SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 33,856
- Like
- 65,277
- This is quite an interesting series: Syracuse vs Virginia Tech 1869-2023 What is most interesting is that our record in Blacksburg is 3-7. But this game isn’t being played in Blacksburg. It’s being played in the Syracuse, where we are 8-2, including some of our most memorable wins ever.
- Yes, other teams can look at the Pitt films as a template for beating this SU team. But this SU team: Fran Brown, Jeff Nixon and Kyle McCord have seen it, too. They’ve been working for a week on how to counter what Pitt did.
- The fact that we won the second half 13-10 vs. Pitt, outgained them 327-217, had 10 more first downs, converted 6 of 7 fourth down plays and possessed the ball for 43:18 of 60 minutes suggests that we weren’t really overmatched by Pitt; it was the horrendous turnovers in the first half. And if we are really as good as Pitt, an 7-0 top 25 team. And we were up by 17 in the fourth quarter on both Georgia Tech and NC State, should have beaten Stanford and beaten UNLV by 2TDs in regulation. Coulda shoulda woulda but we have a very capable team.
- Maybe this is the game our rushing game breaks out. It’s a Tech defensive weakness. LeQuint Allen has everything but breakaway speed and Jaden Hart and Malachi James do.
- They have Antwaun Powell-Ryland but we have Fadil Diggs and Tech has suffered 53 TFLs, just one less than they’ve achieved.
- Go to the game and let ‘em know you’re there!
5-2 and 5 + to go!
LET’S GO ORANGE!
Stats that favor Syracuse (15):
TOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS SU- 449.10 VT – 377.00
OFFENSIVE FIRST DOWNS SU- 26.29 VT– 18.625
OFFENSIVE PASSING YARDS SU- 358.86 VT – 196.30
OFFENSIVE PASSING YARDS PER ATTEMPT SU- 7.16 VT – 6.89
OFFENSIVE COMPLETION PERCENTAGE SU- 63.24 VT – 53.95
OFFENSIVE 3RD AND 4TH DOWN PERCENTAGE SU- 53.38 VT – 39.52
TACKLES FOR A LOSS ALLOWED SU- 40 VT - 53
TOTAL DEFENSIVE YARDS SU- 336.70 VT – 357.25
DEFENSIVE FIRST DOWNS SU- 17.86 VT – 18.625
DEFENSIVE RUSHING YARDS SU- 125.00 VT – 161.00
DEFENSIVE 3RD AND 4TH DOWN PERCENTAGE SU- 32.53 VT – 39.13
DEFENSIVE PASSING YARDS PER COMPLETION SU- 10.93 VT – 12.76
KICKOFFS THAT WERE RETURNED SU- 5/40 = 12.50% VT - 12/48 = 25.00%
PUNTS RETURNED SU- 7/19 = 36.84% VT - 15/34 = 44.12%
TIME OF POSSESSION SU- 34.55 VT – 28.29
We gain more years by passing for more yards and get more first downs, converting 3rd and 4th downs like they were coming out of a candy machine, thus holding onto the ball longer. That’s our game. Tech appears to have a somewhat leaky line with 53 opponent TFLs- one less than their own. Our defense has given up fewer yards and Tech’s rush defense has been porous, although our offense may not be able to take advantage of that. We allow fewer kick returns. Denaburg and Stonehouse kicking the ball to the other team is the one part of our kicking game we don’t have to apologize for.
Stats that were (relatively) even (11):
SCORING OFFENSE SU- 30.86 VT – 30.75
OFFENSIVE PASSING EFFICIENCY SU- 134.94 VT – 133.95
OFFENSIVE RED ZONE POINTS (extra points assumed) SU- 169/34 = 4.97 VT – 155/29 = 5.34
SACKS ALLOWED SU- 15 VT – 16
DEFENSIVE TOUCHDOWNS SU - 1 VT– 0
BLOCKED KICKS ALLOWED SU- 4 VT - 4
BLOCKED KICKS SU - 0 VT - 0
EXTRA POINTS MISSED SU- 1 (try for 2) VT – 0
KICKOFF RETURNS SU- 19.90 VT – 21.18
OPPONENT KICKOFF RETURNS SU- 22.20 VT – 20.17
OPPONENT KICKOFFS THAT WERE RETURNED SU- 10/37 = 27.03% VT – 11/33 = 33.33%
The big news here is that Tech gets their kicks blocked as much as we do, (I’m now using SU’s stats for blocked kicks as the NCAA’s are surely wrong). But can we get to one? Also, for all the complain, our O-Line hasn’t given up a huge number of sacks, (although it should be noted Tech has played one more game). It’s not the Tommy Devito days or when Andrew Robinson went down 54 times and was never the same.
