Tech

By GoJackets

October 11, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

Ok,it wasn’t pretty but a win is a win.

By GTGreg

October 11, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this

I agree that the 2 pt conversion probably wasn’t what I would have done in that instance, but what do I know? Tech won, so the team accomplished their ultimate goal for the day.

Keep the blogs coming! It’s great to have a beat writer who seems to be into the team. Thanks and Go Jackets!

By Jason

October 11, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

It does not really matter about the fake. If we had completed it we would be praising Gailey for going for it.

By Ty

October 11, 2006 05:42 PM | Link to this

Matt,

I agree with you on all points (and, on the 2-point question…so do about 99% of the sports world).

On the fake field goal, why run a fake on 4th and one (or less)…did we not have enough faith in our O-line to get one yard? (if we did, it’s a lot easier to get one yard than 8+ which is what you must do on a field goal fake).

But, a win is a win (we’ve had enough years where this would have been the “one” we had no business losing). If the Jakets keep it up through the next month, it’s off to Jax!

By Patrick

October 11, 2006 05:43 PM | Link to this

I’m not sure where I stand in the question of whether or not the fake field goal was the right call. It almost worked, but I think I might’ve just given the ball to Reggie or Tashard and have one of them punch it through. I might have even called in Calvin or Rashaun to try one of those sweet reverses. The truth is, however, Nix was using his privilege of calling plays to try to catch everyone off guard, which, I don’t know about you, but it totally caught me off guard (not to mention that I shake when I see Bell coming onto the field). I trust Nix and his calls, so I’m not too worried about it. We got the W, and even if we did it the ugly way, it still helped prove a lot to the critics.

By Sonny's Other Team

October 11, 2006 05:46 PM | Link to this

It the fake worked or not, why get cute there. We should have ran that ball down their throats. We keep getting cute at the wrong times.

By Ken

October 11, 2006 05:59 PM | Link to this

Matt, Sometimes coaches just try to be a little too cute. The fake field goal and the 2 pt try are pure examples being too cute. Forth and 1 with our O-Line; the correct call is between the tackles. When its forth and 4; call the fake.

Loved the excitement at the end of the game and the good guys won.

I enjoy your work, just stay away from getting caugth up in the cuteness.

By JustMe

October 11, 2006 06:03 PM | Link to this

I am still confused about the fake field goal. With less than a yard to go and so close to the end zone, don’t we (including the coaches) have faith in our O-line? Couldn’t we have just lined up and push through to gain that little amount?

By KneeJerk

October 11, 2006 06:09 PM | Link to this

My feeling on the 2pt. conversion attempt: The difference in a 4 point lead and 5 point lead didn’t mean much at the time. A successful 2 point attempt would have made it a 6 point game. Maryland has an outstanding kicker. Two field goals would not have beaten Tech if we would have converted. This would force Maryland to put the ball in the endzone and kick the PAT. Several people have complained in the past about Chan’s conservative playcalling. Nix tries to fake a FG and now all of a sudden we’re being “cute”. Frankly, I liked the call, and if we’d converted we’d be saying “good call by Nix”.

By Ted Montgomery

October 11, 2006 06:21 PM | Link to this

He did the right thing, He WON.

Now lets talk about the word IF.

(If) Pete Rose had not bet on baseball. (If) Ball had not thrown that INT last year in the georgia game. (If) Georgia had put more teams like UAB on the football schedule. (If) Ball would have stayed 4 more years in high school would he have made a more consistant QB? (If) Frogs had wings would they still bump there … when they jump? The bottom line is they won, you know the reason why he went for 2 and thats not good enough. So a win is not good enough you still have to question the game,

Ok lets do it your way, Why did Atlanta have the falcons football team, if they had only known they would have a loosing record after all these years.

Why did the Braves play this year? if they had only known they had no chance of making the playoffs.

Why did the Jackets go for 2, If they only known they were still going to win.

Is this a waste of time or what ?

By Ramble ON!

