Andrew Thacker

[85Escape]

Yes, Abanikanda is not a good RB. You figured it out.

I never said that. I said... why do you think him being in the game would have meant GT lost? There is no objective evidence for that in our game. Did he run on VT? Yup. Did that mean he would have run on us? Not necessarily...and while he was in the game he wasn't particularly effective.

To say unequivocally that "We would have lost if he had stayed in the game" is a stretch, to say the least. And besides, if we are playing woulda-coulda-shoulda then would say "But if X was playing we would have won anyway." <Nice Eye Roll>

 

[CEB]

It seems like some folks are indeed saying it, even if you aren't.

I have more questions then though. Are folks suggesting he was hurt? Or was Pitt doing us a favor by sitting the best offensive player in the league? Or maybe we just did a good job defensively maybe and whatever difference he would've made was muted?

I thought I remembered Abanikanda coming off gimpy in the 2nd...
I also thought it was surprising how little Pitt tried to run it early.. before he was pulled. Our Pitt scout / consultant was priming us for a boring grind in the first half because Pitt was going to run it, whether they were successful or beat their head against a wall trying it. It was a boring grind because they threw a lot (unsuccessfully) and found themselves behind the chains and had to throw some more.

 

[WreckinGT]

I never said that. I said... why do you think him being in the game would have meant GT lost? There is no objective evidence for that in our game. Did he run on VT? Yup. Did that mean he would have run on us? Not necessarily...and while he was in the game he wasn't particularly effective.

To say unequivocally that "We would have lost if he had stayed in the game" is a stretch, to say the least. And besides, if we are playing woulda-coulda-shoulda then would say "But if X was playing we would have won anyway." <Nice Eye Roll>

I didn't say anything about it affecting the outcome of the game. You said that you thought it wasn't good for us that Abanakanda got hurt because his backup was better than him. Ill just say I disagree with that, keeping in mind that the backup had 3 yards rushing this past weekend while Abanakanda had 320.

 

[takethepoints]

They did have him (until they didn't) and he was ineffective. Davis was much more effective against us.

Well … since he came out early I don't think we can make this inference. Could be true, but, imho, it isn't. We'll never know. Until next year, that is. Btw, I didn't say they didn't have him at all; I knew he played.

Of course, even Abanikanda might not have helped overcome 4 turnovers. That's why we won.

 

[yeti92]

I didn't say anything about it affecting the outcome of the game. You said that you thought it wasn't good for us that Abanakanda got hurt because his backup was better than him. Ill just say I disagree with that, keeping in mind that the backup had 3 yards rushing this past weekend while Abanakanda had 320.

The backup also only got 4 carries against VT, Abanikanda got 36. Now, I didn't watch their game, and maybe you did, but trying to draw these kind of conclusions off of 4 carries seems silly.

Looking at the play by play - Abanikanda's first 3 carries were for -3 yards, -1 yard, and no gain. His 4th carry was for 2 yards, giving him a grand total of -2 yards in 4 carries. His 5th carry went for 1 yard. And he had numerous other carries for 2,1,0, or negative yardage throughout the game. He just got a ton of opportunities and was able to get some running room several times to take it to the house.

Davis in his 4 carries ran for -1, 2, 3, -1 yds.

 

[WreckinGT]

The backup also only got 4 carries against VT, Abanikanda got 36. Now, I didn't watch their game, and maybe you did, but trying to draw these kind of conclusions off of 4 carries seems silly.

Looking at the play by play - Abanikanda's first 3 carries were for -3 yards, -1 yard, and no gain. His 4th carry was for 2 yards, giving him a grand total of -2 yards in 4 carries. His 5th carry went for 1 yard. And he had numerous other carries for 2,1,0, or negative yardage throughout the game. He just got a ton of opportunities and was able to get some running room several times to take it to the house.

Davis in his 4 carries ran for -1, 2, 3, -1 yds.

Abanikanda is 2nd in the country in rushing yards, 1st in rushing TDs, 5th in rushing yards per game. If his backup is better than him then congrats to Pitt, they have the best rushing attack since the 1987 Oklahoma State squad.

 

[yeti92]

Abanikanda is 2nd in the country in rushing yards, 1st in rushing TDs, 5th in rushing yards per game. If his backup is better than him then congrats to Pitt, they have the best rushing attack since the 1987 Oklahoma State squad.

And if he is getting 36 attempts per game that's not too surprising. Remember, Tech used to often lead the country in rushing - because we ran the ball far more than anyone else, not because our running backs were super amazing.

 

[WreckinGT]

And if he is getting 36 attempts per game that's not too surprising. Remember, Tech used to often lead the country in rushing - because we ran the ball far more than anyone else, not because our running backs were super amazing.

