2022 Schedule??

[WreckinGT]

competitive in the sense that last year aside from pitt, ND, and uga (the three best teams on the schedule) were close. now obviously that needs to turn into wins at some point but considering the injuries to sims forcing us to play someone who wasn’t really an fbs qb, i think the team is a little better than people think, but not great at all

We won one game that Sims started this year against one of the worst teams in college football and needed alot of help to win that one. Im not sure his injuries are what held us back.

 

[stech81]

We won one game that Sims started this year against one of the worst teams in college football and needed alot of help to win that one. Im not sure his injuries are what held us back.

I agree not that the offense was even avg , we had two big problems 1) the defense 2) and the other well ................

 

[JacketFan137]

We won one game that Sims started this year against one of the worst teams in college football and needed alot of help to win that one. Im not sure his injuries are what held us back.

he was better than yates by a significant margin and yates lost close games against BC and clemson. i also think had sims gone the whole game vs northern illinois it may have ended differently as yates struggled to move the ball in crunch time

sims injury was also evident against miami and that was close as well. hopefully an improved o line will keep him healthier

 

[JacketOff2]

Im sorry but " competitive" is not a word I would use to describe what I have watched for the past 3 years. Maybe Inconsistent. When you used Vandy as a comparison you lost me...

Tech lost 6 games against teams who didn’t play in a NY6 game last year. The largest margin of defeat in those 6 games was 11 points. 5 of the 6 were less than 10 points, 4 were within one score. Half of the 6 losses were by 6 points or less. I mean in what world is that not competitive?

Yeah I used Vandy as a comparison, because they’re a P5 school who performed worse against UGA than Tech did. I also compared Tech to Arkansas, Missouri, Florida, and Michigan. All of those teams looked just as bad against UGA as Tech did, which is why I said it would be dumb to use that game as a standard. Use the ACC games as the standard, and Tech was competitive, and we should’ve won a lot more games.

 

[augustabuzz]

We won one game that Sims started this year against one of the worst teams in college football and needed alot of help to win that one. Im not sure his injuries are what held us back.

And, he came in one game in the 2nd quarter down by 1 and won the game by 24.

 

[cthenrys]

Tech lost 6 games against teams who didn’t play in a NY6 game last year. The largest margin of defeat in those 6 games was 11 points. 5 of the 6 were less than 10 points, 4 were within one score. Half of the 6 losses were by 6 points or less. I mean in what world is that not competitive?

Yeah I used Vandy as a comparison, because they’re a P5 school who performed worse against UGA than Tech did. I also compared Tech to Arkansas, Missouri, Florida, and Michigan. All of those teams looked just as bad against UGA as Tech did, which is why I said it would be dumb to use that game as a standard. Use the ACC games as the standard, and Tech was competitive, and we should’ve won a lot more games.

Racking up them morale victories.... We're so close. Just cover wide open receivers and recover another couple of onside kicks and we win 5 Ba-By !!!

 

[RamblinRed]

I think From The Rumble Seat did a good job of showing that GT wasn't as 'close' in games as the final scores suggest.
There were 5 games GT had a 10% chance or less of winning entering the 4th Qtr. Only in 4 games did it have a better than 50% chance of winning entering the 4th quarter - N Ill, UNC, Duke and KSU.
Only 5 of the games GT had a better than 25% chance of winning the game (the 4 above and Miami). GT had a 25% chance of defeating BC entering the 4th Quarter.
FWIW, GT had a 10% chance of winning the Clemson game entering the 4th quarter.

If you take the odds of winning entering the 4th quarter and cumulate them you get an estimated win total for the season of about 4.58, which GT failed to reach.
If you want the % by game they are
N Ill - didn't have, but my assumption is that it was likely in the 75% range based on the advanced stat review.
KSU > 99%
Clemson 10%
UNC 95%
Pitt < 1%
Duke 78%
UVA 1%
VT 25%
Miami 48%
BC 24%
ND < 1%
UGA < 1%

GT did not win any games that it was not ahead of entering the 4th quarter.

