forums

Real Talk...

Loose Cannon said:
Our tailbacks ran the ball for 16 yards against Pitt. Show me a team that won a game with 16 yards rushing before you start blabbing about how we would have still lost behind Bama's O-line.

Good teams have tough games. Good and even great QBs are bound to have about a game on average every season where they stink it up. The difference in winning and losing in those tough games is almost always the ability to just line up, pound the rock, and grind out an ugly win.
Click to expand...
I was 10 rows up on the 50 yard line for that game. Rosier couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn. He missed Thomas on multiple big throws. He couldn’t even complete a quick screen that game. He had nothing on his throws whatsoever. Even the TD to Richards was a bad throw. Their were essentially 9 guys in the box and they played press the whole time.
So genius, I’m not sure how long you’ve been watching football but when you can’t even complete a quick screen, an aggressive D like Pitt is going to load the box and dare you to beat them deep. Rosier wasn’t up to the task that day or any of the last 5 games. He’s the sole reason we lost to Pitt.
 
Advertisement
BigDikCane said:
If Herndon and Richards didn't go down early... We would've won the Chip easy.
Click to expand...

Gotta take off the orange and green glasses here man. Our Oline, QB, and depth is not on that level yet. The best of the best can absorb those injuries and still win.
 
I'm a die hard Cane to the core, but we still would've lost to Clemson, they were just a better team. We should have beat Pitt no matter what. Period. Wisconsin was pretty much a even match up, we got out disciplined.
 
Sabetta said:
I was 10 rows up on the 50 yard line for that game. Rosier couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn. He missed Thomas on multiple big throws. He couldn’t even complete a quick screen that game. He had nothing on his throws whatsoever. Even the TD to Richards was a bad throw. Their were essentially 9 guys in the box and they played press the whole time.
So genius, I’m not sure how long you’ve been watching football but when you can’t even complete a quick screen, an aggressive D like Pitt is going to load the box and dare you to beat them deep. Rosier wasn’t up to the task that day or any of the last 5 games. He’s the sole reason we lost to Pitt.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t matter where you were or how close you were if you don’t remember it correctly. You can blame him alone if you want, that’s your prerogative but it doesn’t make it true. 6 guys in the box for most of the game and you’re claiming 9? Don’t know where the **** you pulled that fiction from.
 
Advertisement
Umbra said:
Gotta take off the orange and green glasses here man. Our Oline, QB, and depth is not on that level yet. The best of the best can absorb those injuries and still win.
Click to expand...

Our defense is not championship level either. Bryant had a field day against us and they were scoring at will until they took their foot off the gas.
 
IF...IF...IF my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. Live in the present, my man. It's all we got.
 
Sabetta said:
I was 10 rows up on the 50 yard line for that game. Rosier couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn. He missed Thomas on multiple big throws. He couldn’t even complete a quick screen that game. He had nothing on his throws whatsoever. Even the TD to Richards was a bad throw. Their were essentially 9 guys in the box and they played press the whole time.
So genius, I’m not sure how long you’ve been watching football but when you can’t even complete a quick screen, an aggressive D like Pitt is going to load the box and dare you to beat them deep. Rosier wasn’t up to the task that day or any of the last 5 games. He’s the sole reason we lost to Pitt.
Click to expand...


They played Cover 4/Quarters all game. 7 players in shallow zone coverage to take away quick passes and force Rosier to make accurate throws in tight zones or over the top.

I’ve done several play by play breakdowns of that game. Pitt never loaded the box not one down that entire game. They only blitzed a hand full of times, and on those plays they only sent 5 except one play; they sent 6 on a 3rd and 1. The safeties mainly played between 8-11 yards off LOS, and the only times they were closer was when they were playing press over the slot.

They were never “in the box.” Pitt held our running backs to 16 yards with their front four and got multiple sacks on Rosier without bringing any pressure.

