- Messages
- 10,037
- Location
- Oriental, NC
Syracuse is a decent team. But mierda can happen.
Too bad it couldn’t happen to Francine and Nardouchie on the same day.Syracuse is a decent team. But mierda can happen.
He threw a few bad balls in our game, one hit our DB in the head. Too bad our DBs mostly just watch the WR instead of the ball so they don't notice the ball is up for grabs.Another pick 6 by McCord. Why couldn’t he do that against us?
I enjoyed watching him melt on the sidelines last nightUh oh, Syracuse coach gonna remember this slight ...
This! We have so few INTs mainly due to them with their backs to the throw. Is that Brumfield, too?He threw a few bad balls in our game, one hit our DB in the head. Too bad our DBs mostly just watch the WR instead of the ball so they don't notice the ball is up for grabs.
The 3 Pick 6s were all by Linebackers playing zone defense very well. One was on a tipped ball. Their DBs and their coaching was not in the mix on those 3 plays.This! We have so few INTs mainly due to them with their backs to the throw. Is that Brumfield, too?
McCord lost any chance of post season awards last night. He looked like a Heisman against us and our pass rush.Pitt's pass rush was great. It was the difference in the game.
This.Pitt's pass rush was great. It was the difference in the game.
Many of McCord's throws looked like risky, or just bad, decisions given the coverage his receivers were getting last night. Perhaps he wasn't accustomed to the type of defense Pitt was fielding. Pitt's pass rush was definitely a factor, but even when he had time to throw, he was usually throwing into coverage.McCord lost any chance of post season awards last night. He looked like a Heisman against us and our pass rush.
I watched Eddie McAshan do it at BDS in 1972 against Rice. Also threw 5 td passes.How often does an FBS quarterback throw 5 interceptions? When was the last time?
I feel like they typically get yanked after #4, Surely it’s been years
Not even Cole Stoudt could pull those numbers!Three pick 6s in first half!!!
If I have a big lead (20-3 definitely) I'm probably not going to be aggressive with under two minutes left in the half - a turnover would be a brutal momentum change there. But if they get the ball first in the second half, then I'm thinking timeouts to get my defense dialed in too, not just to save time, because I wouldn't want to go from 20-0 to 20-14 without a legit possession in between.Can someone explain to me this time management situation? I'm seeing it a ton recently.
Your opponent has 1st and goal on the 5 and you have 3 timeouts. 2:00 to go and you're up 20-0. They run the ball on 1st down for no gain. Do you call a timeout at 1:55 or let your opponent run the clock down to 1:20 and hold onto the timeout? I feel like it's way easier to conserve time when you have the ball and can throw to the sidelines, spike it, or run hurry up whereas your opponent controls the clock when they have the ball. Maybe the idea is just to get into halftime up 20-3 or 20-7? It seems awfully conservative even to me and I'd consider myself a conservative football couch coach.
Exactly what could happen. You might be watching as well but the scoreline is now freshly 20-7 but it's a weird 20-7 in the sense that it's, for the most part, 2 evenly matched teams with Louisville shooting themselves in the foot multiple times. If they take the lead during the 3rd quarter, I wouldn't be super shocked and Boston College would probably regret wasting their extra possession of the 1st half at that point.If I have a big lead (20-3 definitely) I'm probably not going to be aggressive with under two minutes left in the half - a turnover would be a brutal momentum change there. But if they get the ball first in the second half, then I'm thinking timeouts to get my defense dialed in too, not just to save time, because I wouldn't want to go from 20-0 to 20-14 without a legit possession in between.
Your best tactical bet is to stop the clock in anticipation of getting the ball back in good field position. There's a better chance of something going right than going wrong. If you're just content to let them run the clock out, you're sitting on a lead with half a game to go.Can someone explain to me this time management situation? I'm seeing it a ton recently.
Your opponent has 1st and goal on the 5 and you have 3 timeouts. 2:00 to go and you're up 20-0. They run the ball on 1st down for no gain. Do you call a timeout at 1:55 or let your opponent run the clock down to 1:20 and hold onto the timeout? I feel like it's way easier to conserve time when you have the ball and can throw to the sidelines, spike it, or run hurry up whereas your opponent controls the clock when they have the ball. Maybe the idea is just to get into halftime up 20-3 or 20-7? It seems awfully conservative even to me and I'd consider myself a conservative football couch coach.