Playing Time for Jordan Yates

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Collins planned to redshirt Yates either way. Obviously, that's how it's played out, but I'm not talking hindsight. Lucas Johnson was coming back. In the worst case scenario that you're suggesting, we'd need both Graham and Johnson to go down permanently in the very next game in order for the redshirt to come into play.

To use the same logic you're presenting, they could run with Oliver one game or part of a game if necessary to preserve Yates redshirt in the doomsday scenario you offered. That doomsday hypothesis you're presenting seems so unlikely to me, which is why I'm not into blaming Collins on this one. To call this choking under pressure is almost exactly the opposite, imo. They followed the gameplan to win a game, one that would have been predetermined, and did not waver from it due to circumstance.

They knew they had a backstop of 3 more games to play him, which is only happening if convenient. Yates wasn't and isn't playing 4 meaningful games. He may not play a single meaningful game.

So kick the damn XP !!!

 

[cyclejacket]

No, because that leads one, or at least me, to conclude that Collins screwed up, and it cannot be explained away.

So what if he did? Do you get a notch in your belt every time he does? Tell us, besides hurting your fefe's, what have been the terrible consequences of this "screw up" by the coach?

 

[danny daniel]

I’m not sure why people would want to run a play with Tobias in that situation anyways. It would have been what. Over a month since he got any reps in as a qb? If Tobias fumbles the snap then people would be up in arms that it was foolish not to put in the person who gives us the best shot given they have actively been getting reps at QB when we have an additional 3 games he can play before burning a RS.

given everything that we could complain about this year. This is one I don’t get. This sounds like something you complain about if we are 9-0.

Have to strongly disagree. Inside the 5 yard line with just one play Tobias is the best choice because he is a threat side line to sideline, including running the option, a hand off, or a sort toss pass. I would hope to see him now at QB in the red zone where the D would have to spread out and attempt to cover everything. That is how CPJ had such a good red zone record. He could hit you with anything side line to sideline. Our other QBs/P'Node options are too limited, especially inside the 10 yard line.

 

[Ibeeballin]

Have to strongly disagree. Inside the 5 yard line with just one play Tobias is the best choice because he is a threat side line to sideline, including running the option, a hand off, or a sort toss pass. I would hope to see him now at QB in the red zone where the D would have to spread out and attempt to cover everything. That is how CPJ had such a good red zone record. He could hit you with anything side line to sideline. Our other QBs/P'Node options are too limited, especially inside the 10 yard line.

Again, what shown this season that he the best choice inside the 5?

 

[thebull35]

I am convinced that people just want to find a reason to hate on this regime....you people need to realize that the #2 at ANY POSITION is ONE PLAY AWAY FROM PLAYING....Get over it; Paul "Ain't Walking Through That Door"

 

[CuseJacket]

While it is interesting to hear different points of view on the play, the craziness to me is that this is seen as some sort of indictment. I just can't get there, especially with the redshirt discussion. And I can get there on some other coaching decisions this year.

Here's potentially something new, though I would be happy to be proven wrong that this was discussed already. Did the coaches know that our back-up QB was only going to play 1 play? Graham just went out with injury. Was it possible they didn't know the extent yet? You could argue what the right decision is still, but I'm not convinced it was pre-determined that Yates was only going to run that play then come out for the remainder of the game.

 

[CuseJacket]

So kick the damn XP !!!

This is a statement that I cannot reconcile that you and a few others have made. It seemed so obvious to me that going for the 2-point conversion was the right decision in order to maintain the best chance at winning the game.

• If we kicked the XP, we'd have been down 17, requiring us to have three more scoring drives in the 4th quarter to tie (7+7+3)
• Whereas converting the 2-point conversion, we'd have been down 16, which would have required two more scoring drives to tie (8+8)
• OR failing to convert the 2-point conversion would have required us to have 3 more scoring drives (7+8+3)

So if the difference in the missed 2-point conversion means we have to convert a 2-point conversion later, in order to catch up to the XP scenario, why would you choose to kick the XP? I would have assumed the coaches gave up on winning if they kicked the XP.

