Very true Beezer! The turnaround belongs to the entire staff as well as the players. Plenty of credit to go around.
Look, I don't want to pile on Fed, BUT....
- Thread starter UNCGridironFanatic
- Start date
Up by 1 point on the road, with 4:05 left on the game clock, Fedora called for an on-side kick last season against Virginia. It effectively sealed the victory because UNC recovered and Virginia never ran another play. I'm curious to know your opinion of that call.
Now that was a ballsy call. Coaches are damned if they take risks and damned for being too conservative. As long as we don't kick off to start both halves...
Apples and oranges. W/ 4:05 left in the GAME, up one w/ the atrocious D we had last yr. against a strong running team, it's a good risk....if they recover, we're most likely to get it back for a potential game-winning drive. The situation bore the decision out as a good one. The fact that WE recovered was just icing on the cake. OTOH, up 24-0 against a team that you're defending well anyway, in the first half, is an AWFUL time for an onsides. Can change Ole 'Mo immediately.... gives them a short field and a potentially cheap score.
Thank u for asking. You illustrated my point that the result of the decision isn't what defines it as a good or bad decision, in a strategic sense.
Gridiron,
I have no problem with you criticizing the onside kick decision, but this thread rings very hollow given that it was posted right after a dominant win on senior night to take us to 9-1, 6-0.
If you want to pick nits, that's fine. But the juxtaposition of your hypercritical threads with how well our season is going makes you look like a mixture between a hater and a know-it-all.
You could have absolutely voiced this concern in the game thread, which would've been more appropriate (I myself went on a mini rant about strongly disagreeing with the decision to call timeouts near the end of the first half at Pitt, but I said my piece in the game thread and move on). Just sorta looks bad to have an anti-Fedora ('s decisions) thread on our public board during the midst of our stellar season.
I have no problem with you criticizing the onside kick decision, but this thread rings very hollow given that it was posted right after a dominant win on senior night to take us to 9-1, 6-0.
If you want to pick nits, that's fine. But the juxtaposition of your hypercritical threads with how well our season is going makes you look like a mixture between a hater and a know-it-all.
You could have absolutely voiced this concern in the game thread, which would've been more appropriate (I myself went on a mini rant about strongly disagreeing with the decision to call timeouts near the end of the first half at Pitt, but I said my piece in the game thread and move on). Just sorta looks bad to have an anti-Fedora ('s decisions) thread on our public board during the midst of our stellar season.
No kidding. Those that bitch the most know the least. Guy could not walk in Feds shoes for a minute.
Not trying to pick nits, and I did post the thread DURING THE GAME. I didn't wait until after the game. You're right about one thing; it's about the DECISIONS. Anyone who can read knows I'm not anti-Fed. I'm anti- ONE THING....the out of the blue bonehead decisions that can, do, and have cost us dearly during his time here. Ad infinitum, I've praised his program building skills, and will continue to do so....make no mistake, those skills are what are responsible for our stellar year....he's amassed an extraordinary mass of talent on the offensive side of the ball.
See, I thought the exact opposite at the time. With an awful defense last season, why give them a short field that virtually assured a score, most likely a touchdown? That would have put enormous pressure on our offense (yet again) to win the ball game. The onside kick Saturday, on the other hand, wasn't a big deal to me because I knew our defense could probably get a stop and we already had a comfortable margin with which to work. That said, I didn't like the call and said so at the time.
[Edit to add:] Virginia was not a good rushing team last season. Or a good passing team, either.
Last edited:
Uva's offensive strength last year was rushing, and for large parts of that game, they gashed us on the ground (who didn't last year?). Yes, giving the short field to uva would've put game-winning pressure on our O to respond; but it was highly likely we'd get it back if they started on the 50 or so. Had they got it at the 25, they could've milked the clock deeper, most likely to near nothing. Last year, would a better choice for us be to have put pressure to win the game on our 32 ppg scoring O, or on our 39.6 ppg allowing D? I guess it is a matter of perspective.
The UM call could've been a momentum changing, pendulum event....when we already had it ALL.
Nonsense. They were 97th nationally in rushing yards per game (138) and 98th in yards per carry (3.7) out of 125 teams. We held them to 159 and 3.7.
My point exactly. What you called "brain-dead idiocy" was actually a highly subjective decision. There's really no need for that kind of hyperbole.
He didn't say you should have posted this drivel during the game. He said you should have posted this BS in the in-game thread.
What he said. Beezer, was that I posted the thread AFTER the game. Read before you type; might help you.
"You could have absolutely voiced this concern in the game thread, which would've been more appropriate" - TarHeelNation11, 7:35pm paragraph 3; 1st sentence.
I'm not gonna argue w/ you, Beezer. He said both things. You chose to focus on the one that I didn't...since it was directed at me, I answered thusly. Quoted his exact statement from the first paragraph of his reply to me.
I can't help myself here. you have poor comprehension skills, UNCGF. He wasn't bemoaning the fact you posted it after the game. He was bemoaning the fact you posted it at all because we won and it was senior night. In other words what he was saying was your thread was done in poor taste. I'll quit now that (hopefully?) we are all on the same page.
