Two stops in a row while it was 24-22.

[takethepoints]

How many kickoffs did he have? iirc he reached the goal line on at least one. Not enough leg to kick 43 -45 fg?

Yeah, and I didn't mean to say that I didn't think Coach should have rolled the dice with a FG. I would have. The result of a miss is the same as not getting a first. But … he has to go with what his assistants tell him and an evaluation of the field conditions. It's a coin flip.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

If folks watch that post-game presser and you'll get a sense of how irked PJ is with the whole game overall, but when someone specifically asks about going for it on 4th down and not going for the FG in the first half he says, "The coach who coaches the kickers said he can't kick it that far."

That's pretty depressing.

I hope the hell he's irked. He is up against a coach that kicks his *** 8 out of ten times he plays him. Even changes school, still takes his lunch money and gives him a wedgie. Donates a touchdown, still beats us.

 

[AE 87]

OK, this thread has had some posts similar to comments made in Chat during and after the game.

Here is my opinion on coaching and team success.

1) It is incredibly stupid to blame every failure on offense and every failure on defense to the respective coordinators or the head coach. Sometimes players get out-played. Sometimes they make mistakes.

2) It is, on the other hand, reasonable to question or blame coaching when results are below expected standards over several games and especially several seasons. However, even this questioning and blaming should be able to point to particular issues that repeat.

3) It is, at least, understandable to question coaching when the other team defeats you on either offense or defense by alignment, especially in successive plays.

4) My reaction to the game: It was a team loss. The Defense played well enough that if the offense played close to the level we've come to expect, we should have won. To that extent, I agree the loss is probably more on our offense. However, it seemed to me that in the last drive of the first half (8+ yds/play), and the last drive of the game (10+ yds/play), our D was not playing as aggressively as it had when we were being successful. I did not see the same change in Offensive play calling.​

Take it for what it's worth.

 

[GTech63]

Another place to look is us not scoring a TD (settling for 3) when we're 1st and goal on the 6. Our offense is built for that. If I had one question about CPJ, it's that sometimes he seems to outsmart himself. Just run the option or the belly for 4 plays or put Matthew in and run QB follow for 4 plays. If we can't make it, we don't deserve to win. I think with our GCG, we can make that most of the time. I was also wishing we'd just run more option in general. When we ran option, we were getting enough to keep the chains moving in 3 plays. It seems like CPJ wants us to score on every play, and sometimes I appreciate that, but in a game like yesterday, just run your bread and butter, be satisfied with a 4 or 5 ypp average and move the chains. I was sitting there thinking, just be Navy right now. Execute and get our 4 ypp, no big negative plays, and we win.

And, I'll tell you something else. This is the game where Dedrick Mills cost us a top 15 ranking. A player like him moves the chains in weather like that, against a defense like that.

Why not Howard? Why was he not played?

"or put Matthew in and run QB follow for 4 plays". I thought there were several places Matt should have been tried. It seems we played to not have turn overs so the O was not as aggressive.

Also it seems that our 2nd half O has not been as effective in last two or three years of CPJ as it was the first two or three.

We still do not pass enough. Again playing no turn over conservative even when we were moving the ball first half.

But our guys played hard and I support them completely. IMHO Stewart didn't DROP the ball it was contested and he lost.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Just watched the game highlights, saw the "play" for the first time. I feel sick.

Question: how do we coach our db's? LS never turned his head back towards the ball yet he was on his man like a blanket. I mean the dude didn't have a shoe horn between him and his man. AJ just got there a hair too late, but L never played the ball. When the wr's eyes get as big as frisbees you got to know the ball is coming. Oh well, we're due big time in the karma department.

 

[takethepoints]

In order:

1. Because he's fumbled too much, the game conditions were terrible after Benson went out, Quaid had game experience (and did ok), and, #1 with a bullet, because we led the game until the last 4 seconds.

2. Agree. I'd have put Matt in down by the goal when we were at the 6.

3. Hard to tell. In our game with da U, I'd put this down to TM's lack of experience. He'll be a wonder by the Ugag game and next year the skies the limit. This year … well, that was his fifth start.

4. Given the game conditions, why pass in the second half? Again, we were ahead.

5. Yes, in triplicate. That guy had Brad covered like a blanket and he still almost caught the ball under absolutely awful conditions. It was the definition of a great effort.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

In order:



5. Yes, in triplicate. That guy had Brad covered like a blanket and he still almost caught the ball under absolutely awful conditions. It was the definition of a great effort.

In the game's two most crucial plays, Miami made great plays while our guys didn't make routine ones. On the 4th and 10 play, an average pass defense would have been all it took to knock that ball away considering how close LS was to the receiver. We did not need a spectacular play... they did and got one. We needed a routine play and didn't.

 

[Yaller Jacket]

It seemed to me we missed Benson's moving the pile, but the G C G combination wasn't opening holes against Miami like they were the other games. Plus the speed of the Miami defensive players quickly shut down plays even when there was a crease.

