So why are we 4-3?

A

AlaGold

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
3,465
If I had been told that our Offense was #4 in scoring,our DEF was #2 in scoring,Choice was leading the conf EASILY in rushing,our KO team stats have improved unbelieveably,our punter/FG guys are super,the QB was no worse than what I thought,the first unit DBs have not been hurt too much and we killed Notre Dame at this point-I would have thought we would have been 6-1 at worse.

What went wrong? (besides we scored fewer pts than our opponents)
 
1.offense moves the ball but fails horribly at finishing drives, horribly

2.penalties,penalties,penalties. Huge ones too, drive ending and game losing ones

3.some bad luck and unfortunate bounces

4.some bad coaching decisions, game management


that's why GTfanNBama thinks we're 4-3
 
The losses to both UVA and Maryland saw GT start sluggishly and fall behind early.

TC only had five rushing attempts against UVA --but JD filled in admirably. Playing from behind GT went to the air 40 times --getting away from the strength of it's offense --running the ball.

Despite everything that went wrong against UVA --if not for a fumbled punt Tech pulls this one out. (5-2)

Against Maryland GT gave up too many big plays in the first half and again fell behind early. Despite training by 11 going into the fourth GT was able to put itself in a position to win the game.

GT could have saved itself but the holding call and questionable playcalling leading up to a missed 52 yard field goal hurt the cause. TB threw for 309 and TC ran for 135 --in fact GT outgained MD by 150 yards. (6-1)

This just skims the surface --for there are plenty of other areas that can be analyzed and critiqued. We could be sitting at 6-1 --but we're 4-3.
 
Despite the team's best efforts, Gailey just persists in finding new and creative ways to lose.








*ulp* Did I just say that? Yeah, TIC obviously.

We lost to UVa and to UM because our high risk, high reward defense allowed the opposition to score early and often, while simulteanously the offense was ineffective. The second half surges by the offense and stops by the defense point to a much better job of in-game adjustments being done b the coaches.
 
GTfanNBama said:
1.offense moves the ball but fails horribly at finishing drives, horribly

2.penalties,penalties,penalties. Huge ones too, drive ending and game losing ones

3.some bad luck and unfortunate bounces

4.some bad coaching decisions, game management


that's why GTfanNBama thinks we're 4-3
Click to expand...
Pretty much sums it up.

Our red zone efficiency isn't horrible. We do score when we get in the zone - the problem is the number of times we've been in the opponent's territory without scoring. Something like 5 of our first 6 possessions against Maryland we crossed over the 50 but it only netted 3 points. We started out pretty much the same against Miami.
 
AlaGold said:
If I had been told that our Offense was #4 in scoring,our DEF was #2 in scoring,Choice was leading the conf EASILY in rushing,our KO team stats have improved unbelieveably,our punter/FG guys are super,the QB was no worse than what I thought,the first unit DBs have not been hurt too much and we killed Notre Dame at this point-I would have thought we would have been 6-1 at worse.

What went wrong? (besides we scored fewer pts than our opponents)
Click to expand...

pretty much penalties (lots of them including a key false start and a key hold)...or a muffed punt...take your pick.
 
We fumbled a punt and held on 3rd down when we needed zero yards to win. we are those two plays from being a top ten team this year.
 
beej67 said:
We fumbled a punt and held on 3rd down when we needed zero yards to win. we are those two plays from being a top ten team this year.
Click to expand...

beej67 has simplified things and he is right. The difference in being in the top 15 and not even getting a sniff of 'others receiving votes' right now comes down to two plays.

It's a wonder we're not all crazy --or for some of us even crazier than we already are.
 
I think we're 4-3 because we're a 4-3 team. The most impressive aspect of our team is special teams. And our QB has 2 passing TD's...that probably says a lot too.
 
We are 113 out of 119 teams in passing efficincy.

We have scored an average of less than 18 points per game in the last 5 games. 18 ppg won a lot of games in 1977, but not in 2007.

The Samford game really skews the offensive stats. A study of ACC only games would show a much more realistic picture of this team.
 
