CFN's Matthew Zemek issues clarification

by GeauxTigers on Oct 23, 2007 12:52 PM CDT in Football Comment 3 comments

CFN's Matthew Zemek, whose postgame filleting of Les Miles I discussed here (and the discussion has continued today), was kind enough to email us a clarification of his position on the situation.

In my Monday Morning QB column, which I've since re-read, I now realize that one of my major references to the need for Miles/LSU to get into chip-shot FG range was a parenthetical reference. This might have given the impression that I didn't feel it was all that important.

To clarify, then, let me say this very simply: the biggest single issue of this debate/controversy (which was ignored and/or missed by virtually every mainstream media (ESPN) commentator) is that the foremost priority for LSU/Miles on that drive was to get into chip-shot FG range.

Once you accept that logical and undeniable premise, you can then begin to discuss this matter prudently and properly.

If you have a kicker who can't be relied on at 40 yards, you make sure he won't face a kick over 30 (with a 2-3 yard cushion). This means that it was essential for LSU to get to the Auburn 15 at minimum. You do this as soon as possible, then you can open up the playbook and go for the end zone without time constraints.

The debate between "go for the TD or settle for the FG?" is a false debate. The real debate is, "settle for the 40-yarder and take a shot at the end zone from there, or work the ball close and then worry about the TD?" If you had a stud kicker (Wisconsin would be an example of a team who does), Saturday night's final minute would have received some scrutiny, but I wouldn't have given it 1/6 of the attention I wound up devoting to this episode. I devoted as much scrutiny to this case as I did because of two things: 1) the national media simply sucked in terms of delivering worthwhile analysis to this story; 2) LSU's lack of a stud kicker made it painfully obvious that Miles severely erred by not getting his team inside the Auburn 15 (if not the 10), thereby risking a long FG from an unsteady kicker.

It was the inability to ensure a chip-shot FG if a touchdown-seeking pass failed that represented the true (and substantial) failing of Les Miles and the LSU staff. If this particular point of the debate didn't clearly emerge in my column, I apologize for not being clear enough. I had felt that in my next to last paragraph, I strongly emphasized this particular point.

Sincerely and Respectfully,

Matt Zemek
College Football News

Thanks Matt. Comments, anyone? I'll chime in later...gotta run for now.

0 recs | Comment 3 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

much better

That analysis is much harder to pick apart than the bandwagon argument that the touchdown pass was a do or die proposition.

I could concede that a more rational Miles should have tried for a quick 7-10 yard play and then a 30 yard field goal. But there you've got to consider that it is more difficult to insure you get out of bounds or get the timeout before the clock runs out. The pass to Byrd in the endzone isn't nearly as dangerous as far as running out the clock. In the end I think it's just splitting hairs. I don't think the alternative proposed by the CFN writer is really any better than what Miles did, without the benefit of hindsight to guide him. I'm not really on a Miles bandwagon but I'm not going to criticize him for that play.

by crepuscular on Oct 23, 2007 3:30 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I wouldn't have liked going over the middle to try and get closer, because that's when you run into the problem of a reciever getting greedy and not going down. That would be much more likely to run out the clock than "juggling" a pass in the end zone taking four seconds.

PS - Moron Jim Rome (why does he have his own show, honestly), just did his final burn on Les, calling him reckless. Again with the "there was one second left" argument. WATCH THE F-ING PLAY!!! They showed it while you were talking! He catches the ball WITH FOUR SECONDS LEFT!

by Purple Reign on Oct 23, 2007 4:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The play vs the drive

My whole argument the entire time has been directed at media criticism of the final PLAY, and I hadn't discussed the final DRIVE.

But Zemek's premise is solid. I think the clock management in general should have been handled better such that we weren't in that position in the first place, whereby Miles decision to throw it in the endzone left us with either A) a touchdown, or B) a 39 yard field goal.

So yeah, when the penultimate play of the drive ended with 45 seconds on the clock, we should have hurried up to be ready to snap it as soon as the ref blew the play ready with 31 seconds left. Instead, we break huddle with 18 on the clock, and snap with 8. We could have easily attempted to maneuver our way inside the 20 and leave David with a much more makeable attempt.

by GeauxTigers on Oct 24, 2007 12:29 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs