forums

The defining "We Back" game

Your back when you aren't losing at home to UNC and UVA teams that finish 6-6. Got 7-0 at home and win the road and neutral site games you are supposed too. And if you lose a close game in the championship to Clemson or a neutral site to a top 5 team by 7 or less you good.
 
Advertisement
Trav said:
No we weren't. We were still young on defense and OL. We had elite playmakers on offense but we were still finding our way. Reed and Buchanan and Rumph were still just proto versions of what they'd become. There's no way you can tell me Dorsey leads that team to a championship. They were on their way, but not there yet, Kelly's erratic play notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

Agree. 1999 was close, but not there—as proven by the way some of those games went. Team grew up fast after that 2000 road loss to Washington—as well as when a second half lead slipped away against Florida State. Once the Canes got that Noles monkey off their back. they came alive.

****, CBS announcers were even referring to Jeremy Shockey as Ivan Mercer on that final game-winning drive, had Shock hadn't become a household name yet and replaced Mercer late in the contest—again, Canes literally growing up in real time on October 7th, 2000 and breaking that five-game losing streak. It was ON after that moment.
 
ThomasM said:
Kelly was the reason we lost to PSU and ECU, and nearly lost several other games. He was terrible. Then Dorsey comes in and starts three games at the end of the year, breaking team scoring records, and people say, "Yeah, but he did it against scubs!" True, but had Kelly played those games we don't do anywhere near the damage we did with Dorsey.

Kelly played well against FSU, and Dorsey wouldn't have beaten them or VT in 99. Every other game, Dorsey would have been the better QB. Remember the BC game where Kelly couldn't hit the broad side of a barn for nearly 3 whole quarters? He got semi hot at the end of the game, but man was that ever a brutal performance until he did.

The QB position is far and away the most important on the team. If your QB sucks, your team is going to struggle. If your team is loaded, all you need is a QB that doesn't suck. That was us in 99. We were loaded, but our QB was terrible, and it cost us.
Click to expand...

This is true.

That 1999 team had so much talent at every single level of it. Damione Lewis on D line, Webster and Morgan who were a complete joke together, holy ****. Reed, Rumph and Blades (eh) on the backend. Jaquin and Bibla, Wayne and Moss, Franks. Jackson, although not as talented as the running backs he was bookended by before and after was an NFL back.

But no QB, no cigar.
 
ItsAUThing.com said:
Well put.

I'm shocked how many cite that Notre Dame game in 2017 as anything more than what it really was. The Irish are always overrated, play nobody and they were the perfect mark for that night game at that point of the year.

That entire 2017 season was a fugazi, for any who had the wherewithal to break down each game instead of focusing on that 10-0 overall record—which wound up 10-3, just as easily as 10-0 could've been 6-4.

Needed a last-gasp miracle to survive an eventual 7-6 Florida State team.

Needed a 4th-and-10 grab to set up a game-winning kick again an eventual 5-6 Georgia Tech squad.

Needed late score to put away eventual 4-8 Syracuse.

Needed late fumble recovery to escape a 1-7 North Carolina squad that finished 3-9.

Canes caught two well-timed home night games back-to-back—pulling away from Hokies late and then riding GameDay high into crushing Irish. Following week, two separate 14-point holes dug against Virginia squad that finished 6-7.

Choked away first undefeated regular season since 2002 when losing to a then 4-7 Pittsburgh team that was playing for pride, as bowl eligibility wasn't even an option—en route to a 10-1 season.

The Canes were nowhere near *back* in 2017—proven by Clemson kicking ****s in 38-3 and Wisconsin with a double-digit win after Miami blew an early 14-3 lead (outscored 31-10 from that point.)



