[Goose]

<p>

Roasted duck. Best enjoyed with a good Pinot.

</p><p><br></p><p>

</p><p><br></p><p>Burgundy, not Oregon Pinot.<br></p>

---

<p>

Auburn outgained Oregon by 2-1 on the ground and won the LOS. I know everyone likes to blame others, but the reality is the better football team won.</p><p>

<br></p><p><br></p><p>As a coach, your job is to beat the other team even if they are good. The Oregon team, with all their problems, was ahead near the end of the game. If the coaching staff does even a halfway competent job of coaching, Oregon could have made it very difficult for Auburn to have enough time to recover. Said staff did the opposite.</p><p><br></p><p>The idea that you get your team "over the hump" by doing something stupid is an interesting concept, but I don't think many would recommend it. If you need to go for it because you are behind, that is a different case. Then a statement attempt makes sense. But if you are ahead and you can make them go 80 yards with little time left, you do it. This is especially true when you are having problems running the ball. Playing to your own weakness in that situation isn't necessary. Being stupid is being stupid, not macho.</p><p><br></p><p>Good coaches win games when their team may not be, by some objective measure, the "best" team. Last year, Stanford got lucky and Oregon fumbled on what was nominally a "safe" play. That play call was perhaps arguable, but it wasn't blatantly stupid. This call against Auburn, and not running the clock as much as possible on all offensive possessions, was undeniably stupid. Auburn may have been able to win anyway, but it would have been quite unlikely, "better" team or not.<br></p>

[Goose]

<p>

Roasted duck. Best enjoyed with a good Pinot.

</p><p><br></p><p>

</p><p><br></p><p>Burgundy, not Oregon Pinot.<br></p>

---

<p>

Auburn outgained Oregon by 2-1 on the ground and won the LOS. I know everyone likes to blame others, but the reality is the better football team won.</p><p>

<br></p><p><br></p><p>As a coach, your job is to beat the other team even if they are good. The Oregon team, with all their problems, was ahead near the end of the game. If the coaching staff does even a halfway competent job of coaching, Oregon could have made it very difficult for Auburn to have enough time to recover. Said staff did the opposite.</p><p><br></p><p>The idea that you get your team "over the hump" by doing something stupid is an interesting concept, but I don't think many would recommend it. If you need to go for it because you are behind, that is a different case. Then a statement attempt makes sense. But if you are ahead and you can make them go 80 yards with little time left, you do it. This is especially true when you are having problems running the ball. Playing to your own weakness in that situation isn't necessary. Being stupid is being stupid, not macho.</p><p><br></p><p>Good coaches win games when their team may not be, by some objective measure, the "best" team. Last year, Stanford got lucky and Oregon fumbled on what was nominally a "safe" play. That play call was perhaps arguable, but it wasn't blatantly stupid. This call against Auburn, and not running the clock as much as possible on all offensive possessions, was undeniably stupid. Auburn may have been able to win anyway, but it would have been quite unlikely, "better" team or not.<br></p>