What's the big deal?

gtfan088

gtfan088

Dodd-Like
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
21,079
We led 35-6 at halftime. There is nothing left to prove after that. No one is going to think we're a better team because we win 52-6 instead of 38-6. I remember under O'Leary, we played UConn and led by three touchdowns after a quarter but hardly did a thing after that..because we didn't need to.
 
Samford's coach made the comment that he appreciated us pulling the starters for the second half and not trying to humiliate his team (the gist of it). We are a class act.
 
JJacket said:
Samford's coach made the comment that he appreciated us pulling the starters for the second half and not trying to humiliate his team (the gist of it). We are a class act.
Click to expand...

Of all the things CCG is or is not, I do appreciate his being a class person.

I agree, no use in trying to humiliate ANYONE. That kind of stuff will always come back and bite you in the worst place.
 
I agree with pulling the starters. Definitely the right thing to do. However, I think we should have let our backup qb's throw the ball more. If we want experienced backups, why not let them loose? I don't see it as humiliating anyone. If your second team offense needs the experience, let them get actual game experience. Otherwise, why not just go down there and down the ball every play just to run the clock out.
 
SMoney said:
. If we want experienced backups, why not let them loose? I don't see it as humiliating anyone. If your second team offense needs the experience, let them get actual game experience. Otherwise, why not just go down there and down the ball every play just to run the clock out.
Click to expand...

Exactamundo!

I would have rather seen Bennet and Garner throw 2 picks a piece. I really don't see how they gained much of anything other than Bennet's first posession.
 
JJacket said:
Samford's coach made the comment that he appreciated us pulling the starters for the second half and not trying to humiliate his team (the gist of it). We are a class act.
Click to expand...
This is what differentiates us from scUM, F$U, and the like. We have class, we will not run up the score. Like said before, we were up 35-6 at the half, there was no need to run up the score, instead we did the smart thing and rested the starters and let the backups play. Another thing for those of you who wanted us to beat Samford 70-6 to consider is that to produce that score we would have to play our first team the whole game, thus risking injuries and then if someone like CJ gets injured one of you would be blasting CCG for playing the starters the whole game, but instead when that doesn't happen one of you blasts CCG for not running up the score. We should be happy that we got the "W" and that our backups got quality playing time.
 
TechGator1066 said:
Another thing for those of you who wanted us to beat Samford 70-6 to consider is that to produce that score we would have to play our first team the whole game, thus risking injuries and then if someone like CJ gets injured one of you would be blasting CCG for playing the starters the whole game, but instead when that doesn't happen one of you blasts CCG for not running up the score.
Click to expand...

You go on to state that the backups got quality playing time. Maybe the offensive line and the running back but that's it.

Plus, I suppose you can say that scoring more points than we need to win in any game is running up the score.
It would have been great for this team if the second and third team offense had put up 3 or 4 touchdowns in the second half. I don't believe we could have, but it would have been a positive sign.

Did Heisman need to put up 222 on Cumberland? Most likely not. Based on some of the definitions of class on this board, I guess John Heisman makes Barry Switzer look like a saint.
 
Did Heisman need to put up 222 on Cumberland? Most likely not. Based on some of the definitions of class on this board, I guess John Heisman makes Barry Switzer look like a saint.
Click to expand...

It was revenge for Cumberland using pro players on their baseball to beat our baseball team by 30-0, or something like that. I believe too that Heisman coached both teams at the time.
 
We may need those extra scores next week after what Troy all most did to FSU.

Just wish the 2nd. and 3rd. teams had been a little more productive!
 
floridajacket said:
It was revenge for Cumberland using pro players on their baseball to beat our baseball team by 30-0, or something like that. I believe too that Heisman coached both teams at the time.
Click to expand...

I understand it the same way you do. I just couldn't resist bringing up the fact that we will forever be the guiltiest of the guilty whenever "running it up" is discussed.


Heisman must have been more than a little upset! And, to think he didn't even have to worry about a BCS poll.

Seriously, I hope our second and third team is frustrated that they were not given the opportunity to play football.
 
statelinejacket said:
Pocket: I wonder where 'Techgator' was when Gailey rang up more than 50 against Tulsa?
Click to expand...
I thought it was great when we put up 50 plus on Tulsa and Syracuse, but it didn't make my day any better than it would if we only won by 10 points. The fact is that there is no need to risk injuring any of our starters just so we can improve our Total Offense and scoring stats. We got the win, the back ups played, and nobody was injured, very satisfying.
 
pocket_watch said:
You go on to state that the backups got quality playing time. Maybe the offensive line and the running back but that's it.

