Georgia Tech Message Boards

D

dluzman

Well-Known Member
I spent quite a while reading most of their 56 pages on the Scout site. If you only read their forum and didn't watch the game you would have thought that GT got a screw job from the refs. Lots and lots and lots of Iowa holding that never got called. How else could Stanzi have that much time to "have tea and crumpets" while in the pocket, as one put it?

In fairness there were a couple that thought Tarrant ran over DJK on the pick 6, and a couple that thought they got a break when interference was NOT called on the pass to Sandeman deep down the middle. A few complained that there should NOT have been a helmet to helmet call on Stanzi that got Iowa a first down at the 7, but there was one sensible fan that thought those guys were nuts, and that is was an easy call.

Lots of bad play calling by Coach Johnson. On one hand they didn't want any passes called but on the other they didn't try enough to #8, their stud receiver. Not that anybody criticizes KOK for playcalling on this site. ;-)

Of course several thought the long layoff was the only reason Iowa was able to stop them. However, many commented on what a beast #94 was.

Quite a bit of trash talking before the game started. Someone said there were 5 to 1, Iowa to GT fans at the game. Someone else complained that there were so few GT fans because the game was on a Tuesday. (I don't know, maybe it was Saturday in Iowa?) One person accounted for the difference because "there is nothing for farmers to do in the winter." Another commented that there wouldn't be nearly as many Iowa fans in the stadium half way through the 4th quarter. (Hmmm, guess that didn't quite work out.)

Kind of interesting to get the perspective from the other side.
 
Was Jimmy (GT28 - IA 14) Johnson over there? Along with a lot of others who I would love to hear their comments. I'll bet that geek on ESPN (which one?), Jesse Palmer is on board now too! In your face brothers. It's Iowa's/Big Ten's turn now; Again; Finally!
 
Palmer actually picked Iowa to win and gave them pretty high confidence points when he helped do the Bowl Mania show on ESPN a few weeks back.
 
And then, we always have Mark May. He was on Iowa's side. I noticed the Blubbering Lou Holtz was wrong also!
 
dluzman said:
...and a couple that thought they got a break when interference was NOT called on the pass to Sandeman deep down the middle. A few complained that there should NOT have been a helmet to helmet call on Stanzi that got Iowa a first down at the 7, but there was one sensible fan that thought those guys were nuts, and that is was an easy call.
Click to expand...

I stream Gary and Eddie during the game so what little I listened to Charles Davis and Stockman call the game for Fox I could not fricken believe Davis said he liked the "no call" on that Sandeman interference. The defensive back clearly had his right arm around Sandeman before the ball got there.
 
PJHawk said:
I stream Gary and Eddie during the game so what little I listened to Charles Davis and Stockman call the game for Fox I could not fricken believe Davis said he liked the "no call" on that Sandeman interference. The defensive back clearly had his right arm around Sandeman before the ball got there.
Click to expand...

I thought the no call was the right call. He had his arm on Sandeman, but he didn't grab him. He had Colin COMPLETELY covered, and he was making a legitimite play on the ball. It was a pass to a covered receiver that probably should have been thrown.
 
GhostofBTT said:
I thought the no call was the right call. He had his arm on Sandeman, but he didn't grab him. He had Colin COMPLETELY covered, and he was making a legitimite play on the ball. It was a pass to a covered receiver that probably should have been thrown.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Watch the replay again through neutral glasses. The defender CLEARLY pulled on Colin's shoulder to the point he illegally interfered with the offensive player's ability to play the ball. Wouldn't be surprised if that footage goes into NCAA football official training tapes on recognizing pass interference.
 
Tech's play calling puzzled me at time last night, on both sides of the ball. I know that 90% of their offense is running, but if you have a stud receiver who has had 6 (at least) touchdowns of 70+ yards this year, wouldn't you at least try to get him the ball at least once during the game? It didn't look to me like Nesbitt ever looked to throw the deep ball.

And on defense, when the sent the blitz it was effective, but they only did it 3 or 4 times. The rest of the time they rushed 4 or put 8 in the box. When they rushed 4, Bulaga and Calloway did a good job of pushing the ends upfield and out of the play.

