The game’s the game. | Page 3 | Syracusefan.com

The game’s the game.

How can we not say that loss was on Dino and company?

the 2nd drive where we went for it on 4th down and left Szmyt on the sideline we took 3 pts off the board for us.

we also took 3 pts off the board at the very end of the first half with our absolutely awful timeclock management

I’m sorry, when you’re not the greatest team and you’re on the road you can’t miss opportunities like that.

knew they were going to come back to haunt us and they certainly did
 
I didn’t like not taking the 3 in the 1st… but I do like the confidence.

Tough loss - we’re gonna keep it moving.
 
This is a 3-9 football team. Every other team on the schedule is significantly better than the one we lost too.

You can’t be the worst coached, most penalized and have the least talent in the conference. You have to at least get 2 out of 3 and this program hasn’t done that since it joined the conference.
So FSU loses on a last second FG to #9 (yes #9) ND and scored 38 and they're a horrible team? Like other posters have said, not all 0-4 teams are created equal. They very easily could have been 4-0 or 3-1. FSU will beat some teams, for sure.
 
They can finish our last drive and take the game.

If we take the points on either of the 4th down drives FSU’s kicking for the tie.

Everyone loves going for it on 4th until you don’t get it. If he had converted one or both, we’re feeling much better this morning.

Not having our Punter ended up being crucial, and I knew it was going to be big before we kicked off. Nothing you can do about that but have another guy ready.

FSU is not the FSU of old. But we played hard and better. Still think WR’s getting open is a problem? Because we schemed them open all day.

We’ve got to be able to continue to grow our passing game alongside of our ground game. When we started hitting some passes, what happened to Tucker’s YPC? Yup, he started to hit chunk plays.

The loss sucks, but I firmly stand by that I have more confidence in this team than I did before the game.
Exactly. I feel much better about this team than I did on Friday. We'll see if that holds, though there are no ACC teams that I feel are absolute losses right now. We can compete with all of them.
 
yup.. but unless you win by 20 most every game comes down to some key plays. sometimes those plays are things you do sometimes its bad calls and sometimes its plays the opp do..

Sure but my point is, when you’re 0-4 that’s who you are. Or in the very least that’s the side of your record you’re closer to. FSU isn’t a 4-0 team. We like to change the narrative in losses and sometimes wins that the other teams was better than they are. Some on the board have done that with every team this year. I even argued with someone who tried to say Albany is a good team.
 
Sure but my point is, when you’re 0-4 that’s who you are. Or in the very least that’s the side of your record you’re closer to. FSU isn’t a 4-0 team. We like to change the narrative in losses and sometimes wins that the other teams was better than they are. Some on the board have done that with every team this year. I even argued with someone who tried to say Albany is a good team.
I get it.. they were more likely a team that should have been 2-2 than 0-4 but things broke against them. Played well enough to be 3-2 not really 1-4.. so 1-4 in the small things

just go around the ACC in our side.

SU has played well enough to be 5-0 is 3-2 and could easily 2-3. so 1-2

Lots of teams in that same boat. with games that came down to small things

Clemson is 3-2. could with a couple small breaks be 5-0. could also be 1-4 . I mean they had 2 goal line stands to win games. so 2-2 in the small things

NC st is 4-1. They won the 2 games at the end to not be 2-3.. 2-0 in the small things

wake 5-0 1-0 in the small things

Lou 3-2. 2-1 in the small things

BC 4-1 1-1 in the small things

You let games be close the small things matter even more..

But in having watched almost every one of these games. How many of the small things came down to plays on the field vs plays by the refs/replay judges that changed the game?

in one game they messed up a clock reset, they didnt review a catch, they missed the most obvious of holds and they missed a call on the goal line and they messed up a roughing call and never even really showed the FSU one that was far more contact and later.

SU added to it by making its own mistakes.
 
I get it.. they were more likely a team that should have been 2-2 than 0-4 but things broke against them. Played well enough to be 3-2 not really 1-4.. so 1-4 in the small things

just go around the ACC in our side.

SU has played well enough to be 5-0 is 3-2 and could easily 2-3. so 1-2

Lots of teams in that same boat. with games that came down to small things

Clemson is 3-2. could with a couple small breaks be 5-0. could also be 1-4 . I mean they had 2 goal line stands to win games. so 2-2 in the small things

NC st is 4-1. They won the 2 games at the end to not be 2-3.. 2-0 in the small things

wake 5-0 1-0 in the small things

Lou 3-2. 2-1 in the small things

BC 4-1 1-1 in the small things

You let games be close the small things matter even more..

But in having watched almost every one of these games. How many of the small things came down to plays on the field vs plays by the refs/replay judges that changed the game?

in one game they messed up a clock reset, they didnt review a catch, they missed the most obvious of holds and they missed a call on the goal line and they messed up a roughing call and never even really showed the FSU one that was far more contact and later.

SU added to it by making its own mistakes.
For good measure, the ACCN is putting the replay on at midnight so no one will see their dirty deeds.
 
