dwoody
Posts : 3635
Join date : 2012-03-12
Age : 71
Location : Michissippi - Don't drink the water!
 | Subject: Going for two  Sat Nov 30, 2013 4:48 pm | |
| Had to be done. Good decision. Oh, well.... | |
|
wshoes
Posts : 3840
Join date : 2012-10-17
| | Subject: Re: Going for two Sat Nov 30, 2013 4:51 pm | |
| Liked the decision but should have changed the formation after timeout. | |
|
rasputin
Posts : 184
Join date : 2012-02-02
Location : Mission Viejo, California
| | Subject: Re: Going for two Sat Nov 30, 2013 4:55 pm | |
| It was the right decision. Not only was Gardner gimpy, but there are no guarantees that it would have even gone to OT. The D was swiss cheese. | |
|
the artist formally known
Posts : 3649
Join date : 2012-01-25
Age : 70
Location : Northern Michigan
| |
jjabilene
Posts : 645
Join date : 2012-01-25
| | Subject: Re: Going for two Sat Nov 30, 2013 5:21 pm | |
| It's funny, the only point in the game where I thought we actually might win was when we went for the 2-pt conversion. Of course Borges got owned on the play call, but what do you expect. | |
|
wshoes
Posts : 3840
Join date : 2012-10-17
| | Subject: Re: Going for two Sat Nov 30, 2013 7:25 pm | |
| - jjabilene wrote:
- It's funny, the only point in the game where I thought we actually might win was when we went for the 2-pt conversion. Of course Borges got owned on the play call, but what do you expect.
Yeah we let them see the formation and the motion, gave them a timeout to talk about it and then ran the exact same thing. Puzzling. 'shoes | |
|
Sponsored content
| | Subject: Re: Going for two | |
| |
|
Totally right call, no way Michgan stops them, The O$U offense was way more efficient, plus We had no FG kicker, Thing is if , and BUG if we could have kicked FG earlier when we had the chance different outcome.