Here's why we lost yesterday

[ramblinwise1]

1) our interior O Line play. Every team we play has shot the center-guard gap and caused problems. Today Beamer put his tackles right on the guards and they pinched down to take away Dwyer. It also caused at least one of our fumbles, just like last week. We should have gone outside more and passed more. I think we only threw the ball 2 times in the 1H and one was the TD to Roddy.

2) Missing Bebe. Others have mentioned the lack of downfield blocking but also probably why we didn't pass as much as we would/should have.

3) Take care of the ball. We knew this would be an issue. Sad thing is we are fumbling it more between the tackles than on outside pitches. Nesbitt will get better but its still frustrating. The fumble before half was a killer as the D just kindof gave up after making a key stop.

4) Linebackers. Damn, when are Barnes and Jefferson coming back? The backups play hard but they lack agility and finesse that would have stopped Tyrod cold. LBs need to stay back and quit getting caught up in the inside line play. You knew when Tyrod was going to run the ball but we still couldn't stop it.

5) Penalties. Beamer called those 2 penalties on the sidelines on their last drive for the FG. It sucks but its the ACC. D players have to know to not take chances in those situations. Technically both calls looked right, but their are not going to call that head to head crap 99 times out of 100. PLAYERS, DO NOT HIT THE QB GOING OUT OF BOUNDS, ESPECIALLY WITH YOUR HEADS. WE ARE NOT UGAg AND WE AREN'T GOING TO GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING. PLAY SMART.

Thats focusing on the negatives, but thats what you have to do to eliminate weaknesses and get better. We were the better team yesterday and should have won despite being the underdog. Lets learn and move on. VT will not win the Coastal...

 

[i_like_money]

Am I the only one who thinks that the pre-snap motion makes it easy to jump the snap? I saw some plays where there was a Dlineman in the backfield as soon as the ball was snapped.

Its pretty easy to time it if you're paying attention. IMO

 

[ncjacket]

Am I the only one who thinks that the pre-snap motion makes it easy to jump the snap? I saw some plays where there was a Dlineman in the backfield as soon as the ball was snapped.

Its pretty easy to time it if you're paying attention. IMO

Interesting point, but this is nothing new for PJ so it's something he's dealt with wherever he's coached.

 

[odw]

Interesting point, but this is nothing new for PJ so it's something he's dealt with wherever he's coached.

Ya, there were a few plays where is seemed like the DTs were in the backfield b4 the ball was. Hope we have a solution for this, because I'm 99% sure even team we face from now until ever is going do this until we burn teams for doing it.

 

[i_like_money]

Ya, there were a few plays where is seemed like the DTs were in the backfield b4 the ball was. Hope we have a solution for this, because I'm 99% sure even team we face from now until ever is going do this until we burn teams for doing it.

How do you burn teams for having DT penetration? That's their task. Now if it was a cornerback it'd be a different story.

 

[refrigeratormover]

The problem can be solved with the snap count, however we are always putting a man in motion so the defense has some discipline to the snap. A few times going on 2 or 3 would help but that limits options, am I wrong? I'm still learning this whole option thing but I am enjoying it.

 

[Ish]

Personally, I don't see why it's so bad that opposing teams will sell-out to stop the dive. That's what we want. When executed properly, Nesbitt should just turn and go on to option 2. Sure we have trouble executing and our OL needs help, but it's not defenses just found the answer to the triple option.

 

[00Burdell]

Maybe its me but it looked to me like VT's DTs were lined up in the neutral zone all day.

 

[Bunger Henry]

How do you burn teams for having DT penetration? That's their task. Now if it was a cornerback it'd be a different story.

Wasn't there one play where we purposely drew them offsides by letting the playclock get down to almost zero? Or maybe we just got lucky.

 

[wesleyd21]

imo...We lost yesterday because of that CRAP call.

 

[boozinbuzz]

imo...We lost yesterday because of that CRAP call.

+1

 

[WracerX]

Our interior linemen have to be faster coming off the ball. Specifically the center and the left guard. For VT to get penetration like they did, the defensive linemen had to get up, cross the netral zone, and start to penetrate our line before our linemen started their push.

