T1B

In a hard fought game, Stanford was leading ASU 17-13 with less than 2 minutes left in the game. Stanford has the ball 2nd and 6 at ASU's 23 yard line. Stanford runs down the play clock and calls time out with 1:38. All they really need is a first down and they can kill the clock.

Anthony Wilkerson gets the handoff and goes off tackle left, breaking through the line and past the linebackers seemingly on his way to the end zone. Inexplicably, instead of scoring the TD that would have put the game completely out of reach he stops and basically sits down at the 4 yard line, just inbounds. It didn't appear that there was anybody who could have either tackled him or knocked him out of bounds.

What was he thinking?

Maybe he figured it was more important to run the clock than score the TD. Either way it pretty much iced the game, though Stanford still had to run two more plays to end it. A TD would have finished any chance for an ASU comeback.

Was he just killing the clock?
Was he showing respect to ASU by not piling more points on?
Did Harbaugh somehow instruct his team to just kill the clock?

Did Wilkerson know that Stanford was a 4 to 5.5 point favorite?

Mikey wrote:A TD would have finished any chance for an ASU comeback.

Wrong. Giving the ball back to ASU's offense actually increases their chances to win. I've seen teams score twice in the last 90 seconds. By contrast, I've never seen a team fumble a snap lining up in the "running out the clock formation."

Good to see your dumbfuckery isn't limited to just the NFL and MLB forums.

I should be obvious. Just another example of this sinister conspiracy to keep me from winning a pick'em.

Mikey wrote:What was he thinking?

Maybe he figured it was more important to run the clock than score the TD. Either way it pretty much iced the game,

This.
You don't give the ball back if you don't have to. See Jones-Drew, Maurice 2009.

Mikey wrote:What was he thinking?

Whatever it was, I'm sure Jim Tressel would appreciate it. Bret Beliema.. not so much.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

Mikey wrote:A TD would have finished any chance for an ASU comeback.

Wrong. Giving the ball back to ASU's offense actually increases their chances to win. I've seen teams score twice in the last 90 seconds. By contrast, I've never seen a team fumble a snap lining up in the "running out the clock formation."

Good to see your dumbfuckery isn't limited to just the NFL and MLB forums.

OK asshole, so I should have said "pretty much finished..."

I didn't say it was the wrong decision. I wanted to start a discussion, something you obviously do not have the skills or intellect to participate in. Some coaches, especially if they're in a race for top 10 positioning, would prefer an 11 point win instead of a 4 point win, even against the liklihood that scoring a TD would enable ASU to make miraculous comeback.

Do you think Harbaugh told them not to score or did Wilkerson, a freshman RB, do it on his own? Maybe coach said to "just get the first down."

So which college teams, and when, have you actually "seen" score 11 or more points in the last 90 seconds? And I don't mean scoring a TD with 90 seconds left and then getting another. It has to be receiving the ball with 90 seconds or less and scoring 11 or more subsequently. I know it's (probably) happened, I'd just like to know how often you've actually "seen" it. Are you sure no team has ever fumbled a snap in the "running out the clock formation"? Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

I would have wanted the TD and 11 point lead. ASU had only put 13 points on the board, so I would have had confidence that my defense would keep them from scoring twice, getting a 2 point conversion, and successfully executing an onside kick to tie the game. The odds of your opponent doing that in 90 seconds would be astronomical. Obviously, their decision to not score and kill the clock was a high percentage move too, but I still would have taken the score.

Mace wrote:I would have wanted the TD and 11 point lead. ASU had only put 13 points on the board, so I would have had confidence that my defense would keep them from scoring twice, getting a 2 point conversion, and successfully executing an onside kick to tie the game. The odds of your opponent doing that in 90 seconds would be astronomical. Obviously, their decision to not score and kill the clock was a high percentage move too, but I still would have taken the score.

It was a cut and dried decision, dumbfuck.

Sin
couldntdoitanystyle

Mikey wrote:

Mace wrote:I would have wanted the TD and 11 point lead. ASU had only put 13 points on the board, so I would have had confidence that my defense would keep them from scoring twice, getting a 2 point conversion, and successfully executing an onside kick to tie the game. The odds of your opponent doing that in 90 seconds would be astronomical. Obviously, their decision to not score and kill the clock was a high percentage move too, but I still would have taken the score.

It was a cut and dried decision, dumbfuck.

Sin
couldntdoitanystyle

Lucky for ucant that KCScott fell in love with his body. At least he's got that going for him. Brains? Not so much.

I didn't see the play, but assuming ASU was out of timeouts, it was absolutely the right decision and showed a great deal of restraint on the runner's part. I used to do that all the time playing NCAA Football. However remote the chances are of ASU scoring two more TDs in the final 90 seconds, the odds are even more infinitesimal that Stanford turns it over in the "victory formation." Wilkerson should get the game ball for that heads-up play...

Planned strategy by Harbaugh. Still have to RACK the freshman RB for having the presence of mind to do it.

The Cardinal killed the final four minutes - with an unusual strategy at the end. Freshman Anthony Wilkerson was on his way to a 23-yard touchdown but slid down untouched at the 4. "Man, a touchdown would have been nice," he said. "But (Stanford coach Jim Harbaugh) told us to slide and kill the clock."

There was a minute and a half left, and Harbaugh said he had told Wilkerson during a timeout not to score if he broke free.

"We call it a get-down victory," Harbaugh said. "We get the first down, we win the game. We can kneel on it two times, and the game will be over."

Had Wilkerson scored, Stanford would have led 24-13, but it would still have been remotely possible for ASU to tie it or pull the game out with the help of an onside kick.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z15I9RQEDl

Mikey wrote: So which college teams, and when, have you actually "seen" score 11 or more points in the last 90 seconds?

I saw a replay official pull this off once, with a bunch of help from Dennis Dixon and OU's D confusing "playing defense" with "playing matador" and refusing to tackle anyone.

Mikey wrote:I didn't say it was the wrong decision. I wanted to start a discussion, something you obviously do not have the skills or intellect to participate in.

You wanted to start a discussion? Fine, I will be more than happy to kick your teeth in as per usual. Your question is something I would expect to hear from a chick at a Super Bowl party. "What was he thinking?" I'll spell it out for you:

Whether you have a 4 pt lead or a 50 pt lead, if the other team doesn't touch the ball for the rest of the game, you win. Are you still with me or do you need a moment to ponder that statement?

This is why teams down a score with less than 2 minutes left and no time outs often play "Olé!" defense. The idiots looking to pad their stats actually go for the score. This rarely happens, unless the player toting the rock is as stupid as you. Players with at least average intelligence (see also, not total dumbfucks like yourself) just fall to the ground and allow their team to line up in victory formation. I don't believe I have to explain basic winning strategy to you, but you've proven yourself to be an imbecile at every turn... so why should this be any different.

Mikey wrote:Some coaches, especially if they're in a race for top 10 positioning, would prefer an 11 point win instead of a 4 point win, even against the liklihood [sic] that scoring a TD would enable ASU to make miraculous comeback.

Yeah. I am sure you identify with this small sample of dumbfucks who aren't good at what they do. See. The smart coach actually wraps up the win first.

If you were the coach, I am sure you'd instruct the team to for 2 pts after the TD as well... because a 12 pt win looks better than an 11 pt win. You would then, of course, go for the onside kick too... because, ya know. A 20 pt win looks better than a 12 pt win. Right?

When are you going to answer my question?