What happened to "Finish Strong"?

S

ShadyJacket

Varsity Lurker
Joined
Oct 17, 2002
Messages
172
First of all I am happy that the team was able to get things together and win.

But, it seems like ever since the beginning of last season whenever we get a decent sized lead going into halftime, we just seem to shut down our offense and become obsessed with trying to run out the clock for the entire second half rather than actually trying to score points and win the game.

Insteading of going for the kill, we just hope that time runs out before the opponent can score enought to win. i dont pay money to see half a game of football, and then a bunch clock killing.
It doesnt seem like we are trying to "Finish Strong."

also, didnt coach say bilbo would play a little bit? But i guess since suggs played well it was a halfway decent decision not to upset his rhythm by bringing in a new QB.
 
i am not satisifed because in order to continue winning and to be successful we have to have a killer instinct
 
I'm with Shady. We aren't playing right in the second half. It has and could in the future - cost us dearly. We can't let up AT ALL next week against NC State we have to play 4 quarters of solid football or we're sunk. If we play like we did today against Georgia, regardless of the win - we're in trouble. We saw today that UGAg's a second half team.

Now, someone at the game told me that in a newspaper, Chan said that he didn't believe in half-time adjustments. Someone tell me it ain't so.
 
Hey, I've got it!! We just don't want to "show our hand". Yeah, that's the ticket!
rolleyes.gif
 
Go back and take a look at where we got the ball in the second half. Other than the opening kickoff I don't think we started a drive outside our 20. We were more conservative, but you should be IMO in that situation with a lead. We did open it up some as we got better field position but had 1) a fumble on a pass completion, 2) missed block on a well conceived screen pass which would have gone for a first down, 3) tipped pass on a 3rd and 1 pass which would have given us another first down.

Give UVA some credit, and consider the situation. If we had executed the plays called, I believe we would have put at least one more score up and made it a sleeper.
 
Chan said nothing of the sort. In fact he said they made adjustments in Wake Aand MD> just didn't get the job done.
 
Originally posted by ShadyJacket:
pretty much

for me satisfaction = touchdowns, long passes, stuff like that.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">OK, so forget the winning part. Just score touchdowns baby!!!!
 
Originally posted by ShadyJacket:
i am not satisifed because in order to continue winning and to be successful we have to have a killer instinct
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Wait, something's not right here. We win but your not satisfied. You say to continue to win, we must have killer instinct. We just won, but, according to you, we didn't have killer instinct. So, if we're to continue to win, we've got to have killer instinct, but we didn't have killer instinct in the last game, so how did we win?

I didn't figure football was so complex. If we win without killer instinct, but we do it 13 times in a season, then I guess you won't be satisfied.
 
Shady has a great point. It's not a bitch, it's an observation. TECH's defensive philosophy of just trying to hold on will not win championships.
We're not only interested in "getting by" week to week. The win against UVA is BIG and a major improvement but there is still much work to be done. This game should just be the beginning of a long haul. It shouldn't be entirely satisfactory. Keep it up, Jackets!
 
hey, cut shady some slack. We won!!!
Yes, it would have been nice to see a few more scores but hey, a wins a win!!!!!!!!
 
ShadyJacket, I don't disagree that teams need the killer instinct, I just think you are wrong about how the game played out yesterday. Go back and look at the play by play. We were throwing the ball in the second half, we didn't have decent field position much of the time. On our first possession we threw 2 of 3 plays. We had 1st and 15 on our 4 and called 3 straight pass plays. We were stopped by 2 3rd down tippped passes, a missed block on a 3rd down screen and a fumble on the UVA 36. We did go conservative on our next to last possession, but at that point you can't help them by stopping the clock with incomplete passes. If we cut down on our mistakes, dropped balls, fumble, we would have scored 1 or 2 times in the 2nd half IMO.
 
Shady this is what I'm trying to say. We had a 23 point lead, and the goal of the game is to win (which we did). So, the play calling changes to a more conservative approach. This way there is less likely a chance for a turnover (interception), and less likely a chance to give up the big play (by leaving corners on 1on1 coverage, and getting a TD). The ocaches made calls in the second half to best give our team a chance to win. We won. I'm happy with the play calling.
 
oh well you guys are probably right, im jsut lookin for touchdowns and excitement. thats why im wathcin the falcons game right now to get the satisfaction that im lookin for, despite dan reeves.
 
beernuts, we didnt have a killer instinct and got lucky to get by. without the killer instinct we wont win many more games. just look at last year for proof. why else do you think we came up with the motto "Finish Strong?"

you said that that we won this game despite my observation that we didnt try to go for the kill. you think that if it worked against UVA then it will work always. this logic is flawed. its the same as saying that UVA won so many games despite trailing at half time, so they should continue to trail at half time and they will continue to win.
obviously that doesnt work
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top