FB: GT 38, Duke 31

[Reilly]

... Now the team has to take the next step and start winning its share of these close games....

+21 Tulane
+04 @FIU
+01 @BC
-01 WFU
-02 UR
-04 VT
-07 GT
-10 @VA
-25 FSU
-30 Stanford
-35 @Miami

We're 2-4 in one score games. Our share presumably would be 3-3. We were predicted as a 4-win team w/ a shot at 6 ... and that's what we've played like ... w/ a bit of bad luck and injury and under-peformance and whatnot so that we may well end up as a 3-win team ... we're still basically on the right path ... couple breaks or bit more better play, and we'd be further down that path ... but still on that path ... our record's no better than '08, '09, '10 ... but we'll have more coming back next year than we had in those other years ... 7/11 of our games this year have been wins or close losses ... that number was 58% for 2008-2010 ... could be 8/12 after next week ... win next week and it would do a *world* of good, in my opinion ...

[ArkieDukie]

I told assistant coach Ron Middleton what play to run on our first play from scrimmage on Saturday, with a request he pass it on to Coach Cut. I can assure you it was neither a run up the middle nor a lateral pass out to the flat, what they call a "bubble pass". We'll see if they take my advice.

Ironically, Ozzie, I was wondering in chat if you had locked Coach Roper away somewhere and were acting as offensive coordinator during our first possession. Did they run your play?

[killerleft]

This is a team that is worse than most opponents. In order to win such games, you have to take risks. And it's not assuredly futile...we specialize in pass offense. Sure our odds of scoring are nil, but the odds of a costly turnover are near as low if played right. This is a low risk move.

The team CANNOT afford to be so conservative if it wants to win against better opponents. And yet it is. But this wasn't even conservative. This was GIVING UP on the half and praying things worked out in the second.

Just terrible. To quote Herm Edwards, you PLAY TO WIN THE GAME. Cutcliffe's strategy is often NOT TO LOSE. Which is incorrect.

Ok, here's your reasons for not stopping the clock, and then please quit the silliness!

1) We call the timeouts, get the ball with 2:10 left from inside the 5, because we stopped them on 4 downs. GT (which didn't have to use its timeouts since we so nicely called the wonderful things for them) then can stop us on downs and get the ball back in our territory with time to score. Not enough to change your mind?

2) We get the ball back after stopping them on downs on our one, GT makes a defensive play for a safety and 2 points! Not enough to change your mind?

3) GT scores on any down, we receive the ball but can't move it, GT uses their timeouts (or our incomplete passes as we try to score stops it for them) to get the ball and scores again! Still not feeling queasy about your great decision to use those timeouts? Well...

4) As you mentioned, any penalty that gives GT a new first down now leaves them with extra time to score. Still not happy?

5) The odds of scoring if we stop them inside the 5 are much lower than the odds that we'll either not score or throw an interception or fumble the ball.

Again, what are the great advantages to using all our timeouts? Go ahead, let us know what they are again. Remember, you can't just I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. because we lost the game. You have to be able to justify your actions. Anything can happen. But it is pretty clear (at least to me) that only if GT scores a touchdown do we get the ball back with any real chance to score. And even then, the odds are better that GT will SCORE AGAIN, not that we will retaliate!

Game, set, and match to not calling timeouts!! Class dismissed.

[Acymetric]

Ok, here's your reasons for not stopping the clock, and then please quit the silliness!

1) We call the timeouts, get the ball with 2:10 left from inside the 5, because we stopped them on 4 downs. GT (which didn't have to use its timeouts since we so nicely called the wonderful things for them) then can stop us on downs and get the ball back in our territory with time to score. Not enough to change your mind?

2) We get the ball back after stopping them on downs on our one, GT makes a defensive play for a safety and 2 points! Not enough to change your mind?

3) GT scores on any down, we receive the ball but can't move it, GT uses their timeouts (or our incomplete passes as we try to score stops it for them) to get the ball and scores again! Still not feeling queasy about your great decision to use those timeouts? Well...

4) As you mentioned, any penalty that gives GT a new first down now leaves them with extra time to score. Still not happy?

5) The odds of scoring if we stop them inside the 5 are much lower than the odds that we'll either not score or throw an interception or fumble the ball.

Again, what are the great advantages to using all our timeouts? Go ahead, let us know what they are again. Remember, you can't just I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. because we lost the game. You have to be able to justify your actions. Anything can happen. But it is pretty clear (at least to me) that only if GT scores a touchdown do we get the ball back with any real chance to score. And even then, the odds are better that GT will SCORE AGAIN, not that we will retaliate!

Game, set, and match to not calling timeouts!! Class dismissed.