Plus, I suppose you can say that scoring more points than we need to win in any game is running up the score.
It would have been great for this team if the second and third team offense had put up 3 or 4 touchdowns in the second half. I don't believe we could have, but it would have been a positive sign.

Did Heisman need to put up 222 on Cumberland? Most likely not. Based on some of the definitions of class on this board, I guess John Heisman makes Barry Switzer look like a saint.
Click to expand...
Being that Tech scored on every play and didn't receive one first down, that is not running up the score, that is running your offense. Sure that game was motivated by revenge from the baseball beating the previous year but you can't help scoring that many points when you score on every offensive play you run. Just remember what the VPI game felt like last year and maybe we can understand why running up the score is pointless.
 
Last edited:
TechGator1066 said:
Just remember what the VPI game felt like last year and maybe we can understand why running up the score is pointless.
Click to expand...

About that and the other 51-7 embarrassment under Chan, I wasn't upset with VT, were you?

Tech Gator, maybe you will address my only point in all these threads:
I don't think Ga. Tech scores enough points, and I don't think it's because we don't have the talent.
I believe that any athlete needs to be comfortable in his mind about reaching the next rung of the ladder before he can do it consistently. The consistent 81 shooter in golf has the ability to break 80 consistently, but needs to think he should be breaking 80 before he consistently turns in scores of 78.

To me, it's not about blowing out Samford to cause embarrassment to Samford. It is about being down 4 in a close D-1 game with 2:30 on the clock and we have the ball at our 19.
I would like our guys to have the confidence thru successful experience of expecting to score. Wanting to is great, but it's not the same thing.

I realize that putting up 60 on Samford is nothing compared to putting up 27 at Clemson, but the mind is a very powerful thing.
We have to start somewhere. Plus, Samford expected to get blown out. If we are going to schedule cupcakes, we had better get something out of these games that could possibly help us beat CU, UM, and you know who.

Please do me the favor of replying to this. Thanks.
 
pocket_watch said:
About that and the other 51-7 embarrassment under Chan, I wasn't upset with VT, were you?

Tech Gator, maybe you will address my only point in all these threads:
I don't think Ga. Tech scores enough points, and I don't think it's because we don't have the talent.
I believe that any athlete needs to be comfortable in his mind about reaching the next rung of the ladder before he can do it consistently. The consistent 81 shooter in golf has the ability to break 80 consistently, but needs to think he should be breaking 80 before he consistently turns in scores of 78.

To me, it's not about blowing out Samford to cause embarrassment to Samford. It is about being down 4 in a close D-1 game with 2:30 on the clock and we have the ball at our 19.
I would like our guys to have the confidence thru successful experience of expecting to score. Wanting to is great, but it's not the same thing.

I realize that putting up 60 on Samford is nothing compared to putting up 27 at Clemson, but the mind is a very powerful thing.
We have to start somewhere. Plus, Samford expected to get blown out. If we are going to schedule cupcakes, we had better get something out of these games that could possibly help us beat CU, UM, and you know who.

Please do me the favor of replying to this. Thanks.
Click to expand...
I was very upset when we were blown out at VPI and now I have a strong dislike for them (and their former criminal QB). I think that our players know what it is like to score monstrous points, I'm sure they all were on teams that blew out a number of opponents in high school. But, we will never blow out any opponents under CCG, it is not his style to blow out another team (especially Samford, a school where he used to be a coach). I understand that you want to see our guys put up lots of points(hell, I would love to see us put 70 points on every team we play) but it will rarely happen with CCG at the helm. I agree with you that we have the talent, but any athlete that makes it to Division I A football knows and expects to score points, it is part of a competitive nature that allowed them to make it there. At least 38 -6 is a step up. In 2004 we only beat Samford 28-7. Knowing this score, no one should have expected us to have a win by more than 20-30 points.
 
However, I think we should have let our backup qb's throw the ball more.
Click to expand...

Huh?

It would have been nice to see them complete more passes, but we were still calling pass plays into the 4th quarter, with the 4th QB in there.
 
We won. We got 69 players into the ballgame. We came out with minimal injuries, except for Djay Jons and Andrew Smith getting banged up. We had to do that to develop much needed depth. And hmmmmmm, we won!

Forget the 3-0 score in the 2nd half. I'm way more excited about Samford scoring 0 off of our 2nd team than I am concerned about us scoring 3 in the 2nd half.

On to Troy! And did I mention that we won? That's all we need to know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top