Please Chan Gailey and Dave Braine

Originally posted by statelinejacket:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Originally posted by Buzz4Him:
AlaGold,
Maybe I do come across as one who takes out half sentences. You are correct in that the bottom line was 13-24.

However, all I was attempting to do was shed some reality on the statment that CCG "Has no clue how to do this job". I see no facts to support this.

The fact is, there are very few teams, if any, that can turn the ball over 4 times in the red zone and expect to come away with a win.

As to how to prevent the TOs, that is another issue. Just as 4 INTs in a half (last years SVB) was correctable. CCG corrected it. He put the athlete in another position to help utilize his talents.

Here is another "bottom line" fact:
Avg yds per play = 5.2

Is that not good enough? Probably not for some people here. Definitely not if a team turns the ball over like we did. However, take away these misques (maybe just 2 of the 4) and the "13-24 bottom line" would be a lot different.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Not for just 40 plays its not. 70 plays yes.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Why did we only have 40 plays(47 actually)? The defense perhaps? 4 turnovers, 2 scores, 3 punts, and 1 end of half. Only 10 posessions (counting the kneel-down end of half). Bad. 30 percent punts. Good. 4 turnovers. Bad.

Now, I'm not going to argue that Gailey isn't somewhat responsible for the turnnovers, but it's the indivduals job to hold onto the damn ball. You learn this in pee-wee ball.

Also, you said it was the QB coaches job to develop the QB's we had. You do realize some QB's just aren't "develop-able." No matter how much you "develop" them, they just aren't cut out to be college QB's. Suggs and Bilbo.

I'll just pretend you didn't say Tenuta for Coach. That'll really make me believe you don't know what your talking about. Especially after the BYU performance!
 
Beernuts: For whatever amount of football I do know it is miles ahead of you. Tech's defense kept us in the game. No one will completely disarm BYU's passing game. Just watch saturday when they visit Southern Cal. You will be in for a surprise. Not saying the Cougars will win mind you but they will be successful at passing the ball and putting points on the board which is a helluva lot more than Auburn was. Tech's defense was on the field for 40 minutes and 79 plays but gave up only 24 points. Not to mention the pounding they put on Quarterback Matt Berry all night long. Our offence was not able to sustain drives, it could have been much worse. The defense had to face the Cougars going for it on 4th down 3 times when it was neither a desparate or near the goal line move. Why? No respect for Chan Gaileys offensive gameplan. A point talked up by the announcers on every occasion. Thats 3 punts that should have been forced. Granted it would have been best if the defense had stopped them on the 4th down attempts but to hold BYU on 3rd or 4th and short will be extremely difficult this year, just see the Southern Cal game. They limited the big plays and gave Tech's offence the ball and field position that we was not able to take advantage of. When the announcers was talking late in the game that the defence was out of gas they nailed Berry to the ground on 2 sacks in 3 plays. Its called sucking it up and bearing down! Tech's defense left everything on the field amd for you to insinulate otherwise shows the ignorance that your avatar suggest you possess.
 
OK, I've said my piece and it does not require me to say it 1000+ times like some posters here. The average fan can understand it the first time and they do not require a constant reminder.
 
Originally posted by statelinejacket:
Beernuts: For whatever amount of football I do know it is miles ahead of you. Tech's defense kept us in the game. No one will completely disarm BYU's passing game. Just watch saturday when they visit Southern Cal. You will be in for a surprise. Not saying the Cougars will win mind you but they will be successful at passing the ball and putting points on the board which is a helluva lot more than Auburn was. Tech's defense was on the field for 40 minutes and 79 plays but gave up only 24 points. Not to mention the pounding they put on Quarterback Matt Berry all night long. Our offence was not able to sustain drives, it could have been much worse. The defense had to face the Cougars going for it on 4th down 3 times when it was neither a desparate or near the goal line move. Why? No respect for Chan Gaileys offensive gameplan. A point talked up by the announcers on every occasion. Thats 3 punts that should have been forced. Granted it would have been best if the defense had stopped them on the 4th down attempts but to hold BYU on 3rd or 4th and short will be extremely difficult this year, just see the Southern Cal game. They limited the big plays and gave Tech's offence the ball and field position that we was not able to take advantage of. When the announcers was talking late in the game that the defence was out of gas they nailed Berry to the ground on 2 sacks in 3 plays. Its called sucking it up and bearing down! Tech's defense left everything on the field amd for you to insinulate otherwise shows the ignorance that your avatar suggest you possess.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Good one about the avatar. I'm actually much uglier and stupider looking than those guys in real life. Thus, my ignorance in football.

I never said that BYU's offense sucks. I had the same opinion of your's. Besides those 2 INT's their QB played very well, hitting everybody he threw it too. BYU had the right routes called for our defense. And our Defense stuck it to their running game. The problem I have with the defense is Tenuta had 2 years of BYU's offense under Crowton to prepare for, and we couldn't stop the underneath routes. We knew it was coming, and we made no adjustments. Against a passing team like BYU, we'll have trouble, and that's a fault of our defense. Has NOTHING to do with Gailey's offensive game plan. And to say they went for it because of lack of respect for our offense is having one eye open. You think they had much respect for our defense? They could gain 3 yards anytime they wanted.

