First of all, the notion that both plays were "born of the same philosophy" is the writer's choice of words, not Carroll's. It does not lead to the conclusion that both were either right or wrong calls. Carrolls' words were “I don’t ever coach these guys at one time thinking that they’re going to throw an interception, thinking that we’re going to fumble the ball’’.
They were two different plays and decisions. One decision was not a play-call, but a tactical decision. No one is saying that the first-half pass should have been a run or different pass route. Rather, the argument against it was that it could leave no time on the clock if it fell incomplete, and thus the play should not have occurred at all. While the INT was I suppose a possibility, if there were 10-12 seconds left nobody would have found the decision to go for the end zone a problem. Thus, the "philosophy" that Carroll doesn't think of interceptions or fumbles didn't really matter at all in the first half.
The game-ender is a different story altogether. It was a horrific play call, with far too many risks, including not only those I mentioned before but also the dreaded Notre Dame--FSU outcome of an offensive PI flag on the pick, which needlessly backs you up and takes away the run. The "philosophy" of ignoring the possibility of mistakes is boneheaded there--you take the low risk play, especially with downs and a timeout in your pocket.
__________________
If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other. - Ulysses S. Grant, military commander, 18th US President.
Last edited by nolemmings; 02-03-2015 at 11:39 AM.
|