forums

CMR Spotting GT 7 free points

For all the criticism Richt gets for vanilla playcalling, you would think more people would support risky decisions. GT was scoring nearly every drive. You can't assume GT wouldn't have scored after a typical kick off.
 
Advertisement
TheEye said:
For all the criticism Richt gets for vanilla playcalling, you would think more people would support risky decisions. GT was scoring nearly every drive. You can't assume GT wouldn't have scored after a typical kick off.
Click to expand...

A few things:

1. GT had 5 drives in the first half (that drive before the half, 1 play, where they downed it doesn't count). Miami stopped them on 3 of 5 of those drives. Holding GT without points on 60% of drives isn't good, per se, but it isn't "nearly every drive". Miami also stopped GT on the prior two drives before the half.

2. The decision itself to go onside is risky but at least make sure your players know what to do when something bad happens. They have to know it is a live ball.

3. You can't assume GT scores if we kick it off normally. Maybe they score 7 or 3 after a long drive, maybe our D stops them. It turns out our D stopped them on 7 of 10

4. I think the criticism with the playcalling is more than fair. I think it is clear the serious issues are on offense. The defense is NOT perfect. They have issues too. They're clearly doing a pretty good job and look at what they have done during ACC play (this year):

Duke

Points Allowed: 6
Yards Allowed: 349
Turnovers Forced: 2
Sacks: 6
Tackles For Loss: 11

FSU

Points Allowed: 20
Yards Allowed: 406
Turnovers Forced: 2
Sacks: 4
Tackles For Loss: 9

Georgia Tech

Points Allowed: 17 (that onside kick is not on the D)
Yards Allowed: 289 (Before today they averaged 479 YPG and 36.5 PPG)
Turnovers Forced: 0
Sacks: 2
Tackles For Loss: 7

So in ACC Play (so far) [Per Game Average]

Points Allowed: 14.34
Yards Allowed: 348
Turnovers Forced: 1.34
Sacks: 4
Tackles For Loss: 9


If you're only allowing less than 15 PPG and 350 YPG, it isn't hard to win games.
 
KevinCaneFace said:
Prime example of fans not being able to separate the call from execution. Worst case scenario should have been GT with good field position
Click to expand...

On a wet field ... at that time of the game.. coming out fresh from the half time, our D would have been fine to stop them... instead we give them a gift TD..
 
Advertisement
Dwinstitles said:
AdrianP said:
Dwinstitles said:
terrible call everyone knows we had the momentum and our d adjusted, it was a real dumb move
Click to expand...

Dumb
Click to expand...

almost cost us the game, they couldnt score anymore. That was a gift td and just an overall bad call, good thing it was a bonehead move now and one we wont revisit again
Click to expand...

Some of these dummies will stick up for Richt no matter how dumb the decision. He does questionable things at times, and its ok to say it was. We all love our coach but it's ok to say " wtf was that"?

That play was atrocious , especially with us having the momentum ending the half. That completely took the air out of the team and stadium. I'm just thankful it started pouring and we won the game .

But it was still idiotic.
 
Last edited:
That's a call you make when you're tying to GAIN momentum, not when you already have it.
If you're struggling to gain momentum and you convert that onside kick, it's huge. If you don't, you didn't lose anything.
But if you already have momentum and you don't convert, it's deflating. You just let them back into the game.

If that MF'er was more creative on offense then we wouldn't need gimmicks like onside kicks. We'd be up by 21.
 
Advertisement
I still haven't seen it as I was out of town but I am sure the logic goes, if we recover it he's a ******* genius, but since we didn't he the dumbest coach in America... It does take a sack to call that in that situation but it didn't work out.
 
I actually don't have a problem with the decision at all. If he thought it was there and we had a decent chance of recovering, sure, why not try to steal a possession from GT, annoying ball-hogs that they are? It's weird, because just before halftime ended, as I was milling about by one the stadium bars, I had the thought "hey....maybe we should try an onside kick and steal a possession from these guys."

If it had worked, most Canes fan would be crowning him as "a savage." Of course, Badge did not execute it well and it failed in the absolute worst way possible. Whatever. I won't go out of my way to criticize Richt too much for this. I'd rather my coach be a little too aggressive overall than a little too conservative.
 
No risk, no reward. He called it to steal a possession from them since they were eating clock. Move on. We won. Time for the Orange.
 
Advertisement
AdrianP said:
Lol everyone second guessing him are morans. That was a great decision. If you want to criticize the offense that's fair game. But the onside call was brilliant.
Click to expand...

We are a second half team and had the momentum on our side going into half. I dont hate the call, because it shows Richt has balls, but it wasnt a smart call at that point in the game
 
MiamiManiac said:
No issue w/ the call - a good kick and we're in position to recover.
Click to expand...

My issue with the call is that the field ate the ball due to being wet. Coaches should have known the ball may not bounce. If the ball bounces, Berrios recovers the ball as it bounces to him and everyone thinks the call is amazing!
 
Advertisement
loved the call. it was there. no doubt the staff had seen that on film.

clearly, we hadnt practiced what to do if something goes wrong well enough. so THAT fault can be placed on the staff. its hard to imagine berrios just all of a sudden becoming an idiot and forgetting what he was trained to do.
 
and LOL at saying it was a bad call because the field was wet. that variable is actually in our favor. a wet, bouncing football is much more difficult to hold onto. if anything, that made the call better not worse
 
DerekDohrman said:
and LOL at saying it was a bad call because the field was wet. that variable is actually in our favor. a wet, bouncing football is much more difficult to hold onto. if anything, that made the call better not worse
Click to expand...

Except that the ball hardly bounced. The water softens the turf, play some golf, so the ball didn't carry to Berrios. If the turf is dry, the ball gets to Berrios and is either Miami's or GT's at that spot. A wet ball is in our favor if he linedrive kicks it vs. loops it with very little speed.
 
I like taking chances. If you don't you won't ever get to where you need to be. That said. If you take a chance and don't succeed better make sure you can fix the damage with a back up plan. The staff took the chance. It didnt pan out. However, the staff also corrected some stuff on both sides of the ball in the second half and got the victory. As this team gets deeper and more mature good things will come. Hopefully we will see less and less mistakes.

I feel positive that we are headed in the right direction. There is less lingering doubt than in past years. More signs of improvement across the board.

Look at it this way. We are used to being on the other side of the "luck" in past years. Now things are starting to go our way again.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top