Tre was a beast tonight. Played a great game overall and the one-handed grab and blocked punt just made it that much better. Real promising for the future.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I'm not sure what he was talking about how they were kind of in between..."yeah we may pop a run out of there and then we're gonna go..." can someone explain what happened at the end of regulation...
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I think he's just saying that they were calling running plays to run out the clock, but also hoping they'd get a big gain out of one and come away with some points. Mostly, they didn't want to give the ball back to UVa with time on the clock.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
We took a shot at getting a score at the end of the first half. It didn't turn out well. Personally I can understand why the coaches might be apprehensive about taking risks at the end of regulation.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
We didn't take a shot, it was a 8 yard out 30 yards from the end zone with 8 seconds on the clock. A shot is 2-3 WR's running into the end zone and looking for the ball.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I said we took a shot at scoring, which on that play meant gaining some yards to get into field goal range. If the pass had been incomplete rather than an interception, I'm guessing we would have thrown it up to the end zone on the last play of the half.
Aside from debating semantics over what "taking a shot to score" means, I hoped it would be obvious that my point is that we encountered a similar situation at the end of the first half (actually a more favorable situation as we were on UVA's 31 yard line instead of our own 37) and pushed for a score. It very nearly resulted in disaster. Yet people are shocked or upset that we didn't take more risks at the end of regulation? It seems pretty damn obvious to me why our coaches wouldn't be especially confident slinging the ball around in that situation.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I'm fine with how we ended regulation. But the interception was a result of a bad decision in my opinion.
You have a kicking unit that had not made a fg since the Notre Dame game. UVA knows you have 3 options, loft it to the end zone and hope, try that out route because we had no timeouts, or sit on it. It's not surprising they were sitting on that route waiting to make us pay. I think a prayer to the endzone would have been the better, and safer call.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Players made mistakes like they always will, but we had a chance to win in regulation in spite of them and Fuente chose to rely on the defense you are referring to.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Rely on the defense? Fuente would of been relying on the defense if the offense tried to take shots down field and had to punt the ball back to uva with 3 timeouts...he clearly didn't want to give the ball back to uva and rely on his defense hence running the ball. Not to mention I think we all witnessed like 10 consecutive pass plays get batted like beach balls at the line of scrimmage. Trying to pop a run was the right call.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Yea the rule is if you're at home you play for overtime because home field advantage is huge for defense (see perkins' fumble). If you're on the road you try to win it then and there and get the hell out of dodge
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
What a ludicrous statement. I'll help if it's too hard to understand the mindset at the end of the game. Fuente was thinking, "we tried to gain 10 yards to get into field goal range before the half and I had to watch my QB run over a ref and chase down a cornerback to prevent a pick 6. Now we've got 30 seconds left, no timeouts, and we need 40 yards to feel like we have a chance to make a field goal. Let's see if we can get enough yards so that a turnover doesn't guarantee them a chance at the game winning field goal. And if not let's take our chances in overtime."
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
We could have been punting the ball back to them with a good bit of time on the clock and 3 TOs if we started to sling it around and came up with 3 straight incompletions.
And we also can't forget that Willis had only completed 4 passes in the second half.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Ok Ludicrous, why did he choose to spike the ball after getting a first down with 45 seconds still on the clock, then run the ball again to run out the clock?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
If you take him at his word, he wanted to see if we could pop another run. We wouldn't have had that chance without stopping the clock after the 1st down. I can certainly understand that being considered too conservative but I can also see the logic behind it.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
We popped another 7 yard run after a 12 yard run. We had 35 yards to go in 45 seconds when our previous drive was a 51-second touchdown drive. Why stop the clock and get 19 yards just to run the clock down to overtime?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
So what exactly did you want to see? Give me the exact details because it's a waste of time running in circles over this. As I said, one could see it as overly conservative but it's still far from an egregious offense by the coaches. If you would have preferred to throw the ball on 3rd and 3 that's fine, but we were out of timeouts and I've covered why the coaches might have been apprehensive about throwing toward the sideline again.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Comments
thanks for posting!
Tre Turner filled in for him very well
Tre was a beast tonight. Played a great game overall and the one-handed grab and blocked punt just made it that much better. Real promising for the future.
I'm not sure what he was talking about how they were kind of in between..."yeah we may pop a run out of there and then we're gonna go..." can someone explain what happened at the end of regulation...
I think he's just saying that they were calling running plays to run out the clock, but also hoping they'd get a big gain out of one and come away with some points. Mostly, they didn't want to give the ball back to UVa with time on the clock.
