Key Fans, I Have Questions:

justafan said:
Those teams aren't as good as Clemson and Ole Miss. Many teams were more competitive with Georgia than us. This is not complicated.
Click to expand...

Actually, no, many teams were not more competitive with UGA than we were. Anyone who watched the first half of either the Tennessee or UK game knew they weren't going to win that game. Missouri was the only team who was competitive for longer into the game than we were.
 
GTROY said:
How can you possibly make that determination before the staff and other details are finalized?

I wanted Chadwell, but I don't think we really have the data necessary to be zero or 100 on this hire, honestly.
Click to expand...

Tech struggled to lure a big outside name because of the school's reluctance to guarantee large portions of the contract, with the amount of guaranteed money a nonstarter for some candidates.
 
gtfan088 said:
Actually, no, many teams were not more competitive with UGA than we were. Anyone who watched the first half of either the Tennessee or UK game knew they weren't going to win that game. Missouri was the only team who was competitive for longer into the game than we were.
Click to expand...
5 teams lost by a lesser margin than we did... We only scored twice, them seven times...

Screenshot_2022-11-29_15-32-29.png


At what point on that graph were we competitive? When we got to a 4% chance of winning?
 
gtfan088 said:
Actually, no, many teams were not more competitive with UGA than we were. Anyone who watched the first half of either the Tennessee or UK game knew they weren't going to win that game. Missouri was the only team who was competitive for longer into the game than we were.
Click to expand...

This is some @coit basketball reasoning right here. Mutts have played down to there comp all year but chalk it up a W
 
justafan said:
5 teams lost by a lesser margin than we did... We only scored twice, them seven times...

Screenshot_2022-11-29_15-32-29.png


At what point on that graph were we competitive? When we got to a 4% chance of winning?
Click to expand...

I don't know, maybe when were within 3 at the half, outgaining them, and probably winning if not for a really bad drop in the open field? Watch the games instead of relying on wonky graphs to tell you if a game is competitive, clown.
 
Collins had a long time to create a soft culture, recruit soft players. The fact that Key, down to our 3rd string QB was able to generate some discipline and effort in a short amount of time is admirable. Aside from a half dozen big names in college football, nothing is a sure thing. Just look at A&M who got fooled by the "resume", or Oklahoma, stuck now with a Venebles, who took his get back schtick all the way to the promised land. Fickell was an assistant who they cast off after his interim stint and now look. Some make it, most bust. Tech has no money, only average facilities and a losing streak bordering on habit. Outside of Cignetti, which for some reason was never mentioned, Key is the best we could do. At least he understands how much we hate Georgia and we don't have to teach someone from the outside that.
 
justafan said:
5 teams lost by a lesser margin than we did... We only scored twice, them seven times...

Screenshot_2022-11-29_15-32-29.png


At what point on that graph were we competitive? When we got to a 4% chance of winning?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure it was 13-7 with 5 minutes left in the 3rd and they scored on a borderline call on 4th down. The game was more competitive than any match since 2016. And we were playing with QB 3/4 and only fell apart because of unforced errors from guys that probably shouldn’t be playing D1 football — not because we couldn’t compete.

Key had the kids ready the last 8 games, got them to play hard and buy in despite a ton of adversity.
 
justafan said:
5 teams lost by a lesser margin than we did... We only scored twice, them seven times...

Screenshot_2022-11-29_15-32-29.png


At what point on that graph were we competitive? When we got to a 4% chance of winning?
Click to expand...

We were competitive for a half. Not even just competitive, playing them evenly. Then they blew us out in the second half.

I'd say that is better than most teams did against U[sic]GA this season. But of course ultimately it ended the same way as it did for every team U[sic]GA has played all season.
 
The Champ said:
Pretty sure it was 13-7 with 5 minutes left in the 3rd and they scored on a borderline call on 4th down. The game was more competitive than any match since 2016. And we were playing with QB 3/4 and only fell apart because of unforced errors from guys that probably shouldn’t be playing D1 football — not because we couldn’t compete.

Key had the kids ready the last 8 games, got them to play hard and buy in despite a ton of adversity.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but just look at the graph. The game couldn't have possibly been close at that point because ESPN or whoever didn't give us a high probability of winning.
 
CiraldoForever said:
If Key is as bad as your questions imply, the only way to explain him beating Pitt, VT, Duke, UNC and being competitive with Georgia is that he's lucky! Like Bobby Dodd said, "I'd rather be lucky than good." We have tried everything at Tech except being lucky. I will be glad to see "some thrillers brewing the next time toe meets leather at Grant Field, brothers and sisters!"
Click to expand...
But that's just it, he did get lucky. Go back and remind yourself of each of those games... We got pretty lucky. And I was glad to see it happen at the time, but it is not a sustainable coaching strategy.
And even if we had dominated, are we really so impressed by a guy beating a vastly overrated UNC team and a vastly overrated Pitt team?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top