BC Game thoughts

To me it is a lot like the Falcons situation. Several changes in personnel and another year of experience but yet they continue to look a lot like the same team as last year. Can not run the ball, red zone turnovers and a defense that plays well until they really have to make a stop and usually can not. It looked like we played a lot like we did last year. Too many mental errors, assignment errors and bad play selection on offense. The defense looked some improved but still gives up too many 3rd and longs and an explosive play for a TD. As a fan, I am left to question, are we much better or not?

Now I do think the fact we played in a strange place in some poor conditions against a really good defensive team all played into how we looked. I'm hopeful that we can use this to fix some if not most of the mistakes we made and can find some improvement and consistency in that improvement as we go through the next few games. A lot of teams did not look great this past weekend and I hope we are one of the ones that uses this performance to motivate ourselves toward getting better. Right now I am disappointed but not discouraged. I really think this team has a chance to be very good but we have to go to work, both the players and the coaches. We can have a special season but we have to get better each week and not regress from here.

Go Jackets!
 
ramblinwise1 said:
Coach seems to agree with my assessment

https://georgiatech.rivals.com/news/practice-notes-9-5
Click to expand...

It is VERY easy to have CPJ agree with your assessment every week.

If we win in a blowout just add "we did a few good things" to all the negative stuff you can think of.

We had a lot of issues, but there was a lot of bright spots.

Perimeter blocking, while not excellent, was way better than last year.
Special teams was great (all touchbacks, no missed FG, blocked a FG, returns were good, etc)
QB pressure was better, not awesome.
Pass blocking was better (aside from the first 2 plays of the final drive)

If we can get the assignments right (should not be that tough) then we will not be turning guys loose to blow up plays.
 
I don't get the criticism of the D. The D held BC to 137 yds receiving and 176 yds rushing. BC scored just 14 points. The QB ended with a 46.1 QBR. Those stats are not bad for a D. They are also good enough to win most games.
 
GTWannaBee said:
I don't get the criticism of the D. The D held BC to 137 yds receiving and 176 yds rushing. BC scored just 14 points. The QB ended with a 46.1 QBR. Those stats are not bad for a D. They are also good enough to win most games.
Click to expand...

Against most P5 teams, those stats would be pretty good. If BC turns out to have an improved offense this year, we might look back at those stats and feel better. But BC was so bad on offense last year that they couldn't win a single ACC game, despite having one of the top defenses in the country. The BC offense was held to those kind of numbers last season by everybody. Let's hope that they turn out to be more competitive this year.
 
jacket67 said:
Against most P5 teams, those stats would be pretty good. If BC turns out to have an improved offense this year, we might look back at those stats and feel better. But BC was so bad on offense last year that they couldn't win a single ACC game, despite having one of the top defenses in the country. The BC offense was held to those kind of numbers last season by everybody. Let's hope that they turn out to be more competitive this year.
Click to expand...
Didn't they have a WR playing QB for a good part of last year? Jeff Smith? That would explain their ineptitude. Edit- also their two QBs were freshmen

Towles may or may not be a good QB, but at least he's a QB.
 
etc79 said:
I felt like the finish to the game reminded me of a 2014 comeback. I'm wondering how good of a defense we just drove down the field with 3 minutes to play. If this was still a top notch defense from a year ago that we just played against in the rain, I can see why CPJ was so pleased this offseason.
Click to expand...

This one reminded me of the BC game in 2008. Not really in a good way, offensively. CPJ wasn't happy (see newspaper).
 
GTWannaBee said:
I don't get the criticism of the D. The D held BC to 137 yds receiving and 176 yds rushing. BC scored just 14 points. The QB ended with a 46.1 QBR. Those stats are not bad for a D. They are also good enough to win most games.
Click to expand...

Especially considering:

73 yards and 7 points came on one play (that would leave 103 rushing yards and 7 points remaining. A bad play is not a systemic issue)
GT Drive chart: 5 straight 3-and-outs by the offense, fumble, 3-and-out (Not a great way to help out your defense)

Win as a team, lose as a team. Plenty for everyone to work on.
 
Yeah, our offense put our defense in terrible spots. It was similar to the Gailey/Tenuta years, where the defense would play well most of the game but would eventually wear down b/c the offense couldn't keep the damn ball.
 
Ugly, but a W is a W. The team should have lots of examples of things to work on. The comeback felt like early 2014, but that could just be me being hopeful. Two questions:

1) Was there an aggregious no-holding-call on BC on their long TD run right at the point of attack? I have not had a chance to really look at the replay, but during the in-game replay it appeared one of their OL essentially tackled our DL. Maybe that stuff's always there, and I just never notice.

2) Several times, tt appeared on some of our O plays that the B-Back flinched or moved a bit just prior to the snap? Seemed like we were going to get flagged for a false start, but it never happened.
 
Did anyone hear final numbers on how many tickets we sold/fans at the game?
 
I'm beginning to think that Tech just doesn't play well on wet fields. Maybe it's the style of our offense or just this group of players. Last season, we had an unusually high number of games played in the rain, and it seems like we played poorly every time.
 
jacket67 said:
I'm beginning to think that Tech just doesn't play well on wet fields. Maybe it's the style of our offense or just this group of players. Last season, we had an unusually high number of games played in the rain, and it seems like we played poorly every time.
Click to expand...

I would agree, except that we did well in 09 against UVA and 13 against Syracuse under rainy/wet conditions.
 
Right, but we didn't play particularly well. 28-20 win, IIRC.
 
GTWannaBee said:
I don't get the criticism of the D. The D held BC to 137 yds receiving and 176 yds rushing. BC scored just 14 points. The QB ended with a 46.1 QBR. Those stats are not bad for a D. They are also good enough to win most games.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Take away one fluke play and it's barely 100 yards rushing. If not for the D, our O isn't in a position to win at the end.
 
jacket67 said:
I'm beginning to think that Tech just doesn't play well on wet fields. Maybe it's the style of our offense or just this group of players. Last season, we had an unusually high number of games played in the rain, and it seems like we played poorly every time.
Click to expand...

The style of our play (primarily a rushing attack) should make wet fields play to our advantage rather than vice versa.
 
AugustaJacket said:
2) Several times, tt appeared on some of our O plays that the B-Back flinched or moved a bit just prior to the snap? Seemed like we were going to get flagged for a false start, but it never happened.
Click to expand...

I think it's a newish wrinkle from CPJ. If the BB is moving laterally to the LOS, it's not a false start, just like other offensive players shifting from one side of the line to the other. It just looks like a false start since it looks to be done on purpose right before the snap (maybe to get the DL to jump?)
 
I don't think so. If it was only QB runs or direct hand-offs to the RB like a traditional offense, then I would agree.

RamblinWreck92 said:
The style of our play (primarily a rushing attack) should make wet fields play to our advantage rather than vice versa.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top