I do think they got better in the second half. It looked to me like we finally started to get the short yardage runs off the TO. We also stopped fumbling. Those two things tell me that the guys were starting to get thier assignments.

We've still got a shot at making some noise in the division. Hopefully, UNC and Miami can put us back in the drivers seat.

 

[stinger78]

The DT's were lining up in the A gaps and crashing hard, daring us to stop them. Too often, they came through, a few times totally untouched. That said, we did rush for almost 300 yards....

Looking at the stats, their starting DL had the following:

DE Brown - 6 tackles, .5 TFL
DE Martin - 4 tackles, 1 TFL
DT Thompson - 3 tackles, 0 TFL
DT Graves - 2 tackles, 1 TFL
TOTAL: 15 tackles, 2.5 TFL

Not overwhelming, by any stretch. But we still have a problem in the middle.

By comparison, our starting DL had the following stats:

DT Richard - 6 tackles, 1 TFL
DE Morgan - 6 tackels, 1.5 TFL
DT Walker - 4 tackles, .5 TFL
DE Johnson - 3 tackles, .5 TFL
TOTAL: 19 tackles, 3.5 TFL

Most of us think our DL has not played to its potential yet, but they had a better day than VT's DL statictically.

Interesting to see the comparison and how we perceive the problem.

 

[beej67]

Here's why we lost yesterday

2 fumbles and an interception.


It is EXTREMELY RARE to even be competitive in a game where you're -3 on turnover ratio.

 

[ncjacket]

2 fumbles and an interception.


It is EXTREMELY RARE to even be competitive in a game where you're -3 on turnover ratio.

+1. For those still harping on the calls, this is and the interior OL are where our problems lie.

 

[GT65_UGA89]

Turnovers are so hard to overcome, particularly when you lose three and one leads to seven points for the opposition --seven points they would not have gotten otherwise. Remember also that VT put the ball on the ground a couple of times, but GT could not capitalize and fall on it.

The calls (or call, the facemask was the proper call) aided and abetted in VT taking the lead, but despite that GT still had an opportunity to pull the game out.

Frustrating as it is to lose the game, I suppose it would be even more frustrating right now if the BC game had turned out differently. Right now it puts you into a position of needing help if you want to consider a Coastal title this year --which is something I was really not concerned with going into the season.

 

[GoGATech]

+1. For those still harping on the calls, this is and the interior OL are where our problems lie.

But the point of that argument is this: we made up for the -3 turnover margin. It was a tie game. Back to square one. Look at stats, we were in control. Granted, we shouldnt' have had to come back to tie it if it werent for those turnovers, but we did, and that was in the past and over. It was a tie game at the time, and the call lost us the game. Simple as that.

 

[ncjacket]

Sigh, the call happened with something like 6 minutes left in the game.

 

[beej67]

It was a tie game at the time, and the call lost us the game. Simple as that.

This is how I read your statement:

"Yeah we fumbled 9 times, but that gust of wind that blew our 4th and 23 pass sideways at the last second lost us the game."

Fumble > > > > call.

10 points off turnovers = a minimum of a 10 point swing in the final score, possibly more.

We can beat anyone in the country if we have a zero turnover game. We can lose to anyone in the country if we turn the ball over enough. Including Duke, Garner Webb, whoever.

Solve our ball security issues and we'll sweep the rest of our games.

Any thread, today or for the rest of the year, that begins with the subject line "Here's why we lost yesterday" can be summed up, ended, locked, and christened fully enlightening by posting one word in its subject matter:

"Turnovers."

 

[kirbee]

+1

-1000

Still could've/should've stopped them. Don't grab the face mask on that sack. Tackle the friggin' quarterback in the open field when you know he's going to run. Still we could've scored. The interior line could block longer than 0.5 seconds. The receiver could not slow down on the pass route.

Yeah the call was questionable, maybe even bad, and it definitely really really helped VT. Still we had our chances to win and VT made the plays.

We lost this game for three main reasons: 1) GT did not take care of the ball. 2) GT did not tackle very well, especially the LBs. 3) VT's interior DL dominated our OL.