Last edited:
Exactly right GT65---but for two SPECIFIC bad plays we might be 6-1 right now. You said it --we give up big plays. We gave up a huge one Saturday--two I guess, the fake punt and then the fourth down blast that blew thru for 50 freakin' yards and a score. We tackled better against the 'Canes, but against UVA and Maryland it was poor tackling that let four or five yard plays turn in to 10 or 12 yard games. We are spotty on third down defense--can't get the other team's offense off the field. But I also think that improved somewhat against Miami--probably because Miami sux and they have Patrick Nix.
But that is the frustration in a nutshell--the fact that all of us can legitimately point to 6-1 as being what we ought to be, but we aren't.
If we see it, don't you think the players see it as well? I admit I was mistaken to predict the players would not give the effort against Miami. I suppose you have to give that credit to the staff, (gudgingly). I spoke with Chan two years ago at a function here in Tampa and he said the biggest issue he faced coming in at Tech was educating the players to be mentally and physically tougher. I would say they were pretty focused Saturday. I don't know if pure grit can carry them for the next five --and hopefully six--games. We shall see.
 
Sometimes the football doesn't bounce our way, players and coaches are never perfect, and you can find stats that support virtually any conclusion you want...Mike
 
Over-simplified. He is not wrong, but.......would you not agree that we are better than either Maryland or UVA? We allowed those games to get to a point where it hinged on one single mistake costing us the win, and as you correctly pointed out, costing us top ten or top 15 positioning. Let's say we had won just one of those two games, and were sitting at 5-2 right now. If we make the run that everyone is fantasizing about right now, we are grabbing for 10-2. Two losses with, by definition, wins over Georgia and VT. Pretty high cotton for bowl committees.
Now, because we couldn't get the job done, we have defined ourselves as middle tier--no matter how the rest of the season turns out. For discussion's sake let's hypothesize that we lose one more--but beat Georgia (who has also lost 2 more down the stretch).
That makes us 8-4, no ACC accolades, where do we end up for our bowl game. A BCS slot forfeited over one or two plays. Maybe that's why the coaches that win, and win consistently, make so much money.
 
Also, painfully true. Good point.
Then the original question more accurately should have been "Why are we a 4-3 team?"
 
Yukonwreck said:
Now, because we couldn't get the job done, we have defined ourselves as middle tier--no matter how the rest of the season turns out.
Click to expand...
That's not necessarily true. Trying to look at it as an outsider, if we go on a run (say we beat Army and win out in the ACC - and Bennett's QB play continues to improve heading into the UGA game) it will look like we got off to a slow start due to an inexperienced QB and offensive skill players (WR and TE) and Choice's injury.

To clarify my position: We're clearly not BCS championship material (we never were) but we have a chance to prove that we're better than middle tier.
 
it will be really interesting to see what we say about -the rest of the season.Will we lament more about-what might have been.? probably

btw-I believe we could just as easily lost the clempsum and canes games as we won-so could be 2-5 with VERY little difference in play.
 
ContactBuzz said:
Bennett's QB play continues to improve heading into the UGA game
Click to expand...

Not trying to flame, but how has the passing game continued to improve? Bennett was 11-28 with 1 int and 0 TDs last week. A mere 4 yards per passing attempt. Passing efficiency rating dropped from 102 nationally to 113 (the bottom is coming up fast).

Where is the improvement?
 
beej67 said:
We fumbled a punt and held on 3rd down when we needed zero yards to take the lead. we are those two plays from being a top ten team this year.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.

A lot of people seem to be forgetting that even if we hit the FG, Maryland got the ball back with close to a minute left in the game.

That's why it would have been nice to keep playing for the TD there.
 
jacketup said:
Not trying to flame, but how has the passing game continued to improve? Bennett was 11-28 with 1 int and 0 TDs last week. A mere 4 yards per passing attempt. Passing efficiency rating dropped from 102 nationally to 113 (the bottom is coming up fast).

Where is the improvement?
Click to expand...
How was the passing game in 3rd down situations? I'm not as concerned about overall numbers as long as we're converting 3rd downs.
 
AlaGold said:
If I had been told that our Offense was #4 in scoring,our DEF was #2 in scoring,Choice was leading the conf EASILY in rushing,our KO team stats have improved unbelieveably,our punter/FG guys are super,the QB was no worse than what I thought,the first unit DBs have not been hurt too much and we killed Notre Dame at this point-I would have thought we would have been 6-1 at worse.

What went wrong? (besides we scored fewer pts than our opponents)
Click to expand...

Turnovers in the UVA game and the defense ill-prepared.

Really stupid coaching in the late 4th quarter of the MD game.

Lots of missed FGs by Clemson.

Otherwise we're 6-1 or 5-2 which is about where we should be.

On the stats side, take out the extreme outliers like Samford and the story is very different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top