 

[WreckinGT]

he was better than yates by a significant margin and yates lost close games against BC and clemson. i also think had sims gone the whole game vs northern illinois it may have ended differently as yates struggled to move the ball in crunch time

sims injury was also evident against miami and that was close as well. hopefully an improved o line will keep him healthier

Im not sure what your definition of crunch time is. We scored on two of the last three drives against NIU. The one drive we didn't score, was run, run, safe short pass to kill the clock. Unfortunately for us killing the clock isn't helpful to our defense.

 

[JacketFan137]

I think From The Rumble Seat did a good job of showing that GT wasn't as 'close' in games as the final scores suggest.
There were 5 games GT had a 10% chance or less of winning entering the 4th Qtr. Only in 4 games did it have a better than 50% chance of winning entering the 4th quarter - N Ill, UNC, Duke and KSU.
Only 5 of the games GT had a better than 25% chance of winning the game (the 4 above and Miami). GT had a 25% chance of defeating BC entering the 4th Quarter.
FWIW, GT had a 10% chance of winning the Clemson game entering the 4th quarter.

If you take the odds of winning entering the 4th quarter and cumulate them you get an estimated win total for the season of about 4.58, which GT failed to reach.
If you want the % by game they are
N Ill - didn't have, but my assumption is that it was likely in the 75% range based on the advanced stat review.
KSU > 99%
Clemson 10%
UNC 95%
Pitt < 1%
Duke 78%
UVA 1%
VT 25%
Miami 48%
BC 24%
ND < 1%
UGA < 1%

GT did not win any games that it was not ahead of entering the 4th quarter.

the values used aren’t really that good tbh.

clemson was still ranked so high they had a 95% chance of winning at kickoff.

 

[JacketFan137]

Racking up them morale victories.... We're so close. Just cover wide open receivers and recover another couple of onside kicks and we win 5 Ba-By !!!

they aren’t morale victories cause ultimately we lost but it is nice to have some nuance when discussing things

 

[JacketOff2]

Racking up them morale victories.... We're so close. Just cover wide open receivers and recover another couple of onside kicks and we win 5 Ba-By !!!

When did I ever say anything about moral victories? Or being happy about losing close games? I didn’t. I’m just refuting the notion that Tech wasn’t competitive in the majority of games last year. If anything it’s more of voice of displeasure that Tech couldn’t find a way to win more than 3 games than it is celebrating moral victories.

NIU, Miami, and BC should have all been wins, and there was no reason to lose to Virginia Tech. However, most people said going into the year they wanted Tech to be competitive in the ACC, and we were. You can be unhappy with the win total and still see that there were plenty of games we were in with a chance to win in the 4th QT.

 

[JacketOff2]

I think From The Rumble Seat did a good job of showing that GT wasn't as 'close' in games as the final scores suggest.
There were 5 games GT had a 10% chance or less of winning entering the 4th Qtr. Only in 4 games did it have a better than 50% chance of winning entering the 4th quarter - N Ill, UNC, Duke and KSU.
Only 5 of the games GT had a better than 25% chance of winning the game (the 4 above and Miami). GT had a 25% chance of defeating BC entering the 4th Quarter.
FWIW, GT had a 10% chance of winning the Clemson game entering the 4th quarter.

If you take the odds of winning entering the 4th quarter and cumulate them you get an estimated win total for the season of about 4.58, which GT failed to reach.
If you want the % by game they are
N Ill - didn't have, but my assumption is that it was likely in the 75% range based on the advanced stat review.
KSU > 99%
Clemson 10%
UNC 95%
Pitt < 1%
Duke 78%
UVA 1%
VT 25%
Miami 48%
BC 24%
ND < 1%
UGA < 1%

GT did not win any games that it was not ahead of entering the 4th quarter.

Looking at just the 4th quarter is a bit disingenuous IMO because it doesn’t take the ebbs and flows from the rest of the game into account. In the BC game for example, Tech went up 21-7 and had a 92% chance to win. Over the course of the next 11 plays, the game was tied. BC had 2 scoring drives of 4 plays each and Tech went 3 and out with -6 total yards. If any of those drives are different Tech likely wins the game, but because of the inability of our pass defense to limit huge chunk plays, BC took command of the game and never looked back.

Against UVA, Tech was up 13-0 and 16-7. And we were up 16-14 with the ball deep in UVA territory. Sims throws an interception, and on 3rd and 5 from their own 23 UVA threw a 77 yard touchdown pass and never surrendered the lead again.

Against Miami, Tech was up 28-24 and missed a field goal that would’ve put us up 31-24 with 3 minutes left in the 3rd. After that drive Tech had 4 possessions and we ran 16 plays for 6 total yards and only got 1 first down. Miami would score twice and gain 156 yards in their last 4 possessions to win the game.

Those are 3 games, and the addition of the NIU game makes it 4, that Tech had a very real chance of winning, and should have won. Giving up chunk plays, stalling on offense, and not converting field goals lead to losing leads in those games, and eventually losing the games themselves. We put ourselves in position win much more than 3 games, which I believe would make us competitive. If you look at it numbers wise, the 3 NY6 teams and VT were the only games we never had a real chance to win once the game kicked off. But the VT game was an embarrassment and it never should’ve gone wayward from the get-go like it did.

Point being: there are plenty of things to get better at, but it’s not like we’re starting over from scratch here. Nobody likes losing 3/4 of games, there’s nothing positive you can say about that. But what you can do is look at the opportunities that we actually blew last year. Call that a coaching problem, call it inexperience, call it whatever you like, but what you can’t call it is non competitive. There are plenty of reasons to be optimistic going into 2022, especially during ACC play.

 

[jacket_fan]

Point being: there are plenty of things to get better at, but it’s not like we’re starting over from scratch here. Nobody likes losing 3/4 of games, there’s nothing positive you can say about that. But what you can do is look at the opportunities that we actually blew last year. Call that a coaching problem, call it inexperience, call it whatever you like, but what you can’t call it is non competitive. There are plenty of reasons to be optimistic going into 2022, especially during ACC play.

I respect your optimism and recollection of the season last year.

As I read through your post, I thought what a damning comment on coaching. You detailed to me the reasons of discontent with this coaching staff. All phases of the game led to defeat, the offense, defense and special teams.

I agree that there is reason to believe Tech will be competitive this coming year. I am in the camp that believes the schedule is softer this year. Tech retains significant experience and some incoming linemen.

But to the eye, especially when watching live at the games, Tech did not look competitive across the lines of scrimmage. The offense, seemed to screw up after crossing the 50. The defense looked unprepared often at the snap and the defensive backfield was a mess. This gives the impression of not being competitive. Like the Tech basketball game that I went to last night. The players play hard and compete. But at crunch time they struggle to stay competitive.

 

[augustabuzz]

I respect your optimism and recollection of the season last year.

As I read through your post, I thought what a damning comment on coaching. You detailed to me the reasons of discontent with this coaching staff. All phases of the game led to defeat, the offense, defense and special teams.

I agree that there is reason to believe Tech will be competitive this coming year. I am in the camp that believes the schedule is softer this year. Tech retains significant experience and some incoming linemen.

But to the eye, especially when watching live at the games, Tech did not look competitive across the lines of scrimmage. The offense, seemed to screw up after crossing the 50. The defense looked unprepared often at the snap and the defensive backfield was a mess. This gives the impression of not being competitive. Like the Tech basketball game that I went to last night. The players play hard and compete. But at crunch time they struggle to stay competitive.

Comparatively speaking, we were a very young team. Those traits revealed by the two previous posters, screams immature (by the team, not the posters). The question is, will one more year help mitigate the lack of confidence. Good coaching will certainly help, but at some point the players have to make plays in critical moments.

 

[MikeGT]

We were competive in most games last year and that does give me some hope for next year but the monumental screw ups to lose those games certainly gives me pause. Then the ending of the year puts a huge damper on any enthusiasm. Yes, I guess maybe we didn’t lose as bad as Vandy, but if you have to say that, then what is your point? We suck but not quite as bad as Vandy and Duke? Whooo hoo.

 

[JacketOff2]

We were competive in most games last year and that does give me some hope for next year but the monumental screw ups to lose those games certainly gives me pause. Then the ending of the year puts a huge damper on any enthusiasm. Yes, I guess maybe we didn’t lose as bad as Vandy, but if you have to say that, then what is your point? We suck but not quite as bad as Vandy and Duke? Whooo hoo.

we played just as good as Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, and Michigan. Woooo hoooo! Bowl games, top 25’s, and CFP’s in our future! Vandy was not the only team on that list. I don’t know why there have been multiple people latch on to them. I only included them because they’re a P5 team. I should’ve also included Tennessee: who UGA was beating 41-10 at one point in the 4th. South Carolina: who UGA was beating 40-6 in the 4th. And Kentucky: who UGA was beating 30-7 in the 4th.

