This Clemson coach

[No coincidences]

Going for 2 twice early in the second quarter.

You can't make up this kind of stupidity.

[BlitzTheBooks]

First was to pull within a FG. Second was to make it a FG lead. How's that wacko again?

[BiffTFinancial]

agree, it's a little early to chase points on conversions. in the end, it evened out. game over/Clemson TT over backers rejoice before halftime, woot.

[No coincidences]

First was to pull within a FG. Second was to make it a FG lead. How's that wacko again?

Because you don't run the risk of flushing points away in the first half of a game. Ever.

No reason for him to worry about "pulling within a FG" with 10 minutes left in the second quarter.

[BlitzTheBooks]

And if you watched the play, the first should have been a completion. Had Boyd not hesitated it was a quick 2. NC State was more than likely going to blow the coverage again, so why not run it. Boyd rolling out and hit the TE on a quick slant off the line has been MONEY all season for us.

[BlitzTheBooks]

Because you don't run the risk of flushing points away in the first half of a game. Ever.

With our offense, we'll convert more than enough to make it worth it through the entire game. Simple as that.

[onlooker]

Oregon does that a lot.

[No coincidences]

And if you watched the play, the first should have been a completion. Had Boyd not hesitated it was a quick 2. NC State was more than likely going to blow the coverage again, so why not run it. Boyd rolling out and hit the TE on a quick slant off the line has been MONEY all season for us.

Irrelevant.

[BlitzTheBooks]

So an offensive coordinator spots a weakness in the defensive scheme and capitalizes next go round. So How's that previous play irrelevant again? Sorry, but if you show me a tendency I'm going to take full advantage. There's a reason they're getting paid while we're watching.

[No coincidences]

So an offensive coordinator spots a weakness in the defensive scheme. How's that irrelevant again? Sorry, but if you show me a tendency I'm going to take full advantage. There's a reason they're getting paid while we're watching.

He's not going for two every time. He's going for two, like you said, to "get within a field goal" -- which makes no sense given the stage in the game. If what you say is true (they're doing it because they spot a weakness), why are they not just going for two every time?

[BlitzTheBooks]

I get your logic behind that. But I'm simply saying they were in a position to go up either 2 or 3. There was clearly something they saw (as did I watching the game, I KNOW they did) that made it worth going for two.

[No coincidences]

I get your logic behind that. But I'm simply saying they were in a position to go up either 2 or 3. There was clearly something they saw (as did I watching the game, I KNOW they did) that made it worth going for two.

Fair enough. I'm just not a believer in potentially leaving points on the field. I don't like the idea of going for 2 unless it's absolutely necessary.

[BlitzTheBooks]

Fair enough. I'm just not a believer in potentially leaving points on the field. I don't like the idea of going for 2 unless it's absolutely necessary.

I gotcha. Normally would be right there with ya. It's the 'correct' play to just take the XP. But from the way Chad Morris and Dabo have turned this team around, I'll rarely ever question anything they do

[CDMKMP]

Because you don't run the risk of flushing points away in the first half of a game. Ever.

No reason for him to worry about "pulling within a FG" with 10 minutes left in the second quarter.

Sorry what team do you coach again?

Just because most coaches ascribe to oldschool wive's tales for their offensive decisions doesn't make it right. If the math says you stand to convert a certain % of the time then it's perfectly fine to go for it. Some people can see beyond immediate results oriented thinking.

[No coincidences]

Sorry what team do you coach again?

Just because most coaches ascribe to oldschool wive's tales for their offensive decisions doesn't make it right. If the math says you stand to convert a certain % of the time then it's perfectly fine to go for it. Some people can see beyond immediate results oriented thinking.

Right -- that's why you see teams going for 2 all the time and risk leaving points on the field they may need later. Because it's "oldschool wive's tales."

Oh wait: you don't.

[JT OZ]

Boise and Oregon do it a lot early in games but not in a strategic way score-wise like it appears Clemson was going for.

[No coincidences]

Boise and Oregon do it a lot early in games but not in a strategic way score-wise like it appears Clemson was going for.

Exactly.

[BlitzTheBooks]

Boise and Oregon do it a lot early in games but not in a strategic way score-wise like it appears Clemson was going for.

BINGO