VT fans not confident

Allen Koholic said:
Paul Johnson is on the record about wanting to go for it as often as possible.
Click to expand...

I think he's actually on record saying that he'll do what makes sense. In this case, it made sense to go for it on 4th down to keep the ball and run out the clock. Above all, he's going to do what makes football sense.
 
I like a coach who "...don't need no stinkin' chart..." to tell him what to do and when to do it and to provide cover if it didn't work out.

I remember Curry going for two once. We didn't make it. And lost the game because of it. A reporter asked him after the game why he went for two and he indicated that we have charts to tell us, based on the score, when to kick and when to go for two.

I always wondered if he had a chart to tell him what to do when the first chart was wrong.
 
Bunger Henry said:
2 factors come into play as to why we won. First, our team was better able to cope with adversity, thanks to the leadership lessons of our coach. When the chips were down, BC lost hope and you could see the lack of confidence with which their offense executed plays in the 2nd half and particularly the 4th quarter. When we were getting stymied for 3 quarters, we kept on playing with the same level on intensity, maybe even moreso in the 2nd half and particularly the 4th quarter.

Second, our team was in much better physical condition than BC. Late in the 4th quarter, the heat and humidity started taking its toll. But whereas for 3 quarters we were unable to move their DTs, by the end of the 4th quarter, YES BEEJ, we were pushing them around like rag dolls. We could have easily scored another TD had PJ been mean-spirited enough to want to.

This game was won by being physically and mentally tougher than the other team. That was an "earned" win.
Click to expand...
Okay, who stold bunger's password?
 
beej67 said:
If our D dominated, then their D dominated more, except for one thing - the scoreboard.
Click to expand...

Nope.

BC had 77 plays for 262 for a 3.4 average

GT had 53 plays for 235 for a 4.4 average

BC had a better 3rd down conversion number. Our D did dominate by holding them to field goals in the 1st half and (gasp) the D adjustments in the 2nd held them to approximately 62 yards in the 2nd half.

That's the beauty of the CPJ's offense--it is putting pressure on the other team's D. Instead of our offense having to execute 10 plays perfectly in order to score, the D now has to play 10 plays perfectly or we score on one missed assignment. Those b-back runs set up the other stuff nicely.
 
00Burdell said:
I like a coach who "...don't need no stinkin' chart..." to tell him what to do and when to do it and to provide cover if it didn't work out.

I remember Curry going for two once. We didn't make it. And lost the game because of it. A reporter asked him after the game why he went for two and he indicated that we have charts to tell us, based on the score, when to kick and when to go for two.

I always wondered if he had a chart to tell him what to do when the first chart was wrong.
Click to expand...

He also doesn't need a laminated playsheet either, does he?
 
beej67 said:
Okay, thread poll, GT vs Clemson 2004. Did we "steal" the game or "earn" it?

Personally, I think even "steals" are "earned."
Click to expand...

I don't know if we "stole" it so much as "Clemson shot themselves in the foot". Damn luckiest series of events that I've seen happen to GT since I started watching GT football (2003).

Recall on Clemon's last possession, Whitehurst ran for 9 yards on first down. Sure, our defense had a lot to do with it, but they should have been able to get 1 yard over 2 downs. Since there was so little time left, a decent punt probably would have won the game. Instead, it doesn't even make it to the punter, and the rest, as they say, is history.
 
GT98 said:
Nope.

BC had 77 plays for 262 for a 3.4 average

GT had 53 plays for 235 for a 4.4 average
Click to expand...

What game did you watch? BC held us to 3-and-out or worse 7 times, and half our yards in the entire game came on 3 plays, only one of which was designed. Their QB spraining his ankle probably gave us the win.

If you guys can't even agree that we stole Clemson in 2004 then I guess you've just got a mental block against the word "steal," and this conversation is pointless.
 
beej67 said:
If you guys can't even agree that we stole Clemson in 2004 then I guess you've just got a mental block against the word "steal," and this conversation is pointless.
Click to expand...

I will concede that we misappropriated the 2004 Clemson game.
 
Steal, to me, implies something above the rules of football. In 1997, UGA stole that game from us with that pass interference call, although that was balanced out in the end by 1999.

In 2004, Clemson had a blaring deficiency at one position, namely the long snapper. That type of snap should literally never happen for a long snapper. We won that game fair and square.
 
ASimPerson said:
Recall on Clemon's last possession, Whitehurst slid for 9 yards on first down.
Click to expand...

Fixed. Maybe he slid because he assumed his offensive line would be able to get 1 yd over the next two downs, but when you have the chance to put a nail in the coffin, you do it yourself. IMO, Clemson lost that game because Whitehurst was a pansy.
 
Bunger Henry said:
2 factors come into play as to why we won. First, our team was better able to cope with adversity, thanks to the leadership lessons of our coach. When the chips were down, BC lost hope and you could see the lack of confidence with which their offense executed plays in the 2nd half and particularly the 4th quarter. When we were getting stymied for 3 quarters, we kept on playing with the same level on intensity, maybe even moreso in the 2nd half and particularly the 4th quarter.

Second, our team was in much better physical condition than BC. Late in the 4th quarter, the heat and humidity started taking its toll. But whereas for 3 quarters we were unable to move their DTs, by the end of the 4th quarter, YES BEEJ, we were pushing them around like rag dolls. We could have easily scored another TD had PJ been mean-spirited enough to want to.

This game was won by being physically and mentally tougher than the other team. That was an "earned" win.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. I believe Coach Johnson is proving to be very adept at game management. The timeout before the kick in the first half and a clear understanding of clock management under new rules in second half made his decision to go for the first down and run out the clock in the second half laudable. And, while he will clearly "coach up" a youngster who makes a mistake, hanging heads does not seem to be tolerated.
 
Thank Goodness we are arguing about How we won w/ our 2-0 record. And not why we should have won with a 1-1 record.
 
CrackerJacket said:
Hell has frozen over and monkies are flying out of my ass...I actually agree with Bunger.
Click to expand...

If he throws enough platitudes and vagueries out there, you're sure to agree with some of it.

It's the actual knowledge of the game that he sorely lacks. We never wore their DLine down (as he contends) - the only plays that "worked" are ones that moved away from their interior lineman or broken play ad-libs by Nesbitt. I'll give our staff some credit for putting Nesbitt in the position (mentally) to do the small things (like stay in bounds on the long 3rd and 7 scramble) and keeping Voss focused enough to stay in the play and make a key block on Brace (although he'd been owned physically by him all game) on the same play.
 
I'm happy with the win but it's only ONE game. The gobblers aren't gonna take up where the eagles left off.
 
beej67 said:
What game did you watch? BC held us to 3-and-out or worse 7 times, and half our yards in the entire game came on 3 plays, only one of which was designed. Their QB spraining his ankle probably gave us the win.

If you guys can't even agree that we stole Clemson in 2004 then I guess you've just got a mental block against the word "steal," and this conversation is pointless.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about the Clemson game--that was a gift for us or a steal whatever makes you happy.

I was objecting to your comment of their D dominating more than anything. Statistically, they did not--GT's D had the better day.

Regardless, I'm glad for the win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top