October 11, 2006 06:26 PM | Link to this

Sonny’s Other Team-is dead on!!! 3rd and one we run the fade (no problem)…assuming we are going to go for it on 4th!!! Or just run it down their throat on 3rd. We’ve had too many 3rd and 1 dumb calls. (see ND). Just get the first down for crying out loud! Patrick Nix is doing a good job though…I would have kicked the extra point too, but I don’t think it’s as concerning as everyone wants to make it out to be. It was very early in the 4th.

By CW

October 11, 2006 06:44 PM | Link to this

I didn’t like the fake field goal call, but I have to admit that it caught me off guard. Considering how shaky Travis Bell has become, I’ll give Gailey and Nix the benefit of the doubt on that one.

As for the 2 point conversion, I have never thought the “the card” argument made any sense unless you are in the last two minutes of the game. Before then, there are just too many unknown possibilities about how Tech might score again or how Maryland might score again. I think in almost every instance you take the sure point and move on.

I just remember one year O’leary went for two way too early in a game, we missed it, scored another touchdown, went for two, missed it, and ended up losing by 1 point.

By Matt Winkeljohn

October 11, 2006 06:46 PM | Link to this

Ted,

Let me apologize for asking why, or what if? Heaven knows we should only ask questions like this in the event Tech loses. Oh, and then anyone who asks questions falls under the wrath of a certain percentage of the fan base that screams those asking questions are skeptics, or doomsayers.

I’ll come with questions win or lose, positive and negative.

It’s all about trying to understand. Should we try to understand the thought process of coaches only when they lose? Is that what you’re suggesting?

Gimme a break.

Matt

By T-bone

October 11, 2006 07:10 PM | Link to this

You tell ‘em, Matt. Put Ted in his place. Your role is to ask questions and give us good information. You’re doing a great job at both. Good work.

I like both the fake and the 2-pt try. Enough of the old conservative play calling! It lost us the ND game, but I haven’t seen too much of it since then.

What a great recruiting class so far! It’s hard to believe that this is the same GT as in years past. Things are looking up … and basketball season is just around the corner!

By Ralph

October 11, 2006 07:36 PM | Link to this

Matt, you may have missed this, but I have stated earlier that going for two or one at that point in the game was a mute point. Tech already was up by four. One points gets you to five, but two points get you to up six. Yet you still could be beat by a touchdown and extra point. So it’s a wash.

My take is why not run the traps on your best two point play and see what works, since you may need to run one in a crisis later on.

I was seated in that end zone when the play started, I could not believe my eyes. Calvin was one on one to the left, but there were three on three to the right. The options were endless. Tech could have even ran the ball with the numbers in the box.

Now Nix knows what to work on.

As for the fake punt, I would not have done it since I think we could have made the one yard, but if Brooks had indeed broken free of the linebacker, he was home free.

Tech won…let’s move on.

Go Jackets!!!

By Ted Montgomery

October 11, 2006 09:36 PM | Link to this

Ralph you called it right. I thought it was a great call but thats just me, Matt the way I take it is that its not something you would have done and so be it. We use to have another conservative coach at tech and he went on to kentucky. And its really ok to be positve when Tech Wins. But not understanding why he went for 2 is one thing and Ralph explaned why he called that play, but because you dont agree with it now thats another issue. And dont take it personal, truth is it was a good call with a great reason, if your gonna question things try why did the tackle do a turn in block when the running back was running to the left of the guard, or why is it when running a kick off back or punt returns 4 or more blockers never touch a defender. And there was some other issues. I will try to answer my own question. We are not a perfect team nor is the coaching staff, nor are the AJC reporters, Well now that last one there is not my comment thats from sonny himself. But anyway I hope your not puzzled as to what he did it now. But if you disagree with it, sorry it was a good call.

