Ah, the wonders of hindsight.
Everyone (including me) pissed and moaned that we ran the ball too much against Notre Dame and it's "foot off the accelerator" this and "playing not to lose" that. So obviously an aggressive approach to the end of the Clemson game would be the right call? Nope. We should have run it. Or wait, we should have passed on first down for the 18 yards, then we should have run it once and burned clock, then passed it again when the clock was at x:xx...
I can't believe you don't realize you're simply arguing the outcome. I can detail a dozen ways we "could have won the game" and it doesn't mean a thing. Clemson was loaded against the run on our last drive. Run the ball and we go to OT against an offense we couldn't stop in the 4th quarter. 50/50? After that 4th quarter? At Clemson? You've gotta be kidding.
We gave the ball to our best player and said "go win this game." He threw an 18 yard pass right off the bat, then didn't get it done. I liked the call then and I like it now. LOWF runs the ball on first and second down for -5 yards, then punts it back to Clemson in great field position. A least we gave our best players a chance to win it.
If Tanner ducks that sack and throws it to Givens to set up a field goal try and Newman cranks in the game-winner, all you guys are patting yourselves on the back for being so incredibly right about Wake playing more aggressively.