University of North Carolina Athletics
Extra Points Mailbag
November 18, 2005 | Football
Nov. 18, 2005
By Lee Pace
There was a fair amount of snarling, snorting, gnawing and gnashing from Tar Heel fans this week over John Bunting's call to kick a game-tying field goal on third down against Maryland instead of trying one more shot in the end zone.
The Tar Heels had a first down at the Maryland 7 yard-line late in the game and misfired on passes into the end zone on first and second downs. With 13 seconds remaining, Bunting summoned the field-goal team. Connor Barth connected on the 24-yard kick, tying the game and sending it to overtime. The Terrapins collected the win after one series of overtime downs on a 28-yard Dan Ennis field goal and a miss from 38 yards by Barth.
Bunting and offensive coordinator Gary Tranquill were worried about the things that could go wrong on third down with Carolina having no time outs: A bad snap, an interception, a ball caught short of the goal-line, or, most prominently, a sack. QB Matt Baker had been heavily pressured on first and second downs, and no matter how much Baker might come to the line of scrimmage knowing that he could not, under any circumstances, take a sack, he's still vulnerable to getting nailed.
If any of those things happened, the game is over.
Carolina's defense is the team's strongest component this year. The offense is not. By kicking the field goal, Bunting was putting the onus on the defense to stop the Terrapins for as many series as needed for the offense to win the game.
The decision made sense playing at home with a good defense.
In the same circumstances last year, perhaps you make the opposite call. The offense was the Tar Heels' powerhouse with Darian Durant in control. The defense was good at times, suspect at others and very young all the time.
In 2002 and 2003, with a horrible defense, you definitely make the opposite call. You give the offense a chance to win it NOW and not put the defense in that position.
The defense did what it needed to in overtime, forcing a field goal. The Terps would not have gotten those three points if cornerback Ced Holt had been able to intercept a bad pass from QB Sam Hollenbach that hit him square in the hands.
The more significant decision that no one seems to be talking about, however, was Bunting's use of a timeout just a few minutes earlier after what he thought at the moment was a questionable call of a fumble by Tar Heel receiver Jarwarski Pollock.
The Tar Heels were driving toward midfield with under four minutes to play when Baker hit Pollock over the middle for a 33-yard gain. Pollock fumbled and Maryland recovered. Bunting thought the ground caused the fumble and hoped that the call would be reviewed and overturned by the officials. He used a timeout to give the review official more time to study the replays. But the replays clearly showed Pollock lost the ball before he hit the ground.
"That was a mistake," Bunting says. "Someone on our staff said the call would stand, that it was actually a fumble, but I didn't get the word until I'd already called the timeout. By then, it was too late."
Maryland took over with 3:16 to play. The Tar Heels used their two remaining timeouts on the ensuing three-and-out series and got possession after a punt with 2:13 to play.
It's probable that the Tar Heels, had they not used that first timeout at that juncture, would have used it anyway during the ensuing Maryland possession and gone into their final drive with no timeouts. But they would have had more time on the clock when they drove deep into Maryland territory late in the game. Carolina might have gotten possession for its last drive with 2:40 or thereabouts left instead of 2:13.
It's that decision that has given Bunting pause to reconsider his stance on the use of a coaches' "challenge." The new review policy approved at last spring's ACC meetings did not allow for a challenge similar to the one used in the NFL, where a coach is allowed to challenge a play by throwing a bean bag onto the playing field. Bunting agreed with the majority of ACC coaches to try the system for the first year with no challenge. In theory, EVERY snap is reviewed in the booth. But the review official in the press box has to inform the referee on the field that a play is being reviewed before the next snap of the ball. That's why Bunting wanted to stretch the time before Maryland's offense snapped the ball.
"Having a flag or some other way to challenge a play, that's something we as coaches should consider at the end of the year," Bunting says.
Why do we have such a poor running game, especially now that RonnieMcGill is back? With a senior-dominated offensive line, we should be dominating the line of scrimmage. If we can't run effectively with an experienced line this year, what in the world will we do next year with an inexperienced line (not to mention a brand-new quarterback with zero game experience)?
Chris Welch, Concord
The Tar Heels are last in the ACC in rushing offense with 102 yards a game, down from 150 yards a game in 2003 and 176 a game last fall.
One reason is they miss blockers Jason Brown, Willie McNeill and Madison Hedgecock.
Another is that McGill is the only tailback who has shown the ability to hit the correct holes and break tackles. Last year, McGill was joined by Chad Scott and Jacque Lewis in backfield with the requisite instincts, power, speed and experience.