By old gold engineer

October 11, 2006 10:17 PM | Link to this

I was at the game and thought the fake field goal was a great call. So would everyone else if it had worked. However, I had reservations about the two-point conversion attempt. I think the whole point differential “rule” and time left in the game “rule” could be argued either way. What I didn’t like was the potential for changing momentum. I certainly don’t know the statistics, but I think the two-point attempt is pretty low percentage. At that stage of the game with Tech just having scored the go ahead touchdown, why risk turning the momentum back over to Maryland with a failed extra point attempt. We had already done wonders to bolster their confidence with the cheap touchdowns off of the kickoff return and fumble recovery at our 8 yard line. It took us well into the 4th quarter to regain the lead. That’s why I did not think it was a wise call to risk remotivating Maryland over a point that could easily prove meaningless.
Having said all that, I felt that GT wasted an opportunity to put Maryland away when we couldn’t score a touchdown and had to try that last field goal (that hit the goal post). I hope Travis Bell got it all out of his system against Maryland and will be back in fine form at Clemson.

By Palpie

October 11, 2006 11:48 PM | Link to this

Matt, you clearly don’t understand the situation. Kicking the point after does no good, there is very little difference between a 4 and 5 point lead (the only real difference is whether an opponent that scores a TD will go for 1 or 2 themselves), either way a TD or two fgs beats you. But a successful 2 point conversion gives the Jackets a 6 point lead which is both a two fg cushin AND puts preasure on the MD kicker to make the extra point if MD manages to score a TD. In the 4th quarter with the new clock rules reducing the number of possessions going for the more secure lead with little down side is always the correct call.

I don’t thing Chan is a very good coach and I usually have nothing good to say about his coaching, but in this case he did exactly the right thing.

By KneeJerk

October 12, 2006 06:28 AM | Link to this

Good call Palpie. That’s what I said in an earlier post.

By legaleagle

October 12, 2006 07:30 AM | Link to this

Maybe we were trying to impress the other side as to its offensive minded coach. if your QB can not get 6 inches on a sneak then you do not deserve to win.

We can second guess all day but these calls were not second guessers they are the kind that get you beat.

By Mike

October 12, 2006 07:48 AM | Link to this

I love the inovation of the fake FG, even though it did not work. For the last 4 years people have been yelling about how predictable and inefficient Chan Gailey’s offense was. Now they are starting to take some chances and people belly ache because soemtimes they don’t work. Reverses helped surprise Troy and score TD’s. Throwing on 3rd and 1 is there because the defense is expecting a run and usually has 8 in the box, and with Calvin, no one should be able to stop a properly exectued throw one on one. I don’t have a problem with the new schemes, and think as fans we ought to just sit back relax and enjoy what’s going on at the Flats!!

By Matt Winkeljohn

October 12, 2006 08:47 AM | Link to this

Ted, it’s not a matter of whether I agree or not. I don’t have a strong opinion on whether that play was right or wrong (I told Mark Bradley I thought Tech should’ve gone for two after the previous touchdown; Mark disagreed). But I want to understand the logic behind it, which according to Chan Gailey was … the chart. Is that enough for you? Is it your style to blindly follow so long as Tech wins, or to rag those who don’t?

I don’t ask the question here in a blog, or in the post-game news conference, which I did, because I disagree. I ask because I want to understand, to know why. I know the potential positives, and the potential negatives. I’m interested in how Chan Gailey weighed them in the process of making a decision. Why? Many reasons, chiefly to better understand his philosophy on certain situations that he might encounter again.

It has nothing to do with winning and losing. There’s a big, big difference between disagreeing, which I don’t, and wanting to understand why.

And you’re full of crap if you think difficult or awkward questions should only be asked if Tech wins.

I have not written a negative word about the two-point play, or asserted here or in the paper that it was the wrong call, nor the right call. I’ve merely asked why.

If you have a big issue with this kind of question being asked when things are going well, that’s your prerogative. You’re not alone in that mindset.

I also wrote a notebook item suggesting that specials teams were a problem in the Maryland game. Was that also criminal, since Tech won after all? Did that also ruffle your feathers?

I’ll keep doing what I do; you keep doing what you do.

Matt

By Steve Barton

October 12, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this

Re: Matt’s response just above

Are things touchy right now around the AJC after that letter from Sonny?!

Re: The original entry at the top

Kenny! That interception plus a big part of that goal line stand, nailing the RB on Maryland’s last forward play, plus big hits all over the field. Man, I love to watch that guy hit.