For as much as we like to ***** about Iowa never changing what they do when it seems obvious that they should, you could say the same thing about Tech last night. Even when it should have been obvious that the option attack wasn't going to work, they never seemed to able to adjust to something that would work.
 
tweeterhawk said:
Are you kidding? Watch the replay again through neutral glasses. The defender CLEARLY pulled on Colin's shoulder to the point he illegally interfered with the offensive player's ability to play the ball. Wouldn't be surprised if that footage goes into NCAA football official training tapes on recognizing pass interference.
Click to expand...

Neutral glasses?

Look, if Colin has his guy beat, and the guy grabbed him from behind, I would have a problem. But Colin didn't have his man beat. His man was right in front of him, and he was going to bat the ball whether he touched Colin or not. There was no penalty because 1. Sandeman had no chance to catch the ball, and 2. The D Back has a right to make a play on the ball.
 
ShadasRevenge said:
Tech's play calling puzzled me at time last night, on both sides of the ball. I know that 90% of their offense is running, but if you have a stud receiver who has had 6 (at least) touchdowns of 70+ yards this year, wouldn't you at least try to get him the ball at least once during the game? It didn't look to me like Nesbitt ever looked to throw the deep ball.

And on defense, when the sent the blitz it was effective, but they only did it 3 or 4 times. The rest of the time they rushed 4 or put 8 in the box. When they rushed 4, Bulaga and Calloway did a good job of pushing the ends upfield and out of the play.

For as much as we like to ***** about Iowa never changing what they do when it seems obvious that they should, you could say the same thing about Tech last night. Even when it should have been obvious that the option attack wasn't going to work, they never seemed to able to adjust to something that would work.
Click to expand...

Did you notice that the QB completed just as many passes to his team as to ours (I think that held up) That stuff works only when the run game is working so D's really bite up.
 
GhostofBTT said:
Neutral glasses?

Look, if Colin has his guy beat, and the guy grabbed him from behind, I would have a problem. But Colin didn't have his man beat. His man was right in front of him, and he was going to bat the ball whether he touched Colin or not. There was no penalty because 1. Sandeman had no chance to catch the ball, and 2. The D Back has a right to make a play on the ball.
Click to expand...

I think that call could have gone either way. I would have been happy with a flag there, but I can see the official didn't throw it. It was a good play by the Tech defender.
 
imported_ankle23 said:
Did you notice that the QB completed just as many passes to his team as to ours (I think that held up) That stuff works only when the run game is working so D's really bite up.
Click to expand...

I get that, but I just can't believe that Tech went into a game like that without a plan B. They knew by halftime that the run game wasn't going to work. Paul Johnson is a good coach, but he and his team got schooled last night.
 
They had to establish the run before it opened up the pass. This is cliche, but very true for them because their QB is so inaccurate. The reciever has to be completely wide open, which means the DB's have to bite on the run which they didn't need to do because our front 7 dominated. I think GT had to stick with what worked for them all year and on their only scoring drive which is exactly what they did.
 
tech was simply out matched on the coaching side. defense made adjustments all game. gt's offense looked a lot like madrid high schools offense
 
pin2win said:
tech was simply out matched on the coaching side.
Click to expand...

After Iowa's last Orange Bowl loss, Ferentz has vowed to never come under prepared for a bowl game again. I think, more than we will ever know, KF hated being on the losing side when we played USC. I think in his mind this game was a chance for redemption.
 
GhostofBTT said:
Neutral glasses?

There was no penalty because 1. Sandeman had no chance to catch the ball, and 2. The D Back has a right to make a play on the ball.
Click to expand...

No chance to catch the ball? You are confusing the play with another. As far as point 2 that doesn't include wrapping his arm around Sandeman's shoulder
 
ShadasRevenge said:
Tech's play calling puzzled me at time last night, on both sides of the ball. I know that 90% of their offense is running, but if you have a stud receiver who has had 6 (at least) touchdowns of 70+ yards this year, wouldn't you at least try to get him the ball at least once during the game? It didn't look to me like Nesbitt ever looked to throw the deep ball.
Click to expand...

The few times GT did look to pass Nesbitt had no time. I don't think they thought they could protect long enough to throw deep.

The only reason GT's passing game works is because they run so much and so effectively that when they do pass it catches teams off guard. With their running game not working there was no way they were going to be able to pass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top