As for the BACK question; when Miami's two-deep is loaded and this team passes the eye and roster test, the Canes will be back—as the ACC is ripe for the taking and it'll soon be UM's when there is talent spread across the roster and not just at certain positions—not to mention quality coaches who ensure the Canes don't roll into Tallahassee, with eight first quarter penalties or a 4th-and-14 brain fart that costs Miami a game against a bunch of losers that had won six games in two years, so jazzed by this sad win their quarterback made t-shirts and sold them on his website #4thAnd14.
Click to expand...
I would counter some of that. Our greatest teams ever had some nail-biter wins against meh teams. Even in 2001 we needed Mike Rumph's knee to survive a mediocre BC team and an Ernest Wilford drop to survive an okay VT team. Close wins are wins. In 2017 we ran out of gas and our mediocre QB regressed to the norm at just the wrong time simultaneous with getting crushed with injuries. Was still a very good team and fun year but they overperformed really.
 
Advertisement
ItsAUThing.com said:
Well put.

I'm shocked how many cite that Notre Dame game in 2017 as anything more than what it really was. The Irish are always overrated, play nobody and they were the perfect mark for that night game at that point of the year.

That entire 2017 season was a fugazi, for any who had the wherewithal to break down each game instead of focusing on that 10-0 overall record—which wound up 10-3, just as easily as 10-0 could've been 6-4.

Needed a last-gasp miracle to survive an eventual 7-6 Florida State team.

Needed a 4th-and-10 grab to set up a game-winning kick again an eventual 5-6 Georgia Tech squad.

Needed late score to put away eventual 4-8 Syracuse.

Needed late fumble recovery to escape a 1-7 North Carolina squad that finished 3-9.

Canes caught two well-timed home night games back-to-back—pulling away from Hokies late and then riding GameDay high into crushing Irish. Following week, two separate 14-point holes dug against Virginia squad that finished 6-7.

Choked away first undefeated regular season since 2002 when losing to a then 4-7 Pittsburgh team that was playing for pride, as bowl eligibility wasn't even an option—en route to a 10-1 season.

The Canes were nowhere near *back* in 2017—proven by Clemson kicking ****s in 38-3 and Wisconsin with a double-digit win after Miami blew an early 14-3 lead (outscored 31-10 from that point.)



As for the BACK question; when Miami's two-deep is loaded and this team passes the eye and roster test, the Canes will be back—as the ACC is ripe for the taking and it'll soon be UM's when there is talent spread across the roster and not just at certain positions—not to mention quality coaches who ensure the Canes don't roll into Tallahassee, with eight first quarter penalties or a 4th-and-14 brain fart that costs Miami a game against a bunch of losers that had won six games in two years, so jazzed by this sad win their quarterback made t-shirts and sold them on his website #4thAnd14.
Click to expand...
Correct...exactly what I said but much much shorter
 
the 2017 nd game was great because it was back to back weeks in primetime after we owned a ranked VT the week before

however it fizzled after two weeks.

Texas A&M can be the game but we'll have to keep it rolling afterwards otherwise it's pointless
 
I think we all know when we can offically say "We back"

Whenever you hear that is the U back or not talk that usually comes from the national media, not us fans
 
Advertisement
Canes2082 said:
I think we all know when we can offically say "We back"

Whenever you hear that is the U back or not talk that usually comes from the national media, not us fans
Click to expand...
I’ll say we’re back when we win the acc
 
Trav said:
No we weren't. We were still young on defense and OL. We had elite playmakers on offense but we were still finding our way. Reed and Buchanan and Rumph were still just proto versions of what they'd become. There's no way you can tell me Dorsey leads that team to a championship. They were on their way, but not there yet, Kelly's erratic play notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
James Jackson was also finally healthy in 2000. Too many injuries 1997-1999.
 
ThomasM said:
December 5th, 1998 UCLA is the only right answer, if we're talking late 90s.

Edit:
The 99 game at FSU where we hung with them for 3 quarters was a strong signal. Just two years earlier we were getting drubbed 47-0. I'll never forget how quiet their fans were after that win. They all saw the writing on the wall. All game long they were asking me, "What year is that guy?" They were pretty shocked when I kept saying "sophomore, freshman, junior..." They knew they were in deep trouble the next year.
Click to expand...
For those who were around and old enough to remember and understand - there is no doubt it was the 1998 win over UCLA. That was the signal that we were done going 7-5 and were back on the come up.