By varun

October 12, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this

Here is my explanation for the 2 point play.

At that point, MD had scored tow touchdowns, 1 which was off special teams, and the other off a fumble that gave them the ball within the Tech 15 yard line. I think Gailey was (as he should have been) pretty confident that MD would not score another touchdown. Seeing that there were 10 minutes remaining, they could very well have scored 2 field goals, especially since at that point they had already scored 3.

Considering that the 2 point play would have protected Tech from field goals, it was a good idea. Also, it made Tech vulnerable to the TD’s if we scored a field goal, however, MD did not look likely to score a TD against our Defense.

I think you were spot on with the Fake FG. I think the idea was that, although we could have got the 1st down easily enough just asking Choice or Ball to run, the fake FG, if it had worrked (which it nearly did) would have earned us a TD pretty much on that play itself.

By varun

October 12, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

The other thing about the fake, and the 2 point play, is any team watching the game, will now have a little uncertainty in their mind, as to what Tech is gonna do on certain plays, when in the past, they would be extremely confident that Tech would kick the FG on the 4th and 1.

By SRF

October 12, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

I think the fake FG was a great call and the play almost worked. I saw Brooks in HS and like they said if he had escaped a tad cleaner off the line, he would have been gone. That was a great time to call the fake - they knew if it failed they had time to run it down thoer throats later. The script went perfectly and the game would have been over if Bell could have made the last FG. Now that is what you should be worried about - not a few reasonable attempts that Chan and Nix made to mix up the game.

By George P. Burdell

October 12, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

I think the most important point in your article was about Bell. I like him but I fear he has become a head case and it will end up costing us a close game. I don’t know that we really have any other options at this point so I hope I am wrong. What I cannot figure out is on extra points he kicks so solid that it would easily be good from 40+. On FGs he is kicking like he still has the demons from last year just waiting to jump on him. It looks like his timing is off, and I think he is rushing the kick, just wanting to get it done, so he doesn’t have to think about it. I’m not trying to judge him as an individual as I have the same demons sneak into my golf swing all the time, but it is a very serious problem for our football team right now.

By CV

October 12, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

Matt you made a mistake in the article and I’m surprised no one else has pointed it out. You said “With a one-pointer, two Maryland field goals would’ve resulted in a tie.” Which is incorrect because Tech would have only been up by 5 and 2 field goals would have resulted in a win.

I agree with the call and I believe the reason you go for 2 is because whether you are up by 4 or 5 there is no difference. You can still lose if Maryland kicks 2 field goals. This way you either force overtime or you force Maryland to go for a touchdown if it is late in the game.

The more what ifs you throw into it then more questions and doubts there are. When making these decisions I believe the coach has to keep it simple and the most likely scenario of how the game will play out (hence the chart). You can’t “what if” it to death or Chan would have to call 3 timeouts to make up his mind.

By ben

October 12, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

Look, the game has past Gailey by, as we all have known for a while. However, he turned the offense over to Nix, and Tenuta…he’s a God. Gailey now only screws up special teams and meddles in the offense to “protect” leads. Maybe next year he’ll give up special teams and we’ll go undefeated.

By Ramble ON!

October 12, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

George P. Burdell is right; Bell is getting a case of the David Duvall’s. He needs to get cured fast.

Ben, get off the Gailey bashing for crying out loud!!!! It’s getting real old.

Matt, stop getting so defensive. Is it because you were giving the “DAWG Report” 2 years ago for 680 and AJC, Went to DC and decided to come back, now as punishment the AJC puts you on the GT beat? You make good points and have remained objective, but we know where your heart lies and it becomes evident when you get this defensive. You spoke as though we were second rate two years ago, so forgive some of us for not forgetting.

