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.
_________________ “And I remember across those years Two banners that crowned the crest, When Yale was king of the conquered East, And Michigan ruled the West.”
the artist formally known
Posts : 3649 Join date : 2012-01-25 Age : 70 Location : Northern Michigan
Subject: Re: Going for two Sat Nov 30, 2013 5:01 pm
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.
_________________ "HAIL HAIL MICHIGAN" Wanted John Harbaugh but I'll settle for JIM
WITH AN ENTHUSIASM UNKNOWN TO MANKIND GOOO BLUE
The Curse of Rich Rod
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.