#PITTvsGT Coach Collins Postgame Press Conference

PressManCoverage said:
What they did was outlaw the crack back block above the waist on Offense like we used to do with Bey Bey & Waller crashing in from a WR position to down block on Safeties and LBers, crack back blocks below the waist were outlawed a long time ago anyway.

The Fans of the previous Genius HC thought this was an anti Triple Option rule, but the Truth and Facts show it merely leveled the playing field, because crack back blocks on Kick Returns (Think Gary Guyton vs VT in a Thurs Night Game back during the CCG Era), and crack back blocks on Interceptions (think Bama vs Aaron Murray in the SEC-CG) were already outlawed before they finally got around to outlawing crack back blocks on plays from Scrimmage by WRs.

No grand conspiracy vs the Triple, just trying to make the Rules more consistent in different Areas of the Game.
Click to expand...



 
BigDanT said:
I’m confused. You’re saying he didn’t say those words?
Click to expand...
Your mind is playing tricks on you. It took me a while to figure it out too. The subtitles in the GIF say "What's In F-ing the Box." Read it word by word very slow... when you read fast and skim over it you don't notice "the" is in the wrong place.
 
PressManCoverage said:
What they did was outlaw the crack back block above the waist on Offense like we used to do with Bey Bey & Waller crashing in from a WR position to down block on Safeties and LBers, crack back blocks below the waist were outlawed a long time ago anyway.

The Fans of the previous Genius HC thought this was an anti Triple Option rule, but the Truth and Facts show it merely leveled the playing field, because crack back blocks on Kick Returns (Think Gary Guyton vs VT in a Thurs Night Game back during the CCG Era), and crack back blocks on Interceptions (think Bama vs Aaron Murray in the SEC-CG) were already outlawed before they finally got around to outlawing crack back blocks on plays from Scrimmage by WRs.

No grand conspiracy vs the Triple, just trying to make the Rules more consistent in different Areas of the Game.
Click to expand...
1) Many of the “crack backs” they call against set defenses are ticky-tacky and you see offensive players think they have to avoid any contact. It can be a BS penalty but kill a WR while he is airborne and it is a-ok.

2) The new cut rules are also pretty silly; they were likely thinking of TO teams when implemented. The main issue isn’t the TO scheme but it makes it much harder for smaller players to block effectively. That is what hurt GT because of the make up of the roster.
 
ElCidBUZZingFAN said:
If you read the text of the .gif, the words are Chinese sub-titled for "what's in the ööööing box?"
Click to expand...
GoGATech said:
Your mind is playing tricks on you. It took me a while to figure it out too. The subtitles in the GIF say "What's In F-ing the Box." Read it word by word very slow... when you read fast and skim over it you don't notice "the" is in the wrong place.
Click to expand...
Oh damn lol. My mind read it like it was right.
 
BigDanT said:
I’m confused. You’re saying he didn’t say those words?
Click to expand...
Brad Pitt says "What's in the ööööing box?"
The GIF (inexplicably) says "What's in ööööing the box?"

EDIT: others beat me to it.
 
Tampa Jacket said:
PJ was good when he had good players and defenses hadn’t figured out how to defend the TO. But the defenses did figure it out. And it was really easy to stuff his TO against his rosters that finished at the bottom of almost every single P5 team’s recruiting class every February. There’s a reason PJ “retired”. The ride was over.
Click to expand...
We beat VT (with Bud Foster) in Blacksburg running 2 plays with the backup freshman QB. I don't think defenses ever "figured it out."
 
Walton said:
1) Many of the “crack backs” they call against set defenses are ticky-tacky and you see offensive players think they have to avoid any contact. It can be a BS penalty but kill a WR while he is airborne and it is a-ok.

2) The new cut rules are also pretty silly; they were likely thinking of TO teams when implemented. The main issue isn’t the TO scheme but it makes it much harder for smaller players to block effectively. That is what hurt GT because of the make up of the roster.
Click to expand...
The Refs are taught 10 & 2 , just like on a clock face, if the Blocker comes from "outside" that 10 & 2 angle, then that is what Refs now look for on illegal crack backs by WRs and RBs when the play is from scrimmage.

As far as the new cut blocking rules, for a few years now you can't hit the QB low while he is in the pocket and attempting to pass the Ball, once they instituted the rule where you can't hit QBs low, it was only a matter of Time before Defenses got some "relief" from low blocks by Offensive Players, my guess is it was just a matter of Time rather than an anti Triple Option conspiracy
 
vapspwi said:
How about you take some time to learn the culture for yourself rather than starting out here by asking what you can get away with?

It seems like it takes a lot to get banned here (spamming the same thing over and over, douching up recruiting threads) and even then it’s most likely just a time-out.

I’ve caught a ban once in a long time, for making a particularly rude remark about Penn State in the football forum.

JRjr
Click to expand...
I wasn’t seeking guidance and I think that should be clear. I was replying to someone else that was implying, probably with zero first or even second hand knowledge that my ban on other sites was warranted or justified. So I was asking THAT person to clarify their position on bans. Because from my experience most pro ban, pro censorship types, simply want to ban opposing thoughts rather than unreasonable content or conduct and I’m curious if that is true for that person also.

Feel free to express your own position but know that I’m not seeking your guidance.
 
whiskey clear said:
I wasn’t seeking guidance and I think that should be clear. I was replying to someone else that was implying, probably with zero first or even second hand knowledge that my ban on other sites was warranted or justified. So I was asking THAT person to clarify their position on bans. Because from my experience most pro ban, pro censorship types, simply want to ban opposing thoughts rather than unreasonable content or conduct and I’m curious if that is true for that person also.

Feel free to express your own position but know that I’m not seeking your guidance.
Click to expand...

My position is that you sound like an insufferable asshole (like a lot of the other noobs that have popped up here recently) and I’m looking forward to when you get banned.

JRjr
 
Vespinae said:
We beat VT (with Bud Foster) in Blacksburg running 2 plays with the backup freshman QB. I don't think defenses ever "figured it out."
Click to expand...
Wow, why in the f#ck did we not do that every time that we played VT?
 
vapspwi said:
My position is that you sound like an insufferable asshole (like a lot of the other noobs that have popped up here recently) and I’m looking forward to when you get banned.

JRjr
Click to expand...
Pot meet kettle, bubba. The insufferable assholes on here are the ones who post childish "yo momma" jokes loaded with sexual innuendo, and who seem to be at a loss for any non-profane words. I have no idea if you fall into that category or not, but this site has that reputation in the outside world, as being loaded with children.
 
BigDanT said:
A back up QB beat them 3 times if I recall. Might have been only 2
Click to expand...
I think it was twice in a row in Blacksburg (Matthew Jordan in 2016 and Tobias in 2018). Matthew Jordan did run a few more plays though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top