That’s not giving Rosier a pass for not being able to hit several passes that were there for the taking. It’s simply stating the facts. Pitt went from around the 60th run defense to the 40th—a 20 spot improvement—just by playing us. That’s pathetic and embarrassing. Rosier has a bad game for an already below average QB, but our run game was down right horrible.
 
Advertisement
Liberty City El said:
I look forward to the day there aren't always a laundry list of excuses to explain away the team underperforming when it counts the most.
Click to expand...
Amen. In 2001, Dorsey had 3 games in which he completed less than 50%, Boston College, FSU, and ****** Tech. Nobody remembers those games for Dorsey playing uncharacteristically poor because we won.
 
Loose Cannon said:
Amen. In 2001, Dorsey had 3 games in which he completed less than 50%, Boston College, FSU, and ****** Tech. Nobody remembers those games for Dorsey playing uncharacteristically poor because we won.
Click to expand...

Yep, I remember those games, he threw 4 picks against Boston College, our defense kept us in that game and essentially won the game. But like you said no one remembers how bad he played because we won.
 
Advertisement
g8rh8rMD said:
Trajan Bandy went out in the first quarter. That completely changed the game. I don't know why more Canes fans don't recognize that.
Click to expand...

I disagree we bailed out and played soft zone coverage on the first drive while Bandy was still in the game. I remember seeing that on their first 3rd down conversion and was immediately frustrated

Edit: That's also the conversion Bandy got hurt on, I believe it was apart of the scheme with or without Bandy
 
dukebeeasy305 said:
I disagree we bailed out and played soft zone coverage on the first drive while Bandy was still in the game. I remember seeing that on their first 3rd down conversion and was immediately frustrated

Edit: That's also the conversion Bandy got hurt on, I believe it was apart of the scheme with or without Bandy
Click to expand...

Ok. Agree to disagree. Not saying the result would have been different, but IIRC, the game was like 7-3 and we’d taken the ball away like twice when we lost Bandy. We had no one else to put there and from then on our d was like **** through a tin horn. From where I sat, that injury mattered.
 
Advertisement
We could have had Jerry Rice, Randy Moss and Jeremy Shockey and we’d still lose to Pitt with Rosier playing so badly. Skill position talent means little if the QB can’t get them the ball.
 
ThomasM said:
We could have had Jerry Rice, Randy Moss and Jeremy Shockey and we’d still lose to Pitt with Rosier playing so badly. Skill position talent means little if the QB can’t get them the ball.
Click to expand...
Both Richards and Thomas dropped a catchable ball on Miami’s first possession, Thomas’s would have gone for 6.

How different could that game have been had we scored within the first 3 minutes.
 
g8rh8rMD said:
Ok. Agree to disagree. Not saying the result would have been different, but IIRC, the game was like 7-3 and we’d taken the ball away like twice when we lost Bandy. We had no one else to put there and from then on our d was like **** through a tin horn. From where I sat, that injury mattered.
Click to expand...
2 reasons to play zone against Clemson:

1. They have a young and unproven QB. Zone causes a QB to read, reading takes time, time allows pressure, pressure bursts pipes. The objective is to give time for the pass rush to get home by making the QB take extra time.

2. Kelly Bryant is a better runner than a passer. Zone keeps the play in front of the secondary in case the QB runs. In Man, the DBs are occupied and likely have their backs turned to the QB.

There was nothing wrong with the defensive “scheme” against Clemson. Our defensive execution was ****, though.
 
g8rh8rMD said:
Ok. Agree to disagree. Not saying the result would have been different, but IIRC, the game was like 7-3 and we’d taken the ball away like twice when we lost Bandy. We had no one else to put there and from then on our d was like **** through a tin horn. From where I sat, that injury mattered.
Click to expand...

Nah it was zip zip when where lost Bandy literally the first conversion on third down Clemson had on their first drive and we played a soft zone
 
Advertisement
Back
Top