By Wrecker 1

October 12, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this

You people are all wrong. The 2 pointer was the right call. With 10 minutes to go there’s a real good chance Maryland has time to kick 2 field goals and we lose. Against FSU a few years ago TECH scores with about 10 minutes to go and goes up 12-0. We should have gone for 2 but didn’t and we lost 14-13. The fake, while catching me off guard also, and with a better throw would have worked, was DUMB. At that short distance why do you put it in the hands of a guy that makes his living kicking instead of the guy that actually does throw and run. That was make a statement time and our statement was pretty pitiful. By the way, I’m sure Gailey makes the call on all fakes.

By d

October 12, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

What I don’t get about the fake field goal started with 3rd down. It was 3rd down and 12 inches in 4 down territory! They threw incomplete on 3rd and fourth down! They had 200 yds rushing. Why pass at all?

By Ted Montgomery

October 12, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

Your comment was Still puzzled? we have tried in many ways to explane the reason for the 2 point try and not one time have you said I understand why now. Then you wants to bash on me saying im blind to the fact, thats not a big deal there either. The positive is Tech Wins. Do they need work ? yes in many area’s. Still puzzled ? I never have been, it was a good call with good meaning. Don’t be a hater Im only a blogger. You are a writer with many views/Ideas and I dont knock that infact I have enjoyed alot of them, Im a fan with many feelings/Ideas and have been here and seen it all with tech from the days of eddie lee ivory untill now. LOL blind to the fact ? not I. I think I will take your view in the next home game, I will sit there and if something goes wrong, I will stand up and hold a sign that says “Still Puzzled as to why they just did that ?” And then when they run the same play and it works or they win I will hold my sign up that says ” Still Puzzled “. This is not worth talking about anymore. Gone to store to get some popcorn and cokes, I have a thursday night game to watch. Peace OUT!!

By Ramble ON!

October 12, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!! I AM A FLAMING HOMO$EXUAL! GET ME $EXY MEN!!

By Michael Cameron

October 13, 2006 05:09 PM | Link to this

Matt wrote: “Or, following the failed two-pointer, two Maryland field goals after that point would’ve given the Terps a win (29-27) if Tech didn’t also score again. With a one-pointer, two Maryland field goals would’ve resulted in a tie.”

Matt, Matt, Matt! I hate to resemble Tom Cruise jumping Matt Lauer over Brooke Sheild’s use of antidepressants, but… You are obviously an intelligent fellow. However, unless there is some new fuzzy math I haven’t yet grasped, your arithmetic is faltering a bit here.

Directly after pointing out in your own words, at the end of your penultimate sentence on the subject of the attempted deuce, that two Terp FGs “would’ve” (could’ve would be the better word/notion since Tech still could have conceivabley come back) won for MD by 29 - 27, you, in your very next comment, strangely conclude that if Tech had chosen the “one-pointer” that two Maryland FGs would’ve somehow “resulted in a tie.” No, had Tech opted for the PAT, then a pair of Maryland FGs would’ve resulted in a one point Tech deficit (MD 29 - GT 28) and probable defeat (assuming MD would’ve driven the ball for both FGs and eaten clock). When Tech wisely eschewed the single in favor of the try for two, with 10:10 left in the 4th Q, Tech had their eventual final 27 points; 27 + 1 = 28, 27 + 2 = 29. Had they taken the easy one point, Tech would’ve been in prime position to lose the game, 29 - 28, directly because of those two hypothetical “could-have-been” Fear-the-Turtle FGs you reference. Had the two-pointer been put on the board, the Yellow Jackets could’ve been tied — but not beaten — by those two Turtle threes. OT would’ve provided a chance to prevail. And, one Turtle FG would’ve left MD a point short.

At the moment of decision, that was the appropriate thinking of the coaching staff, who, like you and everyone else, had no crystal ball to foresee which possible scenario — of many — would actually unfold. In the absence of divinity, a key question to be asked at that juncture of the contest is, based on the history of the game as well as the “book,” what is the most likely scenario? A Maryland TD, or a pair of Maryland FGs?