Getting blown out by UGA should not be the measuring stick of the season. Clemson, Kentucky, and Alabama were the only 3 teams who lost by less than 23 points. Those 3 teams combined to go 33-8. Here are UGA’s margins of victory: 27, 49, 7, 15, 23, 45, 49, 24, 37, 27, 17, 62, 37, 24. Could you pick the Tech game out of that lineup? Unless you remembered the final score probably not.

Now let’s look at margins of defeat for Tech’s games this year without the 3 NY6 teams: 1, 6, 8, 9, 3, 11. Compare that to Duke but leave out Pitt since they were a NY6 team: 3, 31, 4, 48, 38, 31, 40, 37. Both teams won 3 games and lost 9. One of them was competitive. The other wasn’t. Why are there so many people trying to find reasons to be negative when there’re still 9 months before the first game kicks off? If the program doesn’t turn around this season then I get it, but there’s been a pretty massive turnover in the coaching staff and players. There’s reason to believe things will be different this year.

 

[JacketFan137]

we played just as good as Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, and Michigan. Woooo hoooo! Bowl games, top 25’s, and CFP’s in our future! Vandy was not the only team on that list. I don’t know why there have been multiple people latch on to them. I only included them because they’re a P5 team. I should’ve also included Tennessee: who UGA was beating 41-10 at one point in the 4th. South Carolina: who UGA was beating 40-6 in the 4th. And Kentucky: who UGA was beating 30-7 in the 4th.

Getting blown out by UGA should not be the measuring stick of the season. Clemson, Kentucky, and Alabama were the only 3 teams who lost by less than 23 points. Those 3 teams combined to go 33-8. Here are UGA’s margins of victory: 27, 49, 7, 15, 23, 45, 49, 24, 37, 27, 17, 62, 37, 24. Could you pick the Tech game out of that lineup? Unless you remembered the final score probably not.

Now let’s look at margins of defeat for Tech’s games this year without the 3 NY6 teams: 1, 6, 8, 9, 3, 11. Compare that to Duke but leave out Pitt since they were a NY6 team: 3, 31, 4, 48, 38, 31, 40, 37. Both teams won 3 games and lost 9. One of them was competitive. The other wasn’t. Why are there so many people trying to find reasons to be negative when there’re still 9 months before the first game kicks off? If the program doesn’t turn around this season then I get it, but there’s been a pretty massive turnover in the coaching staff and players. There’s reason to believe things will be different this year.

this is my frustration with the fire collins thread and a lot of the negativity around here in general. what you’ve said is logical and a great point but it will immediately get dismissed because it’s basically f geoff collins around here and the second you say anything but fire collins all the responses are “geoff is that you” for the 500th time

these people don’t want to see the progress. i get that it’s not a lot and it certainly isn’t at the speed we want it to be but i think there are SOME things that are positive.

isn’t it just more fun to hope we’re better next season than to just sit here crying ALL day about how collins ran the program into the ground?

 

[WreckinGT]

we played just as good as Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, and Michigan. Woooo hoooo! Bowl games, top 25’s, and CFP’s in our future! Vandy was not the only team on that list. I don’t know why there have been multiple people latch on to them. I only included them because they’re a P5 team. I should’ve also included Tennessee: who UGA was beating 41-10 at one point in the 4th. South Carolina: who UGA was beating 40-6 in the 4th. And Kentucky: who UGA was beating 30-7 in the 4th.

Getting blown out by UGA should not be the measuring stick of the season. Clemson, Kentucky, and Alabama were the only 3 teams who lost by less than 23 points. Those 3 teams combined to go 33-8. Here are UGA’s margins of victory: 27, 49, 7, 15, 23, 45, 49, 24, 37, 27, 17, 62, 37, 24. Could you pick the Tech game out of that lineup? Unless you remembered the final score probably not.

