Herm Edward’s Fallacy: Do You Really Play to Win the Game?

Posted by Iroquois Plisken

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I

On Saturday, I had the pleasure of attending the Florida/Tennessee game in Gainesville. It was hotter than hell out there and copiously consuming alcohol since 7 AM on account of beef brisket preparation probably didn’t help hydration matters. As a Florida fan, I was, of course, pleased with the result. Something struck me as curious as a football fan, though: Did Lane Kiffin really want to win the game?

Here’s the scenario: The Volunteers have the ball in 4Q with six minutes remaining at their own 22 yard line. Down 10, a reasonable coach tries to move the ball downfield as quickly as possible to get a touchdown and move within a score of a tie. Montario Hardesty was phenomenal at rushing in the game, averaging nearly 5 YPC and Florida was playing flat footed and getting run over all game, with the exception of Ahmad Black, who had 11 or so tackles. The result of the drive? Tennessee goes 27 yards in 4 minutes and 10 seconds.

Of their two remaining timeouts, Tennessee exercised its first after an incomplete pass by their quarterback. Granted, Jonathan Crompton has the aesthetic and intellectual appeal of a catfish (and he had already thrown a pick earlier) [Ed note: Credit goes to EDSBS for the initial observation], but surely you need to take chances downfield in order to attempt to win! Not to go all Gregg Easterbrook on you, but the Volunteers’ choice of playcalling was “fraidy-cat”, to say the least. In due course, Crompton attempts a deep ball for the first time in the entire game and gets the ball intercepted by Black.

If I were anything close to a Volunteers fan, I would be livid with the choices Senor (not Senior) Kiffin made. Senior Kiffin spent 8 entire months scheming for this one game and probably could not have been more pleased with the results, save the outcome of the game. Florida reverted to an offense so conservative that the ACLU would have likely protested it if they could have, taking many Tim Tebow read option runs as the only avenue for positive gain and exploiting Florida’s (so far established) lack of a battering ram runner outside of Tebow (This, of course, is my call for more Emmanuel Moody). You’re travelling on the road, playing against a heated rival who happens to be the #1 team in the nation, your defensive scheme is working to a T, and you’re in a position to win in the 4th quarter? Come on, Lane. If you’ve got a moral victory in one hand and a piece of crap in the other, guess which one actually exists?

We’ve already seen an instance this year where playing it safe/dumb costs you a win. I’m sure, dear readers, left to your own devices, you can adequately figure out a situation where you didn’t “play to win the game”. Perhaps Herm Edwards was actually ahead of his time with this proclamation of playing games and winning them.