All of your scenarios imply the same thing: we aren't competent enough to play either offense or defense when it counts. If that's really the case, and neither our offense nor our defense can be trusted I wish the coaches would have told me before the game so I could have slept in and stayed warm rather than showing up for the devil walk. This is more of the same, playing not to lose. We were going to lose, that was clear after GT was on their way to their 2nd TD with no real resistance. How could we win? Take chances, high risk high reward. We went low ristk/low reward and our low reward wasn't enough to win. Maybe if we called the game like winners our players would play that way. Our coaches have a habit of throwing in the towel at the end of the 2nd quarter rather than try to put up points, and nobody will ever be able to convince me that there isn't a negative effect on team mentality because of that.

[Olympic Fan]

+21 Tulane
+04 @FIU
+01 @BC
-01 WFU
-02 UR
-04 VT
-07 GT
-10 @VA
-25 FSU
-30 Stanford
-35 @Miami

We're 2-4 in one score games. Our share presumably would be 3-3. We were predicted as a 4-win team w/ a shot at 6 ... and that's what we've played like ... w/ a bit of bad luck and injury and under-peformance and whatnot so that we may well end up as a 3-win team ... we're still basically on the right path ... couple breaks or bit more better play, and we'd be further down that path ... but still on that path ... our record's no better than '08, '09, '10 ... but we'll have more coming back next year than we had in those other years ... 7/11 of our games this year have been wins or close losses ... that number was 58% for 2008-2010 ... could be 8/12 after next week ... win next week and it would do a *world* of good, in my opinion ...

technically you are right ... but there's more to it than that.

We were darned lucky to win the Boston College game when a game-winning field goal clanked off the upright. But the way Duke dominatedf the second half, it should not have come down to that field goal -- Duke should have won going away. The same is true of the Wake game that we lost -- we gave up one first down in the second half and lost.

I know you can't win every close game, but when I look at the Richmond game, the Wake game, the Virginia Tech game, the Virginia game and the Georgia Tech game -- coupled with the FIU game that did deserve to be a close game, I think Duke should have won 2 or 3 more games than they did. And the same is true of last year when he could have/should have won the Wake game, the Maryland game (which should not have been close), the Georgia Tech game, the Boston College game and the UNC game. We did win a close game against Virginia that WAS close, but we also won a close game against Navy that shouldn't have been close.

All I'm saying is that as bad as the record looks, Duke is not that far away from being a competitive football team. In my more giddy moments, I imagine winning every game this year that we could have, should have won -- Richmond, Wake, Virginia Tech, Virginia and Georgia Tech. Do that and we're 8-3 and 5-2 ACC and playing UNC to win a spot in the ACC championship game (we'd have the tiebreaker on 5-2 Virginia Tech).

Now, I know that's not realistic, but I think if this team had done a reasonable job of converting its performance into victories, we'd be talking about which bowl we were going to.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

So Ozzie ... I'm still not clear, did Cut run your play?

The first play of the game -- the end around to Donovan Varner --went for 39 yards and set up Duke's first TD.


Of course, it wouldn't hurt to end this season with a victory over the Evil Empire (I feel that way about their corrupt football program ... not so much about their basketball program).

No, but we did in the 4th quarter! Essentially, I was pleading for a mid-range passing game, passes/patterns long enough (usually) to get a first down before the run, in the 12 - 18 yard range. Specifically, I asked for a 15 yard pass play. When we had 2nd and 20 in the 4th quarter, I said we need to get 15 back, and Renfree threw to Vernon for exactly 15! Then we got 8 on the next pass for the first down!

We actually discovered this tactic today! Renfree repeatedly threw mid-range passes today, especially in the second half! It only took us 11 damn games! If only we had done this in September... or better yet, August!

As for the first play, the end around to Varner, I approve. It was something creatively different! It wasn't a run up the middle or a bubble pass to the flats! Of course, the next half dozen times we tried to run it (mostly with Vernon) it went for essentially no gain. Maybe we need to add a reverse to the playbook next week...

Next week? YES! Let's beat those cheatin' sumI'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.es! Bring home that Bell!

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Ironically, Ozzie, I was wondering in chat if you had locked Coach Roper away somewhere and were acting as offensive coordinator during our first possession. Did they run your play?

Obviously not to your first question, but see my post above as to your second!

[sagegrouse]

Or did it fade away when Gabby Hayes died?

If not, the touchdown call at the end of the first half was the most lily-livered, yellow-bellied, cowardly call I have ever seen in college football. It was absolutely clear from the end-zone shot that Tech's Emery Peeples had his knee on the ground at the two-yard line. Ergo, the ball could not have been in the end zone.

The play on the field was cowardly, in that the linesman assumed that he was gonna score, saw him slide into the pylon, and called a TD. The failure to overturn in the booth was not only cowardly, but dastardly. It was a call that reeked an attitude of, "Duke's gonna lose; let's don't upset the applecart. The Georgia Tech fans will scream bloody murder; the Duke fans will just put their heads down and shuffle away."

