by wiNDycityfan (2019-09-22 14:14:00)
Edited on 2019-09-22 14:14:38
In my mind, this game was more indicative of Georgia’s methodical, conservative approach than anything we may have done. Yes, the defense (mainly LBs) played well above my expectations, but that was our sole bright spot - other than punting.
To me, Georgia stuck to their gameplan no matter what (sticking to running the ball despite how open their receivers were) while we looked like a high school offense at times - unimaginative, poorly called and full of mistakes. About the only options that worked for us were drag routes, and Book really needs to work on going through his progressions and not staring down his receivers. It was like watching the Chicago Bears offense under Mitchell Trubisky - just painful.
All in all, I feel as though Georgia could’ve torched us, repeatedly, and even put the knife well before (kicking the FG instead of going for it while up 20-10), but somehow chose not to. That WE had the chance to win this game was laughable, and in turn, we waste precious time and opportunities with the worst final drive decisions I’ve seen.
In closing, I’m glad we could at least stay in the game and enjoy it until the end, but it was more as a result of Georgia being conservative than us going toe to toe with them.
As far as Athens and atmosphere is concerned, it was everything I could’ve hoped for.
...Having the ball in decent starting position with 2:00 left to win the game would constitute being close by just about anyone's definition.
My own feeling at the time was that we'd need to be lucky to win in that circumstance; Book, for all of his basic talent, had not exhibited the kind of mental approach that would flourish in a pressure-packed 2:00 situation, where the QB would need to face up to great defensive rushes, step up in the pocket, and have the quick-witted presence of mind to find the best option. If we'd had the 1977 or 1978 Joe Montana back there, I would have estimated a 70%+ likelihood of winning. As it was, I was guessing about 1 chance in 3; therefore, not really as close as the bare description in my first paragraph might suggest.
I wonder if Book has been overly subjected to instructions to not throw interceptions and to not get sacked--his responses seem highly conditioned.
I think I have to disagree with your characterization of Georgia's choice--it is almost inconceivable that they would intentionally avoid the path that would most assure victory. If they could have repeatedly torched us and put the knife in, if they saw such opportunities, that would have made the margin greater at the end than it actually was. I believe they were playing for the best way to win. Now, it's quite possible that they perceived what course of play gave them the best chance of victory.
EDIT: My confidence at the 2:00 mark also took into account the entire offensive performance up to that point--the playcalling, the execution, etc.
We had the ball on our 40 with 2 minutes. We ran our two-minute offense before halftime and went through them like shit through a goose. I don’t we could’ve asked for a better situation at the end of a game - or one that was more suited to our one-dimensional offense. At the end of the day, one in three is about the best odds our offense can muster in any situation. Unfortunately, Book’s happy feet made an encore performance and blew his chance to become an ND legend.
shouldn't have been in 4th and 9 situation. Coulda, woulda, shoulda.
This time, not one point.
had a shot in the last minute. This game in November, December or January should look quite different.
That makes no sense.
PS
We rank #104 nationally in penalties per game.
We rank #109 nationally in sacks per game.
...I think we were not as strong as our opponents. Kirby made some head scratcher moves, perhaps because of conservatism; but I think the score could have much more easily had gone more in their favor than in ours.
UGA had the more balanced and disciplined attack; UGA out-adjusted ND at the half.
that UGA didn’t intend and attempt to score every time they had the ball. To think otherwise is just too cynical. They understood and appreciated the national audience. Give our lads more credit. Last night should encourage you that ND football is NOT lost in the wilderness. ND football can compete against anyone. We are an offense away from being elite. That we are 10 years into this “offensive” scheme is this morning’s reality check. This is our purgatory; better than Hell, but no where near Glory.
Although certainly more mobile and accurate than Rees, the offense reminds me much of the Rees years... although, incredibly, I think the noodle armed Rees was more willing to take shots farther down the field.
The fact our QB coach has no real experience and Book's limited development is the latest in a long series of indictable offenses for Kelly.
...as do all of Kelly's offensive coaches. That's what Kelly needs.
The defense played well enough to win this game. I was shocked that we at least got some pressure on their punter at least once.
However, we didn’t make even a token attempt at establishing any kind of running game. We had what, 14 attempts? I think 11 were by running backs? Elite teams don’t do that.
Further, Georgia is a good football team. However, I don’t think they run the table. Like us, they are coached by a meathead and I don’t think they escape the Florida, Auburn, or Texas A&M trifecta unscathed. If they make the SEC Championship they’ll lose to whoever comes out of the west.
Had we packed any kind of rushing attack, we could’ve won this game.