I get extremely tired of guys that are fairly football astute getting here and listing what they think are "unusual" events during a football game. Assessments of games, win or lose, should focus on the balance of what you were able to coach and execute on the field. Leave it to the coaches to use a muffed punt or a long field goal as excuses for outcomes. That's so weak it's pathetic. I look at the balance of work done by players and coaches. I apologize to the forum members that I offend, but it's just stupid football jabber to point out the errors of an individual player that actually touched the football. I'll use the extremes as examples... if we played a HS JV team and won in OT... would we compliment the body of work by the coaches and players. And without question, as opposed to those sucked into the vacuum of "coach speak"... if we played the New England Patriots and lost by a 2 pt conversion in OT... it would be the body of work we should be discussing... not the score. If in losing to the Patriots, we say "gee, if we hadn't have gotten intercepted in the 2nd quarter, we would have won." Stupid beyond stupid.
Our coaching against Tulane, for what Tulane had as strengths and weaknesses, was abysmal. No need to ask the coach what were the pivotal "moments" in the game. We saw the game. All 43,934 things that happened that changed the outcome. If the HC doesn't see all of them, he's not all that good of a coach.
No more stupid than you saying we'd have blown them out if we'd have just run different plays. What I observed on the field was us completely shutting down Tulane (in regulation). Had it not been for the turnovers I think we'd have won (in regulation). That's my opinion. Your welcome to disagree, no need to be an arrogant little _____.
Call it what you want but the turnovers decided the game. You and MAT are letting you anger with the coaching staff cloud your logical thought processes. You spot a team 9 points in a game where you gave up 16 in regulation and had trouble moving the football all night, that is the key the game.
Yes, we changed philosophies on offense after Jenkins (See what I did there?) throws the second pick and we bogged down after that but nobody knows what would have happened had we kept our foot on the gas. Perhaps we would continue to shred them through the air and find space on the ground or perhaps they would have adjusted and started to limit our production but would have kept the pressure on our QB and created more turnovers...Who knows? Its all subjective at that point and the only thing we can do is speculate as to how the game would have gone. However, we KNOW that the turnovers directly led to points that were precious in a defensive ballgame. They mattered.
Imagine if you knew your offense was so terrible that it would never convert a third down, much less drive the team into scoring position. In devising your game plan you realize that the only way to score and win is to (a) get your offense off the field as soon as possible before they make a mistake, (b) get your defense as many opportunities as possible, and (c) gain possession of the ball in field goal range through turnovers or the field position advantages of overtime.
That's pretty much what Tulane did to win an impossible game. Maybe we should hire their coach.
Again... we recovered (defensively) like kings on those TOs. That is actually the best a team can do when a player makes a mistake. The TOs were "oh, so we gifted you from a mistake... and you suck and can't do squat but kick a field goal". And no, we didn't lose on TOs... we lost because every element of our game was junk even after we held them to FGs. And when I'm an arrogant ___, I'm never ever little about it. I'm a massively huge arrogant ___ when I decide to go full metal arrogant. I haven't scratched the surface of arrogant ___.
You can give your opinion... as you have... and I will state mine. Mine isn't budging from what I observed Saturday.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)