HD's Score Prediction for UNC

Sorry, I can't resist. But HD, very well may.........wait for it..........................waaaaait for it..............................

have a bigger weiner than Kyle
 
THWG_Nuff Said said:
OK, seriously dude...there's no reason for that.

And furthermore, why do you continue to blame it all on the Secondary? Again, they're are "fantastic or awesome or Top Tier" but it's not all on them or really even close to them being the majority of the problem

It's our D Line. Not the Secondary. Why can't you seem to grasp that? When you get NO PUSH on the DLine then you leave your secondary on their own island....bottom line, poor DL play makes the secondary look like scrubs. Apparently you are grasping that concept

I'm just curious, please enlighten me!!!!!
Click to expand...

I'm glad I'm not the only one that gets angry at the people who claim "Our secondary sucks!"....it's only slightly less aggravating than the people who immediately start spouting "Our O-Line sucks" when we can't run the ball.

I'm not saying our O-Line is great, or even 'good'. But they are no worse than last year and maybe slightly better, the problem is the A-Back/WR blocking people!

A-Backs/WR Blocking and D-Line pressure are our BIGGEST problems everyone!
 
Thanks...that drives me insane

But, and I'm not pointing fingers or criticizing or callin' out by name, they just don't understand the GAME of football in it's entirety. I'm no expert, but if you're going to vent or blog about "how bad we are at this or that" it should be a pre-req that you atleast KNOW A LITTLE or HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING about what you're talking about.

There are so many that just don't. There's a lot that I don't understand too, but I know football (no expert) but I get it better than some.

Now baseball or basketball, then Im all ears in a lot of areas.
 
stinger78 said:
Because per the stats above that tell the story of the game, we stopped ourselves, UNC did not "contain" us.

Yes, they made a few key 3rd and 4th down plays, to stop drives and keep us out of the EZ, but we missed 2 FG's and turned the ball over 2 times deep in our territory, plus the onside kick. In short, it is my view that we beat ourselves that day, they didn't "contain" us. Believe what you wish.
Click to expand...

The stat that seemed to elude everyone is that they scored more points than we did. On every single play of every single game there are 22 players on the field. Every one of them has some bit to play on every one of those plays. We missed 2 FGs, yes. UNC had something to do with forcing us to try FGs instead of get TDs.

You are welcome to feel we beat ourselves that day and I won't argue the point. But there are other ways of interpreting the same data that people who aren't GT fans consider valid. And I think it isn't unfair to interpret what happened in that game as UNC "containing" us. They may not have stopped us completely. But they most certainly contained our ability to score more points than they did.

I'm not asking anyone to agree with Heather Dinich's point of view. I just don't understand the complete unwillingness to look at that game, look at our first three games of this season, and come up with the notion that it is possible UNC may have a good idea how to "contain" us enough to win this year.
 
I wish I had a feeling for this game. Then again perhaps it is better when I don't because I didn't have a feeling at all for the Clemson game and we won. I had a VERY bad feeling about the Miami game and unfortunately it turned out one of the two ways I thought it could (either they blow us out or we lose by 7-10 pts were my two thoughts).

I don't think UNC is a superior team. I don't think folks have "figured out" how to stop the triple option. I think folks have decided to sell out to take away one facet of it and we haven't adjusted particularly well to it. We haven't blocked well which is no secret. We're killing ourselves by not capitalizing on the openings that defenses are giving us, which is very much what CPJ is saying so again, no revelation here.

I do think that this 10 day break was absolutely necessary. People like to say that "playing 3 games in 12 days" isn't a real contributing factor to why we played the way we did. Yeah? Try it. Oh, and let me add that while doing so you should also skip some practices because of the schoolwork/quizzes/tests you have to take because 2 of those games are on weekdays when the rest of the school is actually in session. Is it THE biggest factor? No. But when people say that other teams play 3 games in 14 days and it's only 2 days difference just don't get that playing games on three consecutive Saturdays IS different than having two of those games on consecutive Thursdays. It makes a difference. And when you add that in to the execution mistakes we are making (the biggest factor, IMHO, in our loss and close game against Clemson) it makes the game against UM an even bigger calamity.