It’s not about refs… we had our chance and we didn’t execute.

Team played tough and with resolve. We are significantly better than last year. There is no QB debate. One gives us the best chance to win.

Chips didn’t fall our way today. But I feel much better about our chances today and from here on out than I did yesterday.

We had a lucky walkoff win last week. Yea we should have won these two and Rutgers by a couple scores but in reality the only win we have from all 3 games is because a likely top 10 pick next year gave us the ball in FG range with 2 minutes left.
 
I get it.. they were more likely a team that should have been 2-2 than 0-4 but things broke against them. Played well enough to be 3-2 not really 1-4.. so 1-4 in the small things

just go around the ACC in our side.

SU has played well enough to be 5-0 is 3-2 and could easily 2-3. so 1-2

Lots of teams in that same boat. with games that came down to small things

Clemson is 3-2. could with a couple small breaks be 5-0. could also be 1-4 . I mean they had 2 goal line stands to win games. so 2-2 in the small things

NC st is 4-1. They won the 2 games at the end to not be 2-3.. 2-0 in the small things

wake 5-0 1-0 in the small things

Lou 3-2. 2-1 in the small things

BC 4-1 1-1 in the small things

You let games be close the small things matter even more..

But in having watched almost every one of these games. How many of the small things came down to plays on the field vs plays by the refs/replay judges that changed the game?

in one game they messed up a clock reset, they didnt review a catch, they missed the most obvious of holds and they missed a call on the goal line and they messed up a roughing call and never even really showed the FSU one that was far more contact and later.

SU added to it by making its own mistakes.

These are all known things though. People who really watch football know that a lot of games come down to a very small margin of things going your way or not. That doesn’t make FSU better than their record though. Every team is impacted by this and at the end of the season you are your record, mostly. The only thing those marginal plays throughout a season help to tell you is, what is the trajectory your team is headed moving forward.
 
this year we have had 3 games come down to plays in the 4th.. being in games and losing is better than giving up at the half.. often the team with better talent over comes all the mistakes not the better coaching.

We are close. FSU hit the one home run play. The game becomes much different if we have one of those.
 
The passing game opened up because they committed to establishing the run. Had they tried going to more passing earlier and it wasn't immediately successful, people would have went crazy as to why they weren't feeding Tucker. It's not like Shrader was on fire passing against Liberty, hindsight is 20/20. The game plan was correct IMO.

We don't have to establish Sean Tucker. Everyone knows about him and the opposition has already developed a game plan to stop him before our plan lands. Tucker gained most of his yards when we brought Shrader's runs and short passes into the mix. We scored 30 points in 36 minutes doing that. 60/36 X 30 = 50 points, which we might have scored if we came out in our full, (Shrader) offense from the beginning. Remember - we wanted to jump on an 0-4 team and get an early lead to discourage them? We didn't do that just handing it off to Tucker to make them want to tackle him, which they were already planning to do.
 
this year we have had 3 games come down to plays in the 4th.. being in games and losing is better than giving up at the half.. often the team with better talent over comes all the mistakes not the better coaching.

We are close. FSU hit the one home run play. The game becomes much different if we have one of those.


I expect virtually all the remaining games to be like the last two. We aren't going to be playing any playoff teams, maybe not even a ranked team. these teams are going beat each other and we have a chance to beat all of them- or lose to all of them. The end result should be somewhere in between. Hopefully we can get three more wins and go bowling.
 
I expect virtually all the remaining games to be like the last two. We aren't going to be playing any playoff teams, maybe not even a ranked team. these teams are going beat each other and we have a chance to beat all of them- or lose to all of them. The end result should be somewhere in between. Hopefully we can get three more wins and go bowling.
The comparison to Eric should be his Senior year, when he had built himself up to where he was bigger. Garrett is already a man at 230. Tackling him and Tucker is going to be a chore for every team left on the schedule.
Rolling Garrett out is going to open up the receivers, which will give them an opportunity to get yards after catch.
 
The comparison to Eric should be his Senior year, when he had built himself up to where he was bigger. Garrett is already a man at 230. Tackling him and Tucker is going to be a chore for every team left on the schedule.
Rolling Garrett out is going to open up the receivers, which will give them an opportunity to get yards after catch.

My perennial point is is that when we pass, we have multiple receivers so the defense doesn't know who is going to get the ball and you need more than one running back to create the same uncertainty on a running play. If they are going to take away the Csonka-like fullback and replace him with a Chris Elmore type, (if they even have a fullback), then the second running back has to be the quarterback, unless you have a dominant offensive line that can make simple plays with the same guy carrying the ball work. With Dungey or Shrader, we have that second running back. Now we need to develop the passing game to compliment the running game. The deep passing game seems a lost cause unless they go back to DeVito.
 
