfield and we don't run the ball that close to the goal line? I don't understand it either, but that's why I'm not coaching I guess...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah.. I think we should have ran both times. I am thinking this because the pass didn't work. I actually thought it was a good idea.. I'm sure lsu was almost sure we would run it..

WAR EAGLE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinda of reminds me of Ole Miss 2003. 3rd and goal from the 3. If you know you are going to go for it on 4th down, you have to run on 3rd.

Come on Borges, I thought you were smarter than Nall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest nanatiger

I agree with Longtrainn. I griped about the playcalling in that situation, too, as did almost everyone in our section. But after the game, on our way to Toomer's (what a beautiful sight!), we all said if our coaches & players learn from those kinds of mistakes, we'll be okay. Football isn't an exact science and mistakes will be made, but I've always said you learn more from your mistakes than your successes. :au::cheer::au:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have either run with Ronnie in that situation, or if I passed, it would have been a roll out so Jason would have a run/pass option. But as you said, it worked out in the end and we learned something about how teams might defend us in that situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i thought that was a bit of a weak play; however, it is enticing to throw to a guy anthony's size on a quick slant. if their safety isn't jumping the route (or pushing mix in the back as it were on this play, and yeah it was blatant interference), he's got a great shot at the score. would i rather pound the ball at them? always. but i also know it's a bit nerve racking when you've already missed a block on 3rd and 1 that lost you 3 yards the series before. i just wish we would've put in the weak set with ronnie as the upback and popped him over the strong guard b/c that might've cut down on the chance of an end making the play (as they did on the 3rd and 1). maybe next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Screw learning from your failures. We should have pounded it in! They are too fast at the corners to run it that way. The off tackle, where we seal off everyone worked all day. Carnell would get a good run off, then we would go away from that play. I say if it works, you run it until the other teams stops you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly what I was saying on the SEC board.

Why in gods name do you throw it twice? You have maybe the best 2 RB's in the SEC and have LSU reeling from a 60-yard drive.

I understand AU had been stopped on several short yardage situations before but in neither of those cases had LSU been on the field for the time that this drive was taking place.

Run that damn thing in with Ronnie Brown

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I yelled so loud all day as I did in this particular situation. I don't care how good that D is, I think with Ronnie we could've gotten three yards on two tries. Obviously, Borges will see that on film. Borges isn't going to be the crap we had last year where we continually run the same plays even though they are clearly not working. I think he was trying to catch them off balance because they expected the run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion...Slaughter twice, up the gut. You ALWAYS give it to the up man...only if you really want to score though. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that running wouldn't be a good option, especially with the tailbacks we have. But, LSU was probrably pretty certain we would run it, and has been known to blitz very heavily, especially in short yardage situations. I think what they were trying to do was get Mix in the area that thought would be vacated by the MLB's. With his size it would be an easy mismatch on a DB. Overall I think it was a well thought out decision. But, I tend to agree that even though they had stopped us on short yardage situations before, giving the ball to either CW or RB twice in a row would surely yeild a TD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think CAB knew that LSU was waiting for us to hand off the ball. Our running game was working well when we had LSU off balance. I'm not sure we would have made it if they were keying on the run. Didn't we miss a short yardage (3rd and 1) earlier in the game - CAB might have been thinking about that. I would have kicked the FG on fourth if I had confidence in my kicker. JMHO.

A lot of factors to consider...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be wrong here, I don't think so, BUT, didn't we just WIN a game over the #5 ranked and defending NC team?

Let's not be too critical of our Coaching Staff. They had a great game plan and, IT WORKED ! ! !

WAR EAGLE ! ! ! :au:

EVER to Conquer ! ! ! !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed Tex. There's a lot of factors to consider and the staff knows more about what they wanted to do against LSU than any of us here. But, that's what's so great about being a fan. We get to second guess on Sunday and none of us will take any heat for it. B)

Personally, I'd have pounded it twice too. Oh well. One observation, I really like the overall game plan that CAB has them running. Different formations, spreading the ball to a lot of talented people and keeping the running game as the focal point of the offense. I saw more different plays this game than I've seen in the last 5 years. Throwing deep, reverses, the option, the TIGHT END :cheer::cheer:

Just keep CW and RB as your number one options and you'll be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one problem with offensive gurus is that they tend to outthink themselves in simple situations. If we need schemes to get 3 yards in two plays on the goalline, then we don't deserve to win. I'm sure CAB will learn from this. It's completely different ball down here from where he's been, and it'll take a few blown calls to adjust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we did need schemes against the LSU defense. I don't think we could impose our will on them and simply run it down their throats. Most teams yes but not LSU. Every time they knew we were going to run on short yardage situations, they stopped it. JMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be wrong here, I don't think so, BUT, didn't we just WIN a game over the #5 ranked and defending NC team?

Let's not be too critical of our Coaching Staff. They had a great game plan and, IT WORKED ! ! !

WAR EAGLE ! ! ! 

EVER to Conquer ! ! ! !

Tim, I completely agree. I was just trying to give everyone something to talk about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...