I look for us to come out MUCH more physically and mentally ready to play against UNC. I think we'll be ready to execute better on offense and I HOPE that the changes to our defense make a positive difference. I think you're going to see an angry GT team ready to punch someone else in the mouth.

GT 31
UNC 24
 
JOJATK said:
The stat that seemed to elude everyone is that they scored more points than we did. On every single play of every single game there are 22 players on the field. Every one of them has some bit to play on every one of those plays. We missed 2 FGs, yes. UNC had something to do with forcing us to try FGs instead of get TDs.

You are welcome to feel we beat ourselves that day and I won't argue the point. But there are other ways of interpreting the same data that people who aren't GT fans consider valid. And I think it isn't unfair to interpret what happened in that game as UNC "containing" us. They may not have stopped us completely. But they most certainly contained our ability to score more points than they did.

I'm not asking anyone to agree with Heather Dinich's point of view. I just don't understand the complete unwillingness to look at that game, look at our first three games of this season, and come up with the notion that it is possible UNC may have a good idea how to "contain" us enough to win this year.
Click to expand...

Well, ok, if you want to toss out about the broadest definition of "contain" you could use for that game, have at it.

I have no problem with her saying UNC simply beat Tech and they have improved, or that they showed themselves more opportunistic than Tech, or that they scored when they had to and won. But to say that they "contained" us when we put up well over 400 total yards is hilarious to me. It's akin to syaing we "contained" UGAG in our game last year. We won, but we absolutely did NOT contain them.
 
stinger78 said:
Well, ok, if you want to toss out about the broadest definition of "contain" you could use for that game, have at it.

I have no problem with her saying UNC simply beat Tech and they have improved, or that they showed themselves more opportunistic than Tech, or that they scored when they had to and won. But to say that they "contained" us when we put up well over 400 total yards is hilarious to me. It's akin to syaing we "contained" UGAG in our game last year. We won, but we absolutely did NOT contain them.
Click to expand...

Well the difference there is U[sic]GA scored 42 points. We scored 7(against UNC).
 
Last edited:
stinger78 said:
Well, ok, if you want to toss out about the broadest definition of "contain" you could use for that game, have at it.

I have no problem with her saying UNC simply beat Tech and they have improved, or that they showed themselves more opportunistic than Tech, or that they scored when they had to and won. But to say that they "contained" us when we put up well over 400 total yards is hilarious to me. It's akin to syaing we "contained" UGAG in our game last year. We won, but we absolutely did NOT contain them.
Click to expand...

Playing Devil's Advocate, Butch Davis was reported to be willing to give up yards as long as he could "contain" points. Yes, we had unforced turnovers, but part of the risk of this offense is more fumbles. Soooo, if they can prevent big plays and force us to drive slowly then they are "betting" we will eventually "stop ourselves."

The point is that the assertion that "we beat ourselves" is not mutually exclusive withthe idea that UNC gave us more opportunities to "beat ourselves" purposely.
 
As far as I'm concerned, until we prove things differently on the line, her prediction is spot on.
 
lonestarjacket said:
Playing Devil's Advocate, Butch Davis was reported to be willing to give up yards as long as he could "contain" points. Yes, we had unforced turnovers, but part of the risk of this offense is more fumbles. Soooo, if they can prevent big plays and force us to drive slowly then they are "betting" we will eventually "stop ourselves."

The point is that the assertion that "we beat ourselves" is not mutually exclusive withthe idea that UNC gave us more opportunities to "beat ourselves" purposely.
Click to expand...

Perhaps so. Great defensive plan, though. Can't you just see it....

"Hey Butch, what's your game plan this Saturday?"

"Well, we're just going to let them march up and down the field, maybe even over 400 yards worth, and contain them by trying to keep them from scoring... you know missed field goals and such... and wait for the fumbled punt and onside kick to put the heel to them."

'Whoa boy, yeah! I just love that 'containment' game plan! Great idea, Butch!"