 

[danny daniel]

Again, what shown this season that he the best choice inside the 5?

Nonething. That is my issue. P'Node is not taking advantage of all his talent. TB has not forgotten how to run. Look at the Clemson game.

 

[danny daniel]

This is a statement that I cannot reconcile that you and a few others have made. It seemed so obvious to me that going for the 2-point conversion was the right decision in order to maintain the best chance at winning the game.

• If we kicked the XP, we'd have been down 17, requiring us to have three more scoring drives in the 4th quarter to tie (7+7+3)
• Whereas converting the 2-point conversion, we'd have been down 16, which would have required two more scoring drives to tie (8+8)
• OR failing to convert the 2-point conversion would have required us to have 3 more scoring drives (7+8+3)

So if the difference in the missed 2-point conversion means we have to convert a 2-point conversion later, in order to catch up to the XP scenario, why would you choose to kick the XP? I would have assumed the coaches gave up on winning if they kicked the XP.

As it turned out it made no real difference but the perception at the time was poor choice using Yates for only one play, not knowing what our future QB situation would be. It is no longer important.

 

[smokey_wasp]

Nonething. That is my issue. P'Node is not taking advantage of all his talent. TB has not forgotten how to run. Look at the Clemson game.

If you bring in Tobias, everyone knows it's a run. Just like when we would rotate Lucas in, everyone knew it was a pass. Graham and Yates are dual threats.

 

[7979]

While it is interesting to hear different points of view on the play, the craziness to me is that this is seen as some sort of indictment. I just can't get there, especially with the redshirt discussion. And I can get there on some other coaching decisions this year.

Here's potentially something new, though I would be happy to be proven wrong that this was discussed already. Did the coaches know that our back-up QB was only going to play 1 play? Graham just went out with injury. Was it possible they didn't know the extent yet? You could argue what the right decision is still, but I'm not convinced it was pre-determined that Yates was only going to run that play then come out for the remainder of the game.

You wrote, "...Did the coaches know that our back-up QB was only going to play 1 play? ..."
This a very fair point and one I had not considered.....OTOH, it is my opinion that TO gave us a better chance to get 3 yds than Yates...but how could I really know since he'd never been in a game..? Oh well....

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

I don’t think it matters. Our QB three years from now is probably not on the roster.

 

[BonafideJacket]

While it is interesting to hear different points of view on the play, the craziness to me is that this is seen as some sort of indictment. I just can't get there, especially with the redshirt discussion. And I can get there on some other coaching decisions this year.

Here's potentially something new, though I would be happy to be proven wrong that this was discussed already. Did the coaches know that our back-up QB was only going to play 1 play? Graham just went out with injury. Was it possible they didn't know the extent yet? You could argue what the right decision is still, but I'm not convinced it was pre-determined that Yates was only going to run that play then come out for the remainder of the game.

My thought on this is that Yates didn't have to play one play. Once the 2PT conversion failed, Tech was down 18 points with 10 minutes left in the game and was not going to score three more times. This was a perfect opportunity for Yates to get some PT once you'd popped the top on playing him.

 

[CuseJacket]

My thought on this is that Yates didn't have to play one play. Once the 2PT conversion failed, Tech was down 18 points with 10 minutes left in the game and was not going to score three more times. This was a perfect opportunity for Yates to get some PT once you'd popped the top on playing him.

Not going to argue with this. I think the challenge is what CDP outlined in his presser last week. Both Graham and Yates need lots of reps. Graham was still relatively new to being QB1, so I can see why they stuck with him once it was decided he could return to play.

 

[danny daniel]

If you bring in Tobias, everyone knows it's a run. Just like when we would rotate Lucas in, everyone knew it was a pass. Graham and Yates are dual threats.

