I'm convinced Paul Johnson "threw" this game

[LLTW]

I think PJ went into this game thinking, alright, if I really needed Nesbitt and maybe even Shaw, I could use them. But I got a huge game next week that kicks off the meat of our schedule, and I need them as close to 100% for that. If we can't beat G-W with our 3rd string QB, so be it. Screw it, I'll take the gamble.

Also, Paul Johnson had money on G-W beating the spread. ;)

 

[beej67]

As I mentioned earlier, PJ gets a lot of tertiary benefits out of this game being close .. in that he has talking points (yelling points?) to motivate his players this week, and it also has the potential to demotivate Clemson, since we look so poor, as well as demotivate other teams the rest of the year. Winning the GW game close is actually a bigger benefit than winning it in a blowout.

However, I can't imagine he did it on purpose, and if he did, and I sat through it, then I'm going to send him a medical bill for my ulcers on Sunday. Yeesh.

 

[Geori]

This conspiracy theory stuff is ridiculous. Paul Johnson wanted to win this game by 40, but he also wanted to rest the #1 and #2 Quarterbacks. He knew that Booker would have limited success in the offense and wanted him to throw it more. I didn't watch the game and have no idea why passing did not work any better. I don't know how we could manage so few completions against a team with a weak secondary.

 

[Essobee]

No need to over-think this game. If we block, we win by whatever score we name. We all saw that at the game on Saturday. There was no OL blocking.

 

[GTatUSC]

I totally agree he wasn't trying to throw the game or make it close or whatever. I do think, however, that the game is sort of a lose-lose situation in that if we win it doesn't help our record from a bowl perspective or probably in the rankings. In that respect I can see the justification for resting the players and worrying very little about the game from a personnel perspective. Regardless its a disheartening win and one which I think we are lucky to have won.

 

[mts315]

This conspiracy theory stuff is ridiculous. Paul Johnson wanted to win this game by 40, but he also wanted to rest the #1 and #2 Quarterbacks. He knew that Booker would have limited success in the offense and wanted him to throw it more. I didn't watch the game and have no idea why passing did not work any better. I don't know how we could manage so few completions against a team with a weak secondary.

I was there and was dissapointed in the passing game that we tried to execute. On the first play of the game we tried the quick pass to BayBay which he dropped. From then on it seemed like the only pass play was verticles. We never seemed to run any short pass routes over the middle. The only pass I can remember over the middle was on Dwyer's TD but that was a busted play that just happend to work out. Also for the most part we would have GW's Dbs beat but the ball would be under thrown.

 

[WracerX]

At the half I was wondering if Nesbitt would play. He was warming up. But then I thought, what good would it do to put him in. Our O-line isn't blocking anyone, why risk an injury and lose Nesbitt for Clemson.

I don't think the team took GW seriously. We got embarrassed without losing. That is something CPJ can work with I think. All that said, I think Booker performed as well as any third string QB I've ever seen. He wasn't good, but he doesn't fit the system.

Like every other team in the country, we need our first two QBs.

5-1, now the fun begins.

 

[alpha]

This AJC article pretty much explains how terrible our entire offense played...

Then again, his (Booker's) statistics were deceptive. They don’t show the wrong route that Demaryius Thomas ran that caused an interception, or the pass Thomas dropped on Tech’s first play, or A-Backs running left when they should have been running right.

 

[Bogey]

At the half I was wondering if Nesbitt would play. He was warming up. But then I thought, what good would it do to put him in. Our O-line isn't blocking anyone, why risk an injury and lose Nesbitt for Clemson.

Exactly what I thought too!

 

[GT65_UGA89]

We were trying to get by against an inferior opponent with our third string QB at the healm. It was much closer than anybody --fans, players and CPJ included-- anticipated. I did not expect our O-line to play the way they did.

I wouldn't be surprised if game planning and film sessions on GW ended early in the week and the film canister on Clemson was cracked open early.

note: GT65 hasn't watched game film since his HS days in '82, do players still watch 'film', or do players now view VHS, DVD, hook up to a wii and simulate blocking and tackling?

Anyway, I could be wrong, but wouldn't be surprised. It's a W and if GT can win it's next two to get to 7-1 then this game will be forgotten.

 

[Jacque]

Already forgotten!

 

[cbee]

No need to over-think this game. If we block, we win by whatever score we name. We all saw that at the game on Saturday. There was no OL blocking.

Your assessment couldn't be more correct!

 

[kevinw33]

I thought of this during the game.

If we lose, so what? We wont be ranked?
We wont get into a BCS bowl anyway, it was not an important game.

 

[The Jacket]

I thought of this during the game.

If we lose, so what? We wont be ranked?
We wont get into a BCS bowl anyway, it was not an important game.

The win was not important, but I think for many reasons, the fact that we did not actually lose the game to a Division 1-AA school was very important.

 

[GTplusCPJequalsSuccess]

IT was a lose-lose situation IMO, we were going to lose votes for playing them anyways this late in the season, and we still won, and lost votes. The BCS ranks on SOS, not margin of Victory. And Victorious, we were.

 

[Yellow Fever]

I'm not sure what "game" you guys speak of or who GW is, but last week, we had a bye week!!!!!!



;)

 

[a5ehren]

We were trying to get by against an inferior opponent with our third string QB at the healm. It was much closer than anybody --fans, players and CPJ included-- anticipated. I did not expect our O-line to play the way they did.

I wouldn't be surprised if game planning and film sessions on GW ended early in the week and the film canister on Clemson was cracked open early.

note: GT65 hasn't watched game film since his HS days in '82, do players still watch 'film', or do players now view VHS, DVD, hook up to a wii and simulate blocking and tackling?

Anyway, I could be wrong, but wouldn't be surprised. It's a W and if GT can win it's next two to get to 7-1 then this game will be forgotten.

When I was in HS, we had a VCR hooked up to a projector...I imagine college programs use DVDs though.

 

[Yukonwreck]

No need to over-think this game. If we block, we win by whatever score we name. We all saw that at the game on Saturday. There was no OL blocking.

And Clempsen's front four will be better than any we have faced so far. Boston College was good, but Clempsen is faster and more athletic on the defensive front. The wide plays have to have a second or two to develop or it will be a long day for the Jackets. I don't see us running between the tackles at all unless we have some wide stuff working. If Clempsen puts seven or eight in the box like Gardner-Webb---and we allow it, then we're done. This will be an interesting game on several levels. But the good news is---we are in the mix, in the thick of things --with a very big per centage of our own destiny in our hands. Not 100%, but if we keep winning something good can definitely happen.

 

[BuzzCzar]

And Clempsen's front four will be better than any we have faced so far. Boston College was good, but Clempsen is faster and more athletic on the defensive front. The wide plays have to have a second or two to develop or it will be a long day for the Jackets. I don't see us running between the tackles at all unless we have some wide stuff working. If Clempsen puts seven or eight in the box like Gardner-Webb---and we allow it, then we're done. This will be an interesting game on several levels. But the good news is---we are in the mix, in the thick of things --with a very big per centage of our own destiny in our hands. Not 100%, but if we keep winning something good can definitely happen.

i would say that MSU was right up with Clemson in terms of size and speed

 

[Geori]

I think we're gonna be fine. To me it's just a question of effort. If we play like we did against MSU and Duke, we win by 14. If we play like we did vs GW, we get beat 30-3. If we play like BC/VT, its a toss-up.