IMO, Gailey called the right game. You can't argue against only getting the ball 10 times (9 for arguments sake), but still being able to move the ball except for turnovers. Turnovers killed our offense, and very little of that is Gailey's fault. Again turnovers are not part of the game plan.

I'm never going to stop arguing the Gailey called the right game. Did you see Ball getting very jumpy in the pocket when the 1st man wasn't open? You think, if we had more down-field passes earlier he would have been even more jumpy? Give it time. Ball will come around real soon.
 
stateline, I agree with you about the defense. I thought they played a pretty good game overall. I disagree a little with your logic of why Crowton kept going for it on 4th. I think it has more to do with his philosophy than anything else. He went for it lot last year too, when their defense sucked. I just think he has a mindset that he'll take a shot where most coaches won't.

beernuts. I thinks the problem with the underneath routes was that we had to commit the LBs to shut down the run and get pressure on the QB. The 2 left had to drop into coverage to shut down the underneath routes and they weren't getting back in time.
 
Beernuts: My answer for the underneath success rest with BYU's quarterback Matt Berry. Not only was he very accurate but he possesses a very quick release. Did you notice how many times we almost got to him? I can tell you we beat the hell out of him without drawing one roughing the passer penalty. Credit to his quick release. Also we frequently blitzed someone and that will always leave you vulnerable somewhere and Berry was able to pick it up. Again as you and I agree BYU has a very good quarterback.
 
Originally posted by ParkinJacket:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Originally posted by bellyseries:
Well, I think the next fumbler should be murdered. Pour encourager les autres.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">...or maybe cut off their fumbling arm.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Bad fumbler!!! Bad, bad fumbler!!!
 
StatelineJacket, I disagree with you on BYU and their offense. Personally, I do not think their offense nor quarterbacks are very good. I feel pretty confident they will not score on Southern Cal this week. I believe that game will be very lopsided.

The only thing I saw that impressed me about BYU was their defense. They were quick to the ball and recovered well to make tackles. However, they do not have the material of Auburn's defense.

Father Time
 
TML, this hire the "Tech Man" stuff has got to stop. Dodd was from UT, Cremins went to usc, dooley went to AU, Darryl Royal went to OU. Where a guy went to college has NO, NONE, bearing on how good a coach he would bee at GT.
 
Originally posted by texstinger:
TML, this hire the "Tech Man" stuff has got to stop. Dodd was from UT, Cremins went to usc, dooley went to AU, Darryl Royal went to OU. Where a guy went to college has NO, NONE, bearing on how good a coach he would bee at GT.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">You are right. But his AD better know what's going on b/c Tech is very different. And the coach better understand that academics comes first, therefore the players better be in class, study halls, etc. I want Friedgen as coach and Stansbury as AD. And just becuase Fridge is at his alma mater doesnt mean we cant get him with a new AD like Stansbury. First the AD that understnads the nuances of Tech then a coach that has the right philosophy and experience with making it happen. Too bad we didnt use that formula this time.
 
Buzz,
I got one answer for you- 13-24 ,7 pts over even the line..You sound like a guy who reads a book and takes out half sentences to review.Of course they didn't plan to fumble but maybe they could have run another play so someone who wouldn't fumble would have the ball.OR-How about the the possibility that if we run the ball consistently we don't have to make those passes.OR if the team had a better fumbling drill they wouldn't do it as much.
OR-go back to 13-24,the bottom line.
 
There ain't nuthin more important in the whole dang game than hanging on to the ball. However this should be taught it needs to be impressed, yea verily, drilled into their heads. Similar corrective action concerning penalties would also be a good idea.
 
AlaGold,
Maybe I do come across as one who takes out half sentences. You are correct in that the bottom line was 13-24.

However, all I was attempting to do was shed some reality on the statment that CCG "Has no clue how to do this job". I see no facts to support this.

The fact is, there are very few teams, if any, that can turn the ball over 4 times in the red zone and expect to come away with a win.

As to how to prevent the TOs, that is another issue. Just as 4 INTs in a half (last years SVB) was correctable. CCG corrected it. He put the athlete in another position to help utilize his talents.

Here is another "bottom line" fact:
Avg yds per play = 5.2

Is that not good enough? Probably not for some people here. Definitely not if a team turns the ball over like we did. However, take away these misques (maybe just 2 of the 4) and the "13-24 bottom line" would be a lot different.
 
Originally posted by Buzz4Him:
AlaGold,
Maybe I do come across as one who takes out half sentences. You are correct in that the bottom line was 13-24.

However, all I was attempting to do was shed some reality on the statment that CCG "Has no clue how to do this job". I see no facts to support this.

The fact is, there are very few teams, if any, that can turn the ball over 4 times in the red zone and expect to come away with a win.

As to how to prevent the TOs, that is another issue. Just as 4 INTs in a half (last years SVB) was correctable. CCG corrected it. He put the athlete in another position to help utilize his talents.

Here is another "bottom line" fact:
Avg yds per play = 5.2

Is that not good enough? Probably not for some people here. Definitely not if a team turns the ball over like we did. However, take away these misques (maybe just 2 of the 4) and the "13-24 bottom line" would be a lot different.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Not for just 40 plays its not. 70 plays yes.
 
I'm sorry but I beelieve this guy needs a girlfriend so he can bee more realistic. Posted by MsAFRJ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top