Next fall, McGill will be a senior and Barrington Edwards and Cooter Arnold will have hopefully developed the feel and instinct for the nuances of the position. Plus some red-shirt freshmen and incoming recruits could play a role. The offensive line will lose four seniors, but there are some excellent young players in the developmental stage. The running game won't shoot out of the gate next fall on all cylinders, but there's plenty of potential there to grow over time.
Why has "Cooter" Arnold not played since Ronnie McGill's return? In my opinion there is an obvious drop-off in talent/results from McGill to Edwards. Why not give Arnold a shot?
Putt Browning, Wilmington
Arnold is like most freshmen who play at tailback - they know what to do when THEY have the ball, but they are babes in the woods when someone else has the ball.
Tailbacks are known for running the ball, but they won't get playing time at Carolina if they cannot pass protect. If the offense goes to multiple wide receivers and runs from the shotgun, the fullback is usually removed and it's the tailback's job to pick up the blitz. It takes time to learn the mental skills and then develop the physical body and technique to pass-protect effectively.
That said, look for Arnold to get some opportunity this week against Duke.
In retrospect, the off-season injury to McGill has had one of the most significant effects on the 2005 Tar Heels. I'd like to replay the Georgia Tech and Wisconsin games with him taking 20 carries; I like the Heels' chances of coming out with at least one win among those two losses. And Arnold might well have been red-shirted.
Saturday's play in which the Maryland defender was carted off the field after a head-down tackle on McGill made me wonder about the neck rolls that were so popular when I played in high school and that were also often seen in both college as well as the NFL. After the older style neck rolls we started to see the square, board-like, neck supports. I have no idea what they're called. Anyway, are these now an illegal piece of equipment, have they been proved to be ineffective, more harmful than helpful, or what?
Brooks Williams, Greensboro
Head trainer Scott Oliaro responds to your question:
"Some shoulder pads have built-in neck rolls that help limit neck motion. The types of protection we use are either the cowboy collar, the neckplate, or increased neck padding in the shoulder pads. The goal of the neck protector is to limit, but not eliminate, neck extension and lateral flexion and/or rotation. By limiting the neck motion we are usually trying to prevent `stingers' or `burners' which result from nerve traction or compression."
In the fourth quarter, Maryland had a third down and around 10 which they made, but then a personal foul was called which moved the ball back 15 yards. Why was it first and 10 instead of first and 25? If it was a dead ball foul, the first and 10 should have been established and then the penalty enforced. That could have been critical in a close game.
George Floyd, Lake Waccamaw
The rules were changed several years ago to eliminate a team having to start a possession first-and-25 in that situation. The officials made the correct call. If the ball had been spotted and marked ready for play when the personal foul occurred, then it would have been marked off and the offense would have first-and-25.
I was at the Maryland game and I watched Jesse Holley receive single man coverage all day. Holley continually beat his man and was open many times for big gains if the ball would have been thrown to him. Why did Baker not look for him more often? I saw Holley one time come off the field very frustrated that Baker did not find him after he was wide open.
Nelson Butts, Creedmore
The instance you are referring to came on third-and-9 at the Maryland 41 midway through the fourth quarter. Baker tried to hit Mike Mason deep on the left side when Holley was open over the middle. That was just one of 12 to 15 plays in the second half that, executed a little differently by one player on offense, defense or special teams, might have led to points for the Tar Heels or prevented them for the Terrapins.
Finding open receivers is an incredibly difficult job when you have five to six nasty defensive players coming hard and hoping to put you in the emergency room. It gets easier the longer you've done it in real-time - not just on the practice field. If Baker had another year to play, I'll guarantee in 2006 he'd find a lot of these open receivers he's missed in 2005. That doesn't help the Tar Heels this year, of course. But Baker has played reasonably well the last three games after a mid-season slump.
"You can learn the offense and be good in practice, but when you get in a game, it's a whole different playing field," he says. "It's a lot faster."
Send your questions about Tar Heel football to Lee Pace at leepace@nc.rr.com . Questions may be used either in Friday's TarHeelBlue.com mailbag or in a special pregame segment on the Tar Heel Sports Network on Saturday. Please include your first and last names and hometown. Individual replies are not possible because of volume of mail received, and names of recruiting prospects and commitments cannot be published on a school-sponsored site until the national signing day in February. The Q&A column will appear each Friday during the season.
