Prediction Thread: How many Chanesque games do we have this year?

Braine also screwed up the ACC expansion, where Tech got nothing while MD, UNC, Duke, UVA, and VPI got everything.
 
We will have between two and four "Chanesque" games every year. Every team does. No team plays with high emotion and at the top of their game every week. You have to get lucky and play poorly at the right time and luck out the win. And, you better hope for two such games rather than four.

In GT's best season in my life time, '90 National Championship season, I guess you could say we had at least two "Rossesque" games against a mediocre VPI (6-3 W) and UNC, a tie against an absolutely horrible team.
 
you could say we had at least two "Rossesque" games against a mediocre VPI (6-3 W) and UNC, a tie against an absolutely horrible team.
Click to expand...

Actually, those would actually be more accurately described as "chanesque" since they were close games due to a lack of offense against teams that should have been blown out .
 
GEETEELEE said:
Actually, those would actually be more accurately described as "chanesque" since they were close games due to a lack of offense against teams that should have been blown out .
Click to expand...

I don't consider those Chanesque. Everyone has bad games. Every season, a team guesses your game plan and has a counter for it. Those games may or may not result in loses.

For a game to be Chanesque, your team has to quit. You only go through the motions of the game. The only real Chanesque game last year was the bowl game (a Chanesque game does not require the presence of Chan).

Our blowout loses to Duke, Clemson, VT, UGA, Fresno St (twice), and Utah were classic Chanesque. Chanesque loses are a side effect of Chan's "The system makes the plays" philosophy. That philosophy can also give you team hope when you are clearly out talented by the other team.

But it is time to start dreaming of Johnsonesque victories. You know, ones where you run for 450 yards and pass for 150, while putting 45 some odd points on the board. And your punters leg atrophies from lack of use (unless he is also the PAT kicker).
 
But it is time to start dreaming of Johnsonesque victories. You know, ones where you run for 450 yards and pass for 150, while putting 45 some odd points on the board. And your punters leg atrophies from lack of use (unless he is also the PAT kicker).[/quote]

I like this attitude. And "they" said this offense isn't going to be exciting. Going for it on 4th down is one the most exciting plays in football. Oh, don't forget, scoring touchdowns is pretty exciting, I guess.
 
OK, the Varsity Lurker doesn't have this qoute thing down. Sorry, I was qouting WracerX.
 
77GTFan said:
In GT's best season in my life time, '90 National Championship season, I guess you could say we had at least two "Rossesque" games against a mediocre VPI (6-3 W) and UNC, a tie against an absolutely horrible team.
Click to expand...

UNC was 6-4-1 in 1990. While they werent great and we should have thumped them, I dont see how that qualifies as "absolutely horrible".
 
gtne91 said:
UNC was 6-4-1 in 1990. While they werent great and we should have thumped them, I dont see how that qualifies as "absolutely horrible".
Click to expand...

They had 2 prior seasons of 1-10--and most of us considered them pretty horrible going into the year. Here is an look at their team story from a tarheel perspective. This was when Mack "turned the corner on their team."

http://www.tarheeldaily.com/article.html?aid=5685
 
For reference, here's where we defined "Chanesque" ..

http://www.stingtalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23187

To me a chanesque lose is one where you get beat by a team with inferior athletes for example UVA and Maryland this year. I would say our players are better than theirs. Or one where your players just come out flat and unfocused would be classified as chanesque to me.
Click to expand...

major mental errors or supremely flawed strategy.
Click to expand...

A chanesque win is where your team wins a game despite being heavy underdogs and lifts your fanbase's spirit and makes them believe that the team may actually be good, only to have their dreams crushed the next week when they lose to Duke.
Click to expand...
 
I wouldn't say this is one. You think our players were superior to UVA's? You must have been watching a different game than the one I was. UVA is just better than us, period. We played today like we have played the past three games...it's just today we didn't have the ball bounce our way like in Clemson, so we lost. We're just not that good of a team.

Josh did look unfocused and rusty, but I'd say he was about the only one. It's not like we were getting many penalties and having to waste timeouts like we did with Chan.
 
You think our players were superior to UVA's? You must have been watching a different game than the one I was.
Click to expand...

UVA got blown out by DUKE and UCONN.
 
beej67 said:
UVA got blown out by DUKE and UCONN.
Click to expand...

Without their starting quarterback and starting running back, if I am correct. They were pretty important today, especially the running back. And if you want to play that game, we beat a Div-1AA team by only three points at home, which is just as bad as losing to Duke, who just beat Vandy and is 4-3, or UConn, who is 6-2. Yes, I realize if we had Josh or Jaybo in that game instead of Booker we would have blown them out, but the same goes for UVA and those losses...it's tough to win without your quarterback and your running back, especially when your running back is probably the best in the ACC.

Plus, UVA has won four in a row now. Those two losses are clearly way behind them and they are not the same team they were then.
 
Without their starting quarterback and starting running back, if I am correct.
Click to expand...
By that rationalle, they still don't have their starting quarterback.

And they had the same defense. We scored 3 points in 3 quarters vs the same defense Duke and UConn blew out.

The game was Chanesque. Sit on a 14 point lead for 3 quarters? Umm, yeah, that's Chanesque. I'm not saying PJ is worse than Chan. I'm not saying he's as bad as Chan. I think he's head and shoulders better than Chan. But the game was every bit as Chanesque as our UVA or Maryland losses were last year.
 
beej67 said:
By that rationalle, they still don't have their starting quarterback.

And they had the same defense. We scored 3 points in 3 quarters vs the same defense Duke and UConn blew out.

The game was Chanesque. Sit on a 14 point lead for 3 quarters? Umm, yeah, that's Chanesque. I'm not saying PJ is worse than Chan. I'm not saying he's as bad as Chan. I think he's head and shoulders better than Chan. But the game was every bit as Chanesque as our UVA or Maryland losses were last year.
Click to expand...
You're really enjoying this aren't you?
 
You're really enjoying this aren't you?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not.

I don't see how this game was any less Chanesque than our loss to UVA last year, though. Perhaps you could explain that to me?

At least last year UVA hadn't lost to Duke and UConn.
 
beej67 said:
No, I'm not.

I don't see how this game was any less Chanesque than our loss to UVA last year, though. Perhaps you could explain that to me?

At least last year UVA hadn't lost to Duke and UConn.
Click to expand...

It's not any less "Chanesque." If I remember correctly, we lost in Virginia to a decent, 6-2 ACC UVA team last year because we dropped a punt at the end of the fourth quarter. If you want to blame that on Chan, go ahead I guess, but in that case pretty much every loss we ever have is going to be Chanesque.
 
beej67 said:
No, I'm not.

I don't see how this game was any less Chanesque than our loss to UVA last year, though. Perhaps you could explain that to me?

At least last year UVA hadn't lost to Duke and UConn.
Click to expand...


It wasn't really Chanesque though with the difference in that UVA;

-Sits atop the ACC Coastal
-Has defeated three conference foes who have all been in the hunt for a division title
-Played a good game yesterday --something they've done for a month now

Chanesque was about losing the very winnable game on the schedule where expectations are high with a chance to take that next step. So by this definition I would agree with you --but the only difference I see is that, for the last month anyway, UVA has been playing good football.
 
All of that stuff applies vs our UVA loss last year too.

But that loss was "Chanesque" according to Stingtalk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top