- Yes, other teams can look at the Pitt films as a template for beating this SU team. But this SU team: Fran Brown, Jeff Nixon and Kyle McCord have seen it, too. They’ve been working for a week on how to counter what Pitt did.
- The fact that we won the second half 13-10 vs. Pitt, outgained them 327-217, had 10 more first downs, converted 6 of 7 fourth down plays and possessed the ball for 43:18 of 60 minutes suggests that we weren’t really overmatched by Pitt; it was the horrendous turnovers in the first half. And if we are really as good as Pitt, an 7-0 top 25 team. And we were up by 17 in the fourth quarter on both Georgia Tech and NC State, should have beaten Stanford and beaten UNLV by 2TDs in regulation. Coulda shoulda woulda but we have a very capable team.
- Maybe this is the game our rushing game breaks out. It’s a Tech defensive weakness. LeQuint Allen has everything but breakaway speed and Jaden Hart and Malachi James do.
- They have Antwaun Powell-Ryland but we have Fadil Diggs and Tech has suffered 53 TFLs, just one less than they’ve achieved.
- Go to the game and let ‘em know you’re there!
5-2 and 5 + to go!
LET’S GO ORANGE!
Stats that favor Syracuse (15):
TOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS SU- 449.10 VT – 377.00
OFFENSIVE FIRST DOWNS SU- 26.29 VT– 18.625
OFFENSIVE PASSING YARDS SU- 358.86 VT – 196.30
OFFENSIVE PASSING YARDS PER ATTEMPT SU- 7.16 VT – 6.89
OFFENSIVE COMPLETION PERCENTAGE SU- 63.24 VT – 53.95
OFFENSIVE 3RD AND 4TH DOWN PERCENTAGE SU- 53.38 VT – 39.52
TACKLES FOR A LOSS ALLOWED SU- 40 VT - 53
TOTAL DEFENSIVE YARDS SU- 336.70 VT – 357.25
DEFENSIVE FIRST DOWNS SU- 17.86 VT – 18.625
DEFENSIVE RUSHING YARDS SU- 125.00 VT – 161.00
DEFENSIVE 3RD AND 4TH DOWN PERCENTAGE SU- 32.53 VT – 39.13
DEFENSIVE PASSING YARDS PER COMPLETION SU- 10.93 VT – 12.76
KICKOFFS THAT WERE RETURNED SU- 5/40 = 12.50% VT - 12/48 = 25.00%
PUNTS RETURNED SU- 7/19 = 36.84% VT - 15/34 = 44.12%
TIME OF POSSESSION SU- 34.55 VT – 28.29
We gain more years by passing for more yards and get more first downs, converting 3rd and 4th downs like they were coming out of a candy machine, thus holding onto the ball longer. That’s our game. Tech appears to have a somewhat leaky line with 53 opponent TFLs- one less than their own. Our defense has given up fewer yards and Tech’s rush defense has been porous, although our offense may not be able to take advantage of that. We allow fewer kick returns. Denaburg and Stonehouse kicking the ball to the other team is the one part of our kicking game we don’t have to apologize for.
Stats that were (relatively) even (11):
SCORING OFFENSE SU- 30.86 VT – 30.75
OFFENSIVE PASSING EFFICIENCY SU- 134.94 VT – 133.95
OFFENSIVE RED ZONE POINTS (extra points assumed) SU- 169/34 = 4.97 VT – 155/29 = 5.34
SACKS ALLOWED SU- 15 VT – 16
DEFENSIVE TOUCHDOWNS SU - 1 VT– 0
BLOCKED KICKS ALLOWED SU- 4 VT - 4
BLOCKED KICKS SU - 0 VT - 0
EXTRA POINTS MISSED SU- 1 (try for 2) VT – 0
KICKOFF RETURNS SU- 19.90 VT – 21.18
OPPONENT KICKOFF RETURNS SU- 22.20 VT – 20.17
OPPONENT KICKOFFS THAT WERE RETURNED SU- 10/37 = 27.03% VT – 11/33 = 33.33%
The big news here is that Tech gets their kicks blocked as much as we do, (I’m now using SU’s stats for blocked kicks as the NCAA’s are surely wrong). But can we get to one? Also, for all the complain, our O-Line hasn’t given up a huge number of sacks, (although it should be noted Tech has played one more game). It’s not the Tommy Devito days or when Andrew Robinson went down 54 times and was never the same.