I guess one person's containment is another's lucky opportunism. You realize their scores were after a fumbled punt, a bad pitch by Jaybo and a failed onside kick? You might call Jaybo's a "forced" turnover, but he just tossed it badly.
 
Butch Davis aka Butch Dyke Davis aka Bitch Tits Davis aka The Bitch aka Asstard aka Clown Fart aka ...
 
stinger78 said:
Well, ok, if you want to toss out about the broadest definition of "contain" you could use for that game, have at it.

I have no problem with her saying UNC simply beat Tech and they have improved, or that they showed themselves more opportunistic than Tech, or that they scored when they had to and won. But to say that they "contained" us when we put up well over 400 total yards is hilarious to me. It's akin to syaing we "contained" UGAG in our game last year. We won, but we absolutely did NOT contain them.
Click to expand...

So let's look at the semantics, since that's what we're talking about. Let's say I have 1 gallon worth of liquid and I put it into a container that holds 1.01 gallons. I have contained that liquid. I've only contained it BARELY but I've certainly done so. My definition of containing means that I curtailed the other team into boundaries that I can exceed. And make no mistake. UNC certainly did that last year. And we most certainly did contain UGA enough so that we could win.

And to hang your hat on how many yards we gained is equally ridiculous to me. The last time I checked the only statistic that mattered was the number of points you scored versus the number of points the other team scored. Scoreboard ALWAYS trumps yardage. ALWAYS. 400 yards marching up and down the field that ends in zero points is worth exactly zero for that game.

UNC forced us to take enough plays that we made mistakes. That's one way to keep a team in check. Make them take as many plays as possible because typically teams, especially ones adapting to a new system, will make mistakes if you give them the chance to do it. And that's part of the book on GT right now. Force us to take as many plays as possible instead of the home run plays because either we'll have a penalty, we'll turn the ball over (though it seems to me we're doing a little better there, this year), or we'll miss a block or two (we're doing that A LOT this year) and we'll stall out.

Put all of that together and I think it is fair for people to make the assumption that UNC might have figured out a plan that might contain us enough for them to outscore by 1 or more points. I don't think they have but I think that opinion is valid.
 
You know... I give up. You win. It's just not worth it. PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!!! :rolleyes:
 
stinger78 said:
I guess one person's containment is another's lucky opportunism. You realize their scores were after a fumbled punt, a bad pitch by Jaybo and a failed onside kick? You might call Jaybo's a "forced" turnover, but he just tossed it badly.
Click to expand...

Lucky opportunism counts, as Bobby Dodd would tell you.

The ways that they managed to score isn't really relevant to how they held down our score.

Disciplined defense and bend but don't break are valid strategies for dealing with this offense. Conversely, our offense is betting that the defense will make a mistake eventually and that is where the big plays come.
 
lonestarjacket said:
Lucky opportunism counts, as Bobby Dodd would tell you.

The ways that they managed to score isn't really relevant to how they held down our score.

Disciplined defense and bend but don't break are valid strategies for dealing with this offense. Conversely, our offense is betting that the defense will make a mistake eventually and that is where the big plays come.
Click to expand...

I'll go all day with "lucky opportunism" as the description of their win last year. :biggthumpup:

On the second part, you know... no coach puts a "bend, but don't break" D on the field with yielding 425 yards of offense anywhere in his mind. You ask most coaches what they'd call a win in that scenario, given 2 missed FG's and three unforced giveaways within the opponent's 40.... They'd say, "lucky," not "boy, we sure contained them today!"

Furthermore, you'd have a good point if our turnovers that led to their scores had actually been forced offensive turnovers....

The first one was a fumbled punt after our D held THEIR offense. How is that containing our offense?

The second one was an errant pitch by our 2nd string QB. You can call that forced and "containing" if you wish, I call it a crappy play.

The third opportunity was an on-side kick after a 75-yard run by Dwyer. How is that containing our offense?

Call it what you wish, we'l just have to agree to disagree. It means exactly zero anyway. The game's on again in less that 48 hours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top