|
Replies: 8
| visibility 1,119
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23420
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Very proud of the huge win. There are way more positives
Oct 5, 2015, 11:53 AM
|
|
than negatives.
That said... Does our coaching style lack killer instinct in the 2nd half? Without all those fumbles we lose that game and suffer a humiliating type of loss.
Venables usually is a great half-time adjuster and he definitely got out -adjusted in the second half. I'm not worried about him, but hats off to the Notre Dame coaching staff for figuring things out so well. And I wish I understood why we had absolutely zero coverage on the underneath routes. We did that against UGA in 2013 and they scored a TD lightening quick at the end of the game then too.
I actually liked our playcalling... for 3 quarters. But we seemed down right SCARED of making a mistake at the end. That allowed Notre Dame to EASILY march back in the game. Just like in the UGA game last year, we leaned too heavily on our defense by producing nothing n offense and they nearly caved in from the pressure. Even elite defenses need rest against good O-lines.
At the end of the day, we were the better team, and Notre Dame got a lesson. I just hate that our own decision-making let them back into the game.
|
|
|
|
 |
Commissioner [908]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 2247
Joined: 11/27/07
|
We couldn't get a good pass rush with only 3-4 guys
Oct 5, 2015, 12:06 PM
|
|
so we had to blitz to get anything done. ND has a solid OL. Venables had a great game plan for 3 quarters. The 4th quarter should not have happened if the offense would have done anything with the turnovers. A win is a win, and this is still a young team. Just keep getting better every week. I am very happy about the OL play we had. Depth on defense is still a huge concern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23420
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Blitzing didn't work by then. They marched down the field as
Oct 5, 2015, 12:53 PM
|
|
fast as a football team possibly could in those conditions. Once they had like 5 consecutive 15 yard plays we should have changed something.
But like we both said, the offense doing nothing made it much worse for the defense. Oddly enough special teams were pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1476]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 1859
Joined: 12/29/04
|
Re: We couldn't get a good pass rush with only 3-4 guys
Oct 5, 2015, 1:53 PM
[ in reply to We couldn't get a good pass rush with only 3-4 guys ] |
|
How many 3&outs did we have in the 4Q on offense?
That is why the D struggled because they won't let DW4 ride without his training wheels. They were out there too long in 4q due to quick three n outs by the O.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [509]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 720
Joined: 2/23/05
|
Spot on
Oct 5, 2015, 12:07 PM
|
|
I agree with all of this. 4th quarter looked like the old Bowden play not to lose philosophy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6981
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: Very proud of the huge win. There are way more positives
Oct 5, 2015, 12:20 PM
|
|
Anyone who was in the stands knows that throwing the ball in those conditions was not a good idea. Sure ND had success but they were in a position where they had to throw the ball (they also had 4 turnovers). We had 3-4 opportunities to finish that game off and the weather was a big reason it didn't happen. Why press and try to force something to happen when odds are in your favor that an aggressive team will have turnovers in those conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23420
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Here is why the conditions argument doesn't make sense to me
Oct 5, 2015, 12:54 PM
|
|
Clemson and Notre Dame both faced the same conditions. (Speaking of the 4th quarter) They moved the ball on us extremely easily. We didn't move the ball on them at all. Logically speaking, this eliminates weather as the variable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15813]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7694
Joined: 11/30/98
|
It's really a matter of where you are playing from...ND
Oct 5, 2015, 1:12 PM
|
|
as mentioned above, had to throw the ball. Their back was against the wall. Our D was getting a little winded because the O couldn't move the ball as efficiently as they had in the first half. Hats off to ND's O-line they did a good job at the end, but it wasn't enough. When we tried to blitz they picked it up. I couldn't be prouder of the D...they left it all out on the field Saturday night!
On offense, we were protecting a double digit lead going into the 4th quarter...in a monsoon, it made perfect sense to protect the ball, run out the clock, and play conservative. I'd have loved to see a hot pass to the tight end to pick up a first down...but alot of bad things can happen on a pass play with a wet ball. We had a couple of chances to put them away (Scott's dropped pass, Peake's failure to launch, Bouleware's drop, missed FG...but it didn't happen). In years past we lose that game and probably the Louisville game as well.
Great thing is...we won a close one, all the while looking like a team who's been there before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23420
Joined: 8/16/03
|
I think we both agree that the difference was mentality.
Oct 5, 2015, 5:31 PM
|
|
Due to the circumstances they felt they had to be more aggressive and we felt we had to be more conservative. However their mentality resulted in a much better situation for them and a much worse situation for us. In fact, without the turnovers their mentality would have led to us being defeated.
My point is, we should not have had such a conservative mentality. Had we pretended that we were behind, or that the score was 0-0 we may have blown out Notre Dame. But playing not to lose caused us to nearly lose the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 8
| visibility 1,119
|
|
|
50
