Yaller Jacket
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 979
I agree with Stech's point about the rain. We were totally punchless the whole time it was raining, while for Miami it was business as usual. This game had multiple awful factors.
Can u please justify not even moving around pre snap. Here's another pic. ROOF to MR its ok to have a Flats pass to either side- no risk, go out of bounds, stop clock, get dry ball = get 6 plus yrs in 6 seconds . I am counting on your guys to screw up under no pressure.Remember it's the job of the coaches to put his players in position to make plays, not make them for them. LS and AJG were in perfect position to make a play on 4th down, they just didn't make it.
We have to keep in mind that football is a team game. The object is to score more points than your opponent. That job is done by both scoring and limiting your opponent's score. If we do either job just a hair better we win.
Losing sucks. Losing by a hair sucks worse. Losing by a hair twice, really sucks.
Remember it's the job of the coaches to put his players in position to make plays, not make them for them. LS and AJG were in perfect position to make a play on 4th down, they just didn't make it.
We have to keep in mind that football is a team game. The object is to score more points than your opponent. That job is done by both scoring and limiting your opponent's score. If we do either job just a hair better we win.
Losing sucks. Losing by a hair sucks worse. Losing by a hair twice, really sucks.
Remember it's the job of the coaches to put his players in position to make plays, not make them for them. LS and AJG were in perfect position to make a play on 4th down, they just didn't make it.
We have to keep in mind that football is a team game. The object is to score more points than your opponent. That job is done by both scoring and limiting your opponent's score. If we do either job just a hair better we win.
Losing sucks. Losing by a hair sucks worse. Losing by a hair twice, really sucks.
Yes I agree. And defensively Brant Mitchell being hurt and Lawrence Austin cramping didn't help.I think the bigger factor was losing Kirvonte.
I was thinking the same. Sure that many others did too.I remember seeing this and begging someone to make him stop before he became a meme ...
... too late. Dang internets.
It is if the play you're trying to make is not give up the big play because our db's can't run with their receivers and we only have one deep safety. Obviously, it didn't work so it's a bad plan.To your point, when they're dumping off those bubble screens, having our DBs this far back is NOT putting our players in position to make the play. That's the point.
There are so many factors besides the talent factor that had a big impact in this game. Losing Kirvante and Brant were hugely (bigly?) impactful. The rain was as well. I think we win this on a dry field, I really do.I had to stay away for a couple of days due to disgust. Please understand, I am not naming names because I am not trying to scapegoat or blame players. And yes, I know there are any number of plays throughout a game that could change it. But I thought two plays illustrated why you can not just recruit 'eager guys who are team players', and you need to land some 4 star talent, even if you have to kiss their arse or bend the truth a little to get them to sign: on one play, a DB made a play and a receiver had great effort but could not overcome it; on the other play two dbs were there, but a receiver overcame them and made a play. It's not luck, IMO. I think folks will know the plays at a crucial time I'm talking about. 4 star caliber athletes make those plays, even if they've loafed and had a rotten attitude the rest of the game ("We talkin' bout practice?" says Allen Iverson). There's got to be a way to upgrade talent without ruining the locker room because, apparently, we can't overcome the Miamis of the world until that happens.
I had to stay away for a couple of days due to disgust. Please understand, I am not naming names because I am not trying to scapegoat or blame players. And yes, I know there are any number of plays throughout a game that could change it. But I thought two plays illustrated why you can not just recruit 'eager guys who are team players', and you need to land some 4 star talent, even if you have to kiss their arse or bend the truth a little to get them to sign: on one play, a DB made a play and a receiver had great effort but could not overcome it; on the other play two dbs were there, but a receiver overcame them and made a play. It's not luck, IMO. On both plays, all players involved appeared to be in the right position. I think folks will know the plays at a crucial time I'm talking about. 4 star caliber athletes make those plays, even if they've loafed and had a rotten attitude the rest of the game ("We talkin' bout practice?" says Allen Iverson). There's got to be a way to upgrade talent without ruining the locker room because, apparently, we can't overcome the Miamis of the world until that happens.
How was it different, exactly? TM said post game it didn't change nor did Miami's scheme.Don't get me wrong by what I am about to say; I am a BIG Johnson supporter. But IMO his play calling in the second half Saturday was terrible. I think he believed that the rain would affect our play so much that he didn't want to take any chances. Up to a point, I can agree with that, but you still need to move the chains. I actually think I would rather us have been behind earlier, because then he would have played to win and not played not to lose.
You saw the game and you didn't see a difference? Running Quaide 5 times up the middle for a total gain of 15 yards is one glaring difference. Where was Howard? Playing it safe because of questionable ball security, I assume. Other things I might point out would probably be met with "that was because of the rain." But, as I said in my original post, if we had been behind, the rain wouldn't have mattered.How was it different, exactly? TM said post game it didn't change nor did Miami's scheme.
I didn't see the game, but I did see this:You saw the game and you didn't see a difference? Running Quaide 5 times up the middle for a total gain of 15 yards is one glaring difference. Where was Howard? Playing it safe because of questionable ball security, I assume. Other things I might point out would probably be met with "that was because of the rain." But, as I said in my original post, if we had been behind, the rain wouldn't have mattered.
I didn't see the game, but I did see this:
As far as the runs with Quaide go, they may have been TM reading the the DE and giving based on the read, I dunno. Maybe we weren't getting to the Mike at all by then and coach thought it was futile to go to the edge or maybe he just played it safe.
Sometimes you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. *I added to my post above, not sure if you saw that part.Your last line says it all: "he played it safe." In other words he played not to lose. And yet we lost.