Why didn't Gaily go for 2?

Re: Why didn\'t Gaily go for 2?

Originally posted by MsTechAnalysis:
Don't take this is a Chan Bash but I thought GT was better then how they ended up last year, that's why I complained.

Based on the first 3 games - they were better then the 3 teams we played and we are 1-2. This is a game by game summary because we are all taking that route because we just don't know after last season and what has occurred in the off season.

But, after 3 games - I think GT should be 3-0.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">CCG is the reason we should be 3-0. The main reason we lost to BYU is turnovers. Hold on while I check the boxscore for the game........Hmmm, Gailey didn't commit any of the TOs. How about that?

The ONLY reason we lost against F$U is depth. Their lines were physically stronger on both sides of the ball in the 4th Q. Gailey and staff should be given credit for us having the ball with a chance to WIN with less than 1:00 to go in the game. I feel confident that Ball (after this experience) will convert the next opportunity into a win.
 
Re: Why didn\'t Gaily go for 2?

Originally posted by MsTechAnalysis:

Are we better then I thought yes, but I ALSO THOUGHT WE WERE BETTER LAST YEAR AND WE STILL LOSS GAMES WE SHOULD HAVE WON! The only game last season where we were inferior to the team we played was UGAG, not Clemson, not Wake, not Fresno, not Maryland!
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I actually agree with this statement. However, the difference between this year and last year is QB play. Put Ball in the Clemson, Wake, Fresno games last year and we win - it's that simple. Maryland wore us down last year - I can't specifically say that QB play would've made the difference in that game.
 
Re: Why didn\'t Gaily go for 2?

Originally posted by MsTechAnalysis:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Originally posted by BeerNutts:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Originally posted by MsTechAnalysis:
Don't take this is a Chan Bash but I thought GT was better then how they ended up last year, that's why I complained.

Based on the first 3 games - they were better then the 3 teams we played and we are 1-2. This is a game by game summary because we are all taking that route because we just don't know after last season and what has occurred in the off season.

But, after 3 games - I think GT should be 3-0.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Good non-answer. BTW, there is no such thing as "we should be," only we are. Playing that game is for losers. We're 1-2 because we won 1 game and lost 2.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">BeerNuts: My complaint is the same ... we have played 3 games and were better then the teams we played. YOU fill in the blanks as to why we are 1-2 and NOT 3-0!

By the way, the 'we should be's' are why coaches get critiqued and eventually fired. Different season, same scenario as last. EVEN with all GT's misfortunes, GT HAS PLAYED 3 GAMES where the 2 losses should not exist!

Are we better then I thought yes, but I ALSO THOUGHT WE WERE BETTER LAST YEAR AND WE STILL LOSS GAMES WE SHOULD HAVE WON! The only game last season where we were inferior to the team we played was UGAG, not Clemson, not Wake, not Fresno, not Maryland! I'm a realist...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">You think we are "better than" FSU? It what ways are we better? Well, I HOPE you'll agree we don't have the athletes they have. Their WR's RB's are hosses. Their QB is a 4th year guy and a heck of an athlete. their Defense is STACKED! Now, if their football players are better than ours, the only way we could be better than FSU is if our coaching outweighs their coaching. Somehow, I don't think you'll agree with that.

As far as BYU, I think they'll have a good team. They're strength is our weakness, passing the ball. We had a TRUE FRESHMAN QB who started his 1st game ever! Plus, as I've said time and time again, 4 turnovers, plus 9 times with the ball = no chance for offensive production. That doesn't have a direct coorelation to coaching.
 
Re: Why didn\'t Gaily go for 2?

I must say that I thought going for the TD rather than taking the FG was gutsy bordering on stupid. Yes, the points make the difference in the game, but we also could have converted one of the FGs we did take. And for what it's worth, the momentum of their stop ended in ZERO points for them. Hindsight is 20-20.

I am amazed that all your Chan-bashers, who also happen to be O'Leary lovers, don't remember the 2 point conversion disaster against Climpsun. I realize the circumstances were a bit different, but we can all agree that in that game, all those darned 2 point tries were a terrible idea, but now, when the defense is plaing well and we are up TWO scores, Gailey's an idiot for not going for it.

Look, it's easy to second guess, but this team has great chemistry, they are playing well together, and are playing well above what was expected.

Bottom line: Last year, our underperformace started at the top with Gailey, but so does this year's exceptional effort. All I asked for this year was that we played hard, never gave up, and got better with every game. We are getting that, even if we didn't come away with the win.
 
Re: Why didn\'t Gaily go for 2?

BOR, put down your 32 ounce Old English bottle. You are obviously drunk
behead.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top