 

[AE 87]

It seemed to me we missed Benson's moving the pile, but the G C G combination wasn't opening holes against Miami like they were the other games. Plus the speed of the Miami defensive players quickly shut down plays even when there was a crease.

Yeah, I think these are related. I haven't watched it since seeing it live, but I suspect that their LB's and DB's were able to be quicker and more aggressive to the perimeter because QW wasn't the threat that KB was. I'm not sure that the blocking was that much worse, though it could have been, but that KB is just that step or two quicker and more elusive through the crease.

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

In the game's two most crucial plays, Miami made great plays while our guys didn't make routine ones. On the 4th and 10 play, an average pass defense would have been all it took to knock that ball away considering how close LS was to the receiver. We did not need a spectacular play... they did and got one. We needed a routine play and didn't.

I have said for many years,on defense we MUST have a guy to step up and make a play. At ( few) times they have, but most of the time it's death by a thousand cuts on defense....just a step slow, just a fingertip too short, can't get off that block quite fast enough. Our guys give great effort, but we just need more playmakers. When the game is on the line, they go above and beyond themselves. I think in many ways they reflect the personality of the DC , OR he needs to be on the sidelines roaming around and inspiring his troops , or both.

 

[Sideways]

It seemed to me we missed Benson's moving the pile, but the G C G combination wasn't opening holes against Miami like they were the other games. Plus the speed of the Miami defensive players quickly shut down plays even when there was a crease.

Miami's speed and athleticism in flying to the ball was a factor. That said, we should have been able to move them off the line of scrimmage better. We got whipped up front for much of the game especially in the second half. Losing Kirvonte hurt us badly on offense and losing Brant was equally devastating on defense. Those two players are, in my opinion, the two most improved players on the team from last year. Getting them back is critical moving forward.

 

[TampaBuzz]

From what I've seen from our FG kicker, plus the conditions they were playing in, i like our chances picking up a 1st down there than making a 43 yd fg.

At the time of that field goal, the rain had not started and the field was in good shape. That was toward end of 2nd quarter. Rain started halfway through 3rd. I am fully convinced that we should have kicked the ball. What a terrible message to send to your kickers - I don't trust you to make a 42 yard kick.

 

[JacketintheNati]

OK, this thread has had some posts similar to comments made in Chat during and after the game.

Here is my opinion on coaching and team success.

1) It is incredibly stupid to blame every failure on offense and every failure on defense to the respective coordinators or the head coach. Sometimes players get out-played. Sometimes they make mistakes.

2) It is, on the other hand, reasonable to question or blame coaching when results are below expected standards over several games and especially several seasons. However, even this questioning and blaming should be able to point to particular issues that repeat.

3) It is, at least, understandable to question coaching when the other team defeats you on either offense or defense by alignment, especially in successive plays.

4) My reaction to the game: It was a team loss. The Defense played well enough that if the offense played close to the level we've come to expect, we should have won. To that extent, I agree the loss is probably more on our offense. However, it seemed to me that in the last drive of the first half (8+ yds/play), and the last drive of the game (10+ yds/play), our D was not playing as aggressively as it had when we were being successful. I did not see the same change in Offensive play calling.​

Take it for what it's worth.

I would agree this point. We spend most the game playing to win and on the series before the end of 1st half and last series of the game the philosophy reverts back to playing not to lose. The Tech defense can be very good when playing aggressive and look very ordinary when playing not to lose - it looks very timid and always seems to cost us. Our players are better than that and deserve to remain on the attack. Just my 2 cents.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[SteamWhistle]

#JustSaying

 

[dressedcheeseside]

#JustSaying

Now we face the meat (or the meat grinder) of the schedule (after Wake). I suspect this ranking stands a fair chance of dropping a wee bit.

 

[takethepoints]

It seemed to me we missed Benson's moving the pile, but the G C G combination wasn't opening holes against Miami like they were the other games. Plus the speed of the Miami defensive players quickly shut down plays even when there was a crease.

I think this was due to their DC deciding to sell out to stop the dive. They had obviously decided to stop TM and Benson from beating them. They looked faster because they were stunting and using the LBs to backfill. We burned them continuously in the first half for that. Problem = once the rain started (I was wondering where Noah and the Ark were myself), the whole speed game to the outside became more chancy and we ran inside most of the time. That is what the game situation dictated - being ahead and bad field conditions meant no passing to speak of and little outside. Also, until their last series, the D was playing pretty well.

This points to a problem with our O and it is one of the few: it isn't a wet field offense against a solid opponent. I've noticed this down the years. True, like Coach always says, rain affects both teams. But I think it causes us more trouble, especially when a team sets up to stop the inside game. With Benson out - he was averaging 5 YPG - we lost the BB push we needed as the field deteriorated. Quaid did ok and on a dry field would have done even better, but he doesn't have Benson's drive. That's why I think losing Benson meant, in the long run, losing the game. But not until the last 4 seconds. We played pretty well down there.