Now let’s look at margins of defeat for Tech’s games this year without the 3 NY6 teams: 1, 6, 8, 9, 3, 11. Compare that to Duke but leave out Pitt since they were a NY6 team: 3, 31, 4, 48, 38, 31, 40, 37. Both teams won 3 games and lost 9. One of them was competitive. The other wasn’t. Why are there so many people trying to find reasons to be negative when there’re still 9 months before the first game kicks off? If the program doesn’t turn around this season then I get it, but there’s been a pretty massive turnover in the coaching staff and players. There’s reason to believe things will be different this year.

Some of these competitive games are a bit sugar coated though.

NIU - lost by 1. Should have won by alot.
Clemson - lost by 6. We were lucky enough to play them when they had no offense at all. Kennesaw State was better on offense against us then they were. Had we played them at the end of the season, little chance we get within three TDs.
UVA - Lost by 8, but if we are being honest with ourselves, it wasn't that close. Being down 21 with 4 minutes left in the game isn't really competitive.
Miami - Lost by 3 but we needed a boatload of help. They gave us 3 fumbles (one returned for a TD), two failed 4th down tries, a missed 40 yd field goal, and a returned two point conversion, and we still somehow lost to them.
VT, and BC were legitimate competitive games that we could have won.

For the NY6 opponents, Ill give you UGA. They killed everyone so its a hard measuring stick against them. Pitt and ND though? Aside from Duke and the cupcakes, Pitt was relatively close in nearly all of their games. Except ours. ND was a train wreck. In their first 7 games combined they were +55 in scoring. Against us alone they were also +55 in scoring. That was a game we actually could have been competitive in and we weren't even close.

 

[JacketOff2]

Some of these competitive games are a bit sugar coated though.

NIU - lost by 1. Should have won by alot.
Clemson - lost by 6. We were lucky enough to play them when they had no offense at all. Kennesaw State was better on offense against us then they were. Had we played them at the end of the season, little chance we get within three TDs.
UVA - Lost by 8, but if we are being honest with ourselves, it wasn't that close. Being down 21 with 4 minutes left in the game isn't really competitive.
Miami - Lost by 3 but we needed a boatload of help. They gave us 3 fumbles (one returned for a TD), two failed 4th down tries, a missed 40 yd field goal, and a returned two point conversion, and we still somehow lost to them.
VT, and BC were legitimate competitive games that we could have won.

For the NY6 opponents, Ill give you UGA. They killed everyone so its a hard measuring stick against them. Pitt and ND though? Aside from Duke and the cupcakes, Pitt was relatively close in nearly all of their games. Except ours. ND was a train wreck. In their first 7 games combined they were +55 in scoring. Against us alone they were also +55 in scoring. That was a game we actually could have been competitive in and we weren't even close.

I have an entire comment dedicated to the BC, UVA, and Miami games. All games in which we had a lead with a chance to extend, and multiple chances to prevent them from taking the lead. All 3 games where we had a >50% chance to win at some point during the game.

Pitt beat Tennessee on the road fairly handily, dominated the second and third best teams in the ACC (Clemson and Wake), and their only ACC loss was to Miami, who is still one of the most talented teams in the conference even if their record hasn’t shown it. Pitt certainly isn’t on ND or UGA’s level, but they were absolutely a top team in the country. Notre Dame finished the regular season 11-1 with their only loss to #2 Cincinnati, and should’ve finished the year 12-1 had they not blown their bowl game against OSU. We went to South Bend eliminated from bowl contention, with a backup QB and several other starters out. It was obvious the team was flat. Is 55-0 ridiculous? Sure, but is that all that different than the 45-14 they beat Stanford the very next week?

I just think it’s pretty dumb to look at those 3 games and say, “look how terrible we are. We suck. We’re never going to get any better.” Especially when in 2 of those games we played a backup QB who is most likely dropping down to the FCS level, when you can instead look at the other 6 games and say, “hey, there were plenty of opportunities to win at least some of those games. We didn’t play a complete game in any of them, and still had our shots. Let’s see what a revamped staff with some new faces in the lineup can do.” But that’s just me

 

[Ibeeballin]

You know it’s an biased agenda going on when you see KSU would’ve beat us later on in the season or Miami “gave” us those turnovers and not saying we forced those turnovers.