When surmising those odds, take a look at what had already transpired. We were certainly deep enough into the battle to see an established in-game history, and the coaching staff had a feel for the flow of preceding events and what that might portend for the remaining future. MD’s offense, with five minutes gone in the 4th Q, had proven itself, game-long, to be, if not exactly a field goal-kicking juggernaut, to at least be prone to non-latent FG tendencies. They had been perfect on all three tries. Their kicker had knocked through a 46-yarder. They had a few sustained scoring marches, all resulting in FGs. FGs were clearly the Terp’s modus operandi. By contrast, MD’s two TDs were: 1/ a kickoff return; and 2/ a “drive” of eight yards, due to #21’s (uncharacteristic) fumble.

Tech’s FG kicking game, on the other hand, was having problems; one FG was missed before the two-point try and one FG was missed afterwards — both quite makeable. Did we want to rely on a possible FG after a somewhat improbable Turlte TD? If MD had somehow managed a TD, yes, Tech could have — had they earlier taken the PAT and thus the esteemed five-point lead — won by one point with a FG. And, yes, by missing the two and keeping a four-point lead rather than five, Tech could have “merely” tied with a FG. All that assumes a Turtle TD and Tech having the time to get in FG range, then actually getting there, and then converting the three. Besides, what’s so “mere” about having a go at it in OT? Some critics make sound as if the Turtle TD and the heralded Tech FG were virtually preordained…didn’t happen like that.

Using the inerrancy of hingsight, we note that MD, in the closing melodramatic moments, did indeed blow yet another TD opportunity, courtesy of great Tech D, and, had the Turtles crawled into the end zone, Tech would’ve had precious few ticks left to march for that illustrious FG. But, who could’ve known?

Well, there is no way anyone unrelated to Nostradamus could’ve prognosticated what the hereafter held. But, having a shot to win in OT is a helluva lot better than losing by one point in regulation, I always say.

And, if the “chart” was written/endorsed by Dick Vermeil, then, considering his accomplishments in the sport of football, then it’s probably not a bad idea to put some stock in it.

Coach Gailey (or Coach Nix) made the right call, in my opinion, on the two-point conversion attempt.

By Michael Cameron

October 13, 2006 05:37 PM | Link to this

Correction of my bad mistake: “Using the inerrancy of hindsight, we note that MD…” I think “hindsight” is better than “hingsight.” Good grief. Sorry about that.

By Michael Cameron

October 13, 2006 06:12 PM | Link to this

I also was not enamored with the fake field goal, regardless of whether Coach Gailey or Coach Nix called it. We should’ve just hammered it up the middle with the I-back or used the QB sneak. But, it wasn’t a call without redemption, because Tech had practiced it thoroughly, and, had the receiver not become hung up with bodies in the backfield, he could’ve roamed free, caught it and scored (or come close). What was much worse, in my view, was the third down call just prior to the chicanery. We had 3rd and mere inches and were trying to score some critical late insurance points. Rather than hurling a pass out into the flats, call a conservative (yes, that’s the word I’m using with positive connotations) run up the gut and grab the first down! If you don’t get it, rush it again on 4th down. Keep the TD drive alive or march closer for a more manageable field goal. Tech’s running back, #22, finished with way over 100 yards and the O-line was blocking well. I believe we could’ve picked up about a foot’s worth of real estate in two shots between the tackles. Tech won, though, so there’s not much to bellyache about…except maybe those aesthetically conflicting black cleats, which match with nothing and don’t contrast enough with the navy blue. Besides, Tech’s colors are white and (old) gold. Yeah, a fashion statement is less important than winning, but what your team looks like on the field is part of the visual pleasure of watching the game. Oh well, it’s not the worst thing in the world, and they’re still some of the best-looking uniforms around.

By Ted Montgomery

October 13, 2006 11:16 PM | Link to this

100% right Michael . Mat knows this, my point was Mat’s post here about still puzzled as to why they did that. well again lets just make us some signs that say Still puzzled as to why they did that and when some play dont go the way we or mat thinks it should lets hold the sign up for all the fans to see and read, and when tech runs the same play later in the game and it goes right lets also be consistant and hold the same sign up and see how stupid it makes us look. I could understand it had the question been ask hey does tech still need work or something like that but to ….. again Michael you and ralph are correct. Ted