He's getting around 21.5 carries per game and is averaging around 6.4 ypc. He was the national offensive player of the week last week. He's a good RB. It's ok to acknowledge that.

 

[yeti92]

He's getting around 21.5 carries per game and is averaging around 6.4 ypc. He was the national offensive player of the week last week. He's a good RB. It's ok to acknowledge that.

Good for him, but that in no way validate's takethepoint's claim that our defense would have looked like it did against Ole Miss had he played the whole game, which is what everyone is pushing back against. I don't think anyone is arguing that he's not good, or not better than their backup, he's just not THAT much better than their backup.

 

[kg01]

Good for him, but that in no way validate's takethepoint's claim that our defense would have looked like it did against Ole Miss had he played the whole game, which is what everyone is pushing back against. I don't think anyone is arguing that he's not good, or not better than their backup, he's just not THAT much better than their backup.

We must have the best defense in the world that we were able to contain this Thanos ... er .. this Pitt RB I keep hearing a out.

 

[roadkill]

Good for him, but that in no way validate's takethepoint's claim that our defense would have looked like it did against Ole Miss had he played the whole game, which is what everyone is pushing back against. I don't think anyone is arguing that he's not good, or not better than their backup, he's just not THAT much better than their backup.

Indeed, and per the box score we held him to 3.1 yards/carry in 10 carries, which is enough to start getting some statistical validity. Not sure what evidence there was in our game that would lead one to conclude we would have fared significantly worse if he had stayed in.

 

[UgaBlows]

Indeed, and per the box score we held him to 3.1 yards/carry in 10 carries, which is enough to start getting some statistical validity. Not sure what evidence there was in our game that would lead one to conclude we would have fared significantly worse if he had stayed in.

And Davis came in and got several big runs whereas Bo Jackson clone got exactly jack

 

[CheCha54]

Just look at the kicking situation. CGC comes in and immediately benches the CPJ kicker who was automatic in 2018. Nobody hardly makes a kick and then Key comes in and makes the place kicker Stewart and he hasn't missed yet. It is the small stuff that CGC did that ruined this team. We all know he is a competent coach just looking at his assistant track record but he is not fit to be a head man in a major conference.

Some people are great at what they do as long as there is someone to protect them from themselves.

 

[WreckinGT]

Indeed, and per the box score we held him to 3.1 yards/carry in 10 carries, which is enough to start getting some statistical validity. Not sure what evidence there was in our game that would lead one to conclude we would have fared significantly worse if he had stayed in.

Just curious. Did you think there was any evidence that Hall might have a good game in the Pitt game after 10 carries?

 

[WreckinGT]

We must have the best defense in the world that we were able to contain this Thanos ... er .. this Pitt RB I keep hearing a out.

I honestly like your posts and thought you were better than this. Such a shame.

 

[wrmathis]

He only had two attempts in the 1st quarter.

	CAR	YDS	AVG	TD	LONG
Vincent Davis	15	80	5.3	0	11
Israel Abanikanda	10	31	3.1	0	12

seems like Abanikanda wasnt much of a factor after 10 carries

 

[roadkill]

Just curious. Did you think there was any evidence that Hall might have a good game in the Pitt game after 10 carries?

Yes. And Abanikanda had a few nice runs. But nothing to indicate we dodged a bullet when he went out.

 

[kg01]

I honestly like your posts and thought you were better than this. Such a shame.

Oh stahhp. No one's saying the guy's not really good. I just don't think the defensive effort in that game should be totally discounted.

We don't know why he didn't play more that day. It's not totally out of the question to suggest our defense was effective against him/them.

He could've been hurt for all we know. At this point, it doesn't matter. But I don't think it's fair to assume we would've seen a repeat of the Ole Miss performance "if he played" because ... he did in fact play. And he didn't seem as effective as the stats would suggest he should've been.

I think that's all fair.

 

[WreckinGT]

	CAR	YDS	AVG	TD	LONG
Vincent Davis	15	80	5.3	0	11
Israel Abanikanda	10	31	3.1	0	12

seems like Abanikanda wasnt much of a factor after 10 carries

He started the VT game with 7 rushes for 14 yards. He wasn’t much of a factor there either.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Well … since he came out early I don't think we can make this inference. Could be true, but, imho, it isn't. We'll never know. Until next year, that is. Btw, I didn't say they didn't have him at all; I knew he played.

Of course, even Abanikanda might not have helped overcome 4 turnovers. That's why we won.

This is a silly argument. We can only go by the data in front of us. He was having an ineffective game. He could have gotten better, but, as engineers, we're taught to evaluate based on the evidence in front of us, not speculation. Your evidence was his book to date, mine was his performance during the game. One does not necessarily trump the other, so...who knows. We won because we scored more points that they did. In addition to the turnovers, we dominated their offense. Don't think you can just point to turnovers as the reason we won.