[Jamesy]

Edited to say what I've been thinking. Taylor often seems to call a goofy game. Washington last year; plenty of others. They could have hung with Clemson longer if he wasn't doing stupid **** like going for it on 4th and 5 rather than pull within two scores in the third quarter. WTF?  The opening 4th and 1 from their own 29 was also WTF for normal teams, but even I thought they were headed to 42-14 at that point (yes, on the very first drive; apparently I'm clairvoyant) so why not?  

I agree, but at that point, the score was 20-7 so it was already a two-score (13 point) game.  A field goal would have made it a 10-point game (and thus left it as a two-possession game), while a TD would have made it a one-possession game.  I think it would have made sense to go for it on 4th and 1 or 2, but 4th and 5 is a heavy lift, and there was enough time left in the game that we were going to have more than two possessions going forward, so it was not imperative to bring it down to a one-possession game.

I was ok with going for it early on 4th and 1, for the reason you stated; when you are the inferior team, a high-risk, high-reward strategy makes sense.  Losing 42-14 is no different from losing 28-24 in the standings.

BC

IIRC, it was 3rd and 3 or so. My guess is that Taylor was already planning to go for it on 4th down, which is why he ran the roll out pass play to Lamson. One of the worst case scenarios happened with a sack and rather than revisiting the decision to go for it on 4th, Taylor rolled with the play he was already planning to run on 4th and short.

[Jamesy]

Edited to say what I've been thinking. Taylor often seems to call a goofy game. Washington last year; plenty of others. They could have hung with Clemson longer if he wasn't doing stupid **** like going for it on 4th and 5 rather than pull within two scores in the third quarter. WTF?  The opening 4th and 1 from their own 29 was also WTF for normal teams, but even I thought they were headed to 42-14 at that point (yes, on the very first drive; apparently I'm clairvoyant) so why not?  

I agree, but at that point, the score was 20-7 so it was already a two-score (13 point) game.  A field goal would have made it a 10-point game (and thus left it as a two-possession game), while a TD would have made it a one-possession game.  I think it would have made sense to go for it on 4th and 1 or 2, but 4th and 5 is a heavy lift, and there was enough time left in the game that we were going to have more than two possessions going forward, so it was not imperative to bring it down to a one-possession game.

I was ok with going for it early on 4th and 1, for the reason you stated; when you are the inferior team, a high-risk, high-reward strategy makes sense.  Losing 42-14 is no different from losing 28-24 in the standings.

BC

IIRC, it was 3rd and 3 or so. My guess is that Taylor was already planning to go for it on 4th down, which is why he ran the roll out pass play to Lamson. One of the worst case scenarios happened with a sack and rather than revisiting the decision to go for it on 4th, Taylor rolled with the play he was already planning to run on 4th and short.