Most times inside the 5 it should be a run, especially if not 4th down. CPJ had a great red zone record. Don't you think teams expected CPJ to run? You have to have run threat side line to side line (not just in the A gap). The field to cover passes gets very small if the O is on the 5. Percentages are with the run with talent like Oliver and Mason and Howard except maybe 4th and more than 3. Key is to have a quick hitting threat inside with sneak , dive, or QB follow either side in various holes, and the ability to pitch outside or rollout run/ pass option. My pick is Oliver for this role. Drop back passing from the gun with our QB talent and OL blocking is low percentage inside the 5.

 

[whitegoldsphinx]

Graham was still relatively new to being QB1, so I can see why they stuck with him once it was decided he could return to play.

Well, that and he played well enough to put us in position to win the game. He deserved the chance to finish it out. It was not the best time to give Yates playing time just to give him playing time.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

This is a statement that I cannot reconcile that you and a few others have made. It seemed so obvious to me that going for the 2-point conversion was the right decision in order to maintain the best chance at winning the game.

• If we kicked the XP, we'd have been down 17, requiring us to have three more scoring drives in the 4th quarter to tie (7+7+3)
• Whereas converting the 2-point conversion, we'd have been down 16, which would have required two more scoring drives to tie (8+8)
• OR failing to convert the 2-point conversion would have required us to have 3 more scoring drives (7+8+3)

So if the difference in the missed 2-point conversion means we have to convert a 2-point conversion later, in order to catch up to the XP scenario, why would you choose to kick the XP? I would have assumed the coaches gave up on winning if they kicked the XP.

Because you go with the "money" play. True, our kickers haven't been exactly stellar this year, but there was a far higher chance of making the kick than of getting the 2 points with a "cold" QB. You take what you can get when you can get it, unless it's absolutely necessary to do otherwise. In this case, in spite of requiring 3 scores later (which we ended up needing anyway), get the point, and take your chances on getting other opportunities. But if you're not going to kick, it sure seems to me that the sensible thing to do would have been to let Tobias run it, since he at least has in-game experience in short yardage situations, and he was definitely not "cold", having been on the field throughout the game. I had no problem going for 2 with Lucas, but to bring in a "cold" totally untested WB to run it just seems stupid to me.

 

[Skeptic]

So what if he did? Do you get a notch in your belt every time he does? Tell us, besides hurting your fefe's, what have been the terrible consequences of this "screw up" by the coach?

OK, my last word on this wheel of fortune that seems to keep turning: I don't personally care one way or the other. Graham should be his QB and that is not part of this argument. It is not the "harm" that was caused or not caused. It was a coaching decision, or non-decision, I don't know which, that sent a freshman QB in for one play and then buried him on the bench to work out any redshirt issues later. I don't think it broke his knee, to quote Jefferson, it just can't be explained. That is not a good sign. Now, on to what seems to be a resurgent VT. Dammit.

 

[GTJackets]

I'm just amazed that this is still an argument we're having. After Saturday it officially doesn't matter how much Yates played in the Duke game. It doesn't matter whether they should have kicked the PAT. It doesn't matter whether they should have used a different QB than Yates. It doesn't matter if they left Yates in for the rest of the game or went back to Graham. None of it matters since we have three games left and they can do whatever they choose to.

But our coaches weren't aware of that at the time the decision was made, so let the discussion continue...

Don't tell anyone but I occasionally make a quick decision under pressure that I regret later. I've had to ask myself "what were you thinking when you did that?" Sometimes I've had to work with it and see if I can work through it. Sometimes I've just had to hope for the best and deal with the consequences. Sometimes there are literally no consequences and life moves on. I'm ready to through this situation in that last bucket and look forward to attending the game this weekend.

 

[swarmer]

Nonething. That is my issue. P'Node is not taking advantage of all his talent. TB has not forgotten how to run. Look at the Clemson game.

Yes, to maximize the talent he has we’d be running a flexbone offense. We’re moving away from that for a reason.