Things were bad then, though, man. They were really bad. We've just been "meh" for two decades now. That's almost worse than being really bad for a few years. It's going to take more this time. Especially after what happened in 2017.

This time, we won't truly be "BACK" until we've knocked off Baga in the championship game. We could go undefeated, win the ACC, get the 2 seed in the playoff, but until we truly run the guantlet and take the crown off the king's head, people (including all of us) will wonder what will happen when we stand toe to toe with the bully. There's no way around it. To be the best, you have to beat the best, and we won't be "BACK" until we are the best.

That's gonna take a few years. How about we put that term, along with the chain, in a chest and close the lid and just enjoy the ride until we get there?
 
88 said:
This is true.

That 1999 team had so much talent at every single level of it. Damione Lewis on D line, Webster and Morgan who were a complete joke together, holy ****. Reed, Rumph and Blades (eh) on the backend. Jaquin and Bibla, Wayne and Moss, Franks. Jackson, although not as talented as the running backs he was bookended by before and after was an NFL back.

But no QB, no cigar.
Click to expand...
I often wonder if we lose to Washington if Nate Webster had been allowed to come back in 2000. Maybe he is the difference to slow down Jarramy Stevens or Tuiasosopo just that little bit.
 
Advertisement
I can't agree that 1998 vs. UCLA was the game UM announced we were back.

It was definitely a statement game and a beginning of a change of direction, for sure. But UM was announcing we were done being a joke and CFB needed to take us seriously again. After all, we came out in 1999 with a win over O$U and people starting puffing their chest out until we lost 3 straight to Pedo State, ECU, and Forfeit State. And to me, that savage beating by VT was all the proof I needed to know we definitely weren't back in 1999.

IMO, 2000 is the year UM was back from the embarrassment of the mid-90s. Maybe I am being too conservative, but I don't think it was Wide Right III. I knew UM was back when we beat No. 2 VT by 3 scores in a revenge game. After that game, my recollection is we beat up every team we faced in 2000 (including stomping UiF).

In the current state of CFB, I won't start to think of UM being "back" until we win the ACC and get a playoff spot. That's just a reality based on how far we have fallen and how long we've struggled. But I am very hopeful we will have another "statement game" in 2022, where we once again tell the CFB world we are done being a doormat. It could be TAMU or Clem$on, but it's ******* happening.
 
Beating A&M would be a big win. Can’t remember the last time we beat a really good team at their house. And, no, Pitt this year doesn’t count. That team is 8-4 at best if they play in any other decent conference not named the ACC this year.
 
wspcane said:
I often wonder if we lose to Washington if Nate Webster had been allowed to come back in 2000. Maybe he is the difference to slow down Jarramy Stevens or Tuiasosopo just that little bit.
Click to expand...
We lost to Washington because Butch and Coker prepped and called an absolutely abysmal game. Some awfull officiating as well, but our coaches did not have their best game.
 
Advertisement
Canes2082 said:
I think we all know when we can offically say "We back"

Whenever you hear that is the U back or not talk that usually comes from the national media, not us fans
Click to expand...
I don't think it's that hard to figure. Win the ACC, play in or at least be in the hunt for the playoffs, and have enough coming back the for the proceeding seasons to know the success will carry on.
 
ThomasM said:
I have never seen anything like it in my life. There was very, very little talk after the game. They were shook indeed. Talk about seeing the writing on the wall.
Click to expand...


I always go to those games with my brother (UM fan), but we also took his business partner (at the time, who was a huge F$U fan), and that motherfvcker talked a lot of trash BEFORE the game, and then shut the fvck up AFTER the game.
 
Lokest said:
I’ll say we’re back when we win the acc
Click to expand...
With respect, this may be a pretty low bar. We were talented enough to win the ACC this year and we are no where near back.

It isn't really about who we beat or winning the ACC against a bunch of awful teams. It is also about the talent. When we have a few solid years of recruiting and load up, so we may actually make and win in the playoffs, then we can talk about being back.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top