I just wish we could have at least taken a shot at down the field.
We took a shot at getting a score at the end of the first half. It didn't turn out well. Personally I can understand why the coaches might be apprehensive about taking risks at the end of regulation.
We didn't take a shot, it was a 8 yard out 30 yards from the end zone with 8 seconds on the clock. A shot is 2-3 WR's running into the end zone and looking for the ball.
I said we took a shot at scoring, which on that play meant gaining some yards to get into field goal range. If the pass had been incomplete rather than an interception, I'm guessing we would have thrown it up to the end zone on the last play of the half.
Aside from debating semantics over what "taking a shot to score" means, I hoped it would be obvious that my point is that we encountered a similar situation at the end of the first half (actually a more favorable situation as we were on UVA's 31 yard line instead of our own 37) and pushed for a score. It very nearly resulted in disaster. Yet people are shocked or upset that we didn't take more risks at the end of regulation? It seems pretty damn obvious to me why our coaches wouldn't be especially confident slinging the ball around in that situation.
I'm fine with how we ended regulation. But the interception was a result of a bad decision in my opinion.
You have a kicking unit that had not made a fg since the Notre Dame game. UVA knows you have 3 options, loft it to the end zone and hope, try that out route because we had no timeouts, or sit on it. It's not surprising they were sitting on that route waiting to make us pay. I think a prayer to the endzone would have been the better, and safer call.
Good news conference, for Fuente.
If anyone thinks Fuente doesn't care about the players, this news conference is evidence to the contrary.
That's the truth. Him taking about slick Rick and how happy he was for him was cool.
Tre: a one man band. Yep!
The audio works; something must be wrong.
Gotta say it was the players and not the coaches that really won this game. No idea what Fuente was thinking at the end of regulation.
Yeah cause Fuente is responsible for the 500 missed tackles in the 2nd half....
Players made mistakes like they always will, but we had a chance to win in regulation in spite of them and Fuente chose to rely on the defense you are referring to.
Rely on the defense? Fuente would of been relying on the defense if the offense tried to take shots down field and had to punt the ball back to uva with 3 timeouts...he clearly didn't want to give the ball back to uva and rely on his defense hence running the ball. Not to mention I think we all witnessed like 10 consecutive pass plays get batted like beach balls at the line of scrimmage. Trying to pop a run was the right call.
You talking about going for 2 instead of kicking? I hope not, it's one of the worst things a coach can do
Yea the rule is if you're at home you play for overtime because home field advantage is huge for defense (see perkins' fumble). If you're on the road you try to win it then and there and get the hell out of dodge
No, I didn't disagree with that. I meant the final drive before overtime.
What a ludicrous statement. I'll help if it's too hard to understand the mindset at the end of the game. Fuente was thinking, "we tried to gain 10 yards to get into field goal range before the half and I had to watch my QB run over a ref and chase down a cornerback to prevent a pick 6. Now we've got 30 seconds left, no timeouts, and we need 40 yards to feel like we have a chance to make a field goal. Let's see if we can get enough yards so that a turnover doesn't guarantee them a chance at the game winning field goal. And if not let's take our chances in overtime."
UVA also had all 3 timeouts.
We could have been punting the ball back to them with a good bit of time on the clock and 3 TOs if we started to sling it around and came up with 3 straight incompletions.
And we also can't forget that Willis had only completed 4 passes in the second half.
Ok Ludicrous, why did he choose to spike the ball after getting a first down with 45 seconds still on the clock, then run the ball again to run out the clock?
If you take him at his word, he wanted to see if we could pop another run. We wouldn't have had that chance without stopping the clock after the 1st down. I can certainly understand that being considered too conservative but I can also see the logic behind it.
We popped another 7 yard run after a 12 yard run. We had 35 yards to go in 45 seconds when our previous drive was a 51-second touchdown drive. Why stop the clock and get 19 yards just to run the clock down to overtime?
So what exactly did you want to see? Give me the exact details because it's a waste of time running in circles over this. As I said, one could see it as overly conservative but it's still far from an egregious offense by the coaches. If you would have preferred to throw the ball on 3rd and 3 that's fine, but we were out of timeouts and I've covered why the coaches might have been apprehensive about throwing toward the sideline again.
I'll take a shot at this.
Probably something like: Damned if I do and damned if I don't, so I'll take the option that statistically favors the home team.
This is a no win for him so I'm certain he went with the higher probability option.
Hope Fuente has had a chance to get some sleep. Looked and sounded like he hadn't slept all week.