We don't have to establish Sean Tucker. Everyone knows about him and the opposition has already developed a game plan to stop him before our plan lands. Tucker gained most of his yards when we brought Shrader's runs and short passes into the mix. We scored 30 points in 36 minutes doing that. 60/36 X 30 = 50 points, which we might have scored if we came out in our full, (Shrader) offense from the beginning. Remember - we wanted to jump on an 0-4 team and get an early lead to discourage them? We didn't do that just handing it off to Tucker to make them want to tackle him, which they were already planning to do.
You wanted them to come out passing the ball?
 
My perennial point is is that when we pass, we have multiple receivers so the defense doesn't know who is going to get the ball and you need more than one running back to create the same uncertainty on a running play. If they are going to take away the Csonka-like fullback and replace him with a Chris Elmore type, (if they even have a fullback), then the second running back has to be the quarterback, unless you have a dominant offensive line that can make simple plays with the same guy carrying the ball work. With Dungey or Shrader, we have that second running back. Now we need to develop the passing game to compliment the running game. The deep passing game seems a lost cause unless they go back to DeVito.
Please stop with the go back to Devito! No ...the long passing game is not a lost cause! I respect you as a poster but Shrader CAN throw the long ball. He is not far off and will get better. His last long ball for Queeley was going to be perfect if he hadn’t tripped. He will hit these soon. Also, all you people on the play calls early in the game are probably the same people that complained that we didn’t run Tucker enough in the Rutgers game. Why are we throwing so much when we have the best back in the ACC..blah,blah,blah. Then we run him a bunch and it’s what are we doing? Why don’t we open it up? How about giving some- just a little-credit to the adjustment we made to become successful for the rest of the game?
 
Please stop with the go back to Devito! No ...the long passing game is not a lost cause! I respect you as a poster but Shrader CAN throw the long ball. He is not far off and will get better. His last long ball for Queeley was going to be perfect if he hadn’t tripped. He will hit these soon. Also, all you people on the play calls early in the game are probably the same people that complained that we didn’t run Tucker enough in the Rutgers game. Why are we throwing so much when we have the best back in the ACC..blah,blah,blah. Then we run him a bunch and it’s what are we doing? Why don’t we open it up? How about giving some- just a little-credit to the adjustment we made to become successful for the rest of the game?

Tucker ran the ball 13 times against Rutgers and none after his touchdown run that tied it up. the "same people that complained that we didn't run Tucker enough in the Rutgers game" is EVERYBODY.

32 carries against Liberty doesn't seem quite sustainable. In this game, we went to him exclusively early and it wasn't working. Our offense only worked when we combined his runs with Shrader's and the short passes and we scored 30 points in 36 minutes after scoring 0 in 24 minutes. Again, the other team already knows about Tucker and are keying on him. You don't have to wait make the adjustment until the middle of the second quarter. And Tucker got most of his yards after the adjustment.

As to Shrader's long passing, he's now 0 for 11 on passes of over 20 yards in the air. And the pass to Queeley was far from perfect.
 
We don't have to establish Sean Tucker. Everyone knows about him and the opposition has already developed a game plan to stop him before our plan lands. Tucker gained most of his yards when we brought Shrader's runs and short passes into the mix. We scored 30 points in 36 minutes doing that. 60/36 X 30 = 50 points, which we might have scored if we came out in our full, (Shrader) offense from the beginning. Remember - we wanted to jump on an 0-4 team and get an early lead to discourage them? We didn't do that just handing it off to Tucker to make them want to tackle him, which they were already planning to do.
i think tucker and the OL wearing down the FSU defensive front had a lot to do with the big runs in the 2nd half as well
 
Tucker ran the ball 13 times against Rutgers and none after his touchdown run that tied it up. the "same people that complained that we didn't run Tucker enough in the Rutgers game" is EVERYBODY.

32 carries against Liberty doesn't seem quite sustainable. In this game, we went to him exclusively early and it wasn't working. Our offense only worked when we combined his runs with Shrader's and the short passes and we scored 30 points in 36 minutes after scoring 0 in 24 minutes. Again, the other team already knows about Tucker and are keying on him. You don't have to wait make the adjustment until the middle of the second quarter. And Tucker got most of his yards after the adjustment.

As to Shrader's long passing, he's now 0 for 11 on passes of over 20 yards in the air. And the pass to Queeley was far from perfect.
Once again, you fail to give credit to the adjustment made. You get caught in the same trap as soo many. Play calling... thee most overused, overstated,overemphasized critique in football. I promise you that the only thing you,I or any fan knows about playcalling is ...did it work or not. We’re all geniuses after the play has been run.
Let’s agree to disagree.
 
Re-read my post. It specifically says what I wanted.
You wanted them to run the offense that they got to later in the game at the beginning of the game? The coaching staff didn't want to put GS in that position in his second start where he could throw an INT or some other such thing and the game could have gotten away from them early. They slowed played it and got the defense focused on the run and then things opened up. The game plan was fine and the Orange would have gotten a good win if it hadn't been for the "extenuating" factors.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
171,743
Messages
4,974,595
Members
6,020
Latest member
OldeOstrom

Online statistics

Members online
222
Guests online
4,063
Total visitors
4,285


...
Top Bottom