its more we didn't blitz against arky on a 4th and 12 in overtime, consequently they got the first down and went on to win the game.
This one cracks me up. I really don't think that blitzing on a 4th and 12 is the right answer most of the time. This is just a hindsight is 20/20 thing. If they would have blitzed and been burned deep, the same LSU fans would be complaining that he blitzed and should have put in a nickel package. chuckleshuffle
well, it 4th and 12. arky has an inexperienced young qb, they have to score a td to get another ot...
you have a severly banged up secondary that has been less than awesome all season long...how does "not blitzing" sound good?
Not blitzing sounds good, because a blitz is high risk, and that situation does not call for a high risk/high reward option. If it works, you know you are going to stop them. If it doesn't, then you're putting even more pressure on your severely banged up secondary which is now undermanned to stop the receivers because you have blitzed, and are probably going to give up the first down. You just need to stop the offense from gaining more than 11 yards, so why not put in a base package, or even a nickel package, because you are relatively sure they are going to pass. The fans calling for a blitz in that situation are assuming that a blitz would be successful. If that were always true, then I guess you should have been blitzing every play.
Yeah, LSU didn't blitz on that play, and it didn't work out. That doesn't mean it was the wrong call. If you play poker, you may know that in some situations you have a 95% chance of winning if you bet. Occasionally you bet in that situation and lose, because the 5% chance of losing hits. That doesn't mean you made the wrong decision, it just means you were unlucky.