The game announcers and the studio host (Terry Bowden) were not afraid to call it the way they saw it. It was just the impartial arbiters on the field and in the booth that failed the test.

sagegrouse

[killerleft]

All of your scenarios imply the same thing: we aren't competent enough to play either offense or defense when it counts. If that's really the case, and neither our offense nor our defense can be trusted I wish the coaches would have told me before the game so I could have slept in and stayed warm rather than showing up for the devil walk. This is more of the same, playing not to lose. We were going to lose, that was clear after GT was on their way to their 2nd TD with no real resistance. How could we win? Take chances, high risk high reward. We went low ristk/low reward and our low reward wasn't enough to win. Maybe if we called the game like winners our players would play that way. Our coaches have a habit of throwing in the towel at the end of the 2nd quarter rather than try to put up points, and nobody will ever be able to convince me that there isn't a negative effect on team mentality because of that.

Um-hmm. So you would take the ball on the one with 99 yards to go with two minutes left in the half rather than go to the locker room not having to deal with that? Not many teams would. You can rah-rah all you want, but we don't have an offense set up to batter the opponent's defensive line with three safe runs to get a first down. Brave and aggressive had an almost certain three point downside to it there. Add in that we're gonna have to probably try a pass or two and the odds of disaster go up accordingly. This was the end of the first half, not the game. OF COURSE we might have gone the 99 yards, but the risk was way too large that, at best, we make a first down without any use of timeouts, and try a Hail Mary pass from our own 15.

High risk from inside your ten (I couldn't tell at the time, but some have said we should have gotten the ball back just outside our goal line according to the review of the TD play) is only for end of game situations, when there is no choice. As the game played out, Duke had a chance to tie or win. What would have been the cost if we had been the architects of our own ruin at the end of the half?

[killerleft]

Or did it fade away when Gabby Hayes died?

If not, the touchdown call at the end of the first half was the most lily-livered, yellow-bellied, cowardly call I have ever seen in college football. It was absolutely clear from the end-zone shot that Tech's Emery Peeples had his knee on the ground at the two-yard line. Ergo, the ball could not have been in the end zone.

The play on the field was cowardly, in that the linesman assumed that he was gonna score, saw him slide into the pylon, and called a TD. The failure to overturn in the booth was not only cowardly, but dastardly. It was a call that reeked an attitude of, "Duke's gonna lose; let's don't upset the applecart. The Georgia Tech fans will scream bloody murder; the Duke fans will just put their heads down and shuffle away."

The game announcers and the studio host (Terry Bowden) were not afraid to call it the way they saw it. It was just the impartial arbiters on the field and in the booth that failed the test.

sagegrouse

I don't know about any referee bias, but I believe you are correct that the replay refs didn't fully analyze the info available from the replays. Though no angle gave a clear-cut view of the knee-down and arm-reach of the runner, by comparing the two best replays it is obvious that the ball had not been reached out far enough to allow the guy to score before his knee touched the ground. His arms were only half-extended when his knee touched. Only the full extension allowed him to brush the pylon on his way out of bounds.

[Reilly]

technically you are right ... but there's more to it than that.

We were darned lucky to win the Boston College game when a game-winning field goal clanked off the upright. But the way Duke dominatedf the second half, it should not have come down to that field goal -- Duke should have won going away. The same is true of the Wake game that we lost -- we gave up one first down in the second half and lost.

I know you can't win every close game, but when I look at the Richmond game, the Wake game, the Virginia Tech game, the Virginia game and the Georgia Tech game -- coupled with the FIU game that did deserve to be a close game, I think Duke should have won 2 or 3 more games than they did. And the same is true of last year when he could have/should have won the Wake game, the Maryland game (which should not have been close), the Georgia Tech game, the Boston College game and the UNC game. We did win a close game against Virginia that WAS close, but we also won a close game against Navy that shouldn't have been close.

All I'm saying is that as bad as the record looks, Duke is not that far away from being a competitive football team. In my more giddy moments, I imagine winning every game this year that we could have, should have won -- Richmond, Wake, Virginia Tech, Virginia and Georgia Tech. Do that and we're 8-3 and 5-2 ACC and playing UNC to win a spot in the ACC championship game (we'd have the tiebreaker on 5-2 Virginia Tech).

Now, I know that's not realistic, but I think if this team had done a reasonable job of converting its performance into victories, we'd be talking about which bowl we were going to.

Gregg Easterbrook (espn's Tuesday Morning QB) had a column a couple weeks ago that touches on some of your post -- he takes to task fans who blame the team for "blowing a lead". When we fans say Duke "should" have won easily, we're engaging in the same sort of analysis that Easterbrook would fault.

http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/story/...team-lost-lead

As the title says, victories, even comebacks, are earned. I would say close losses, even ones where we played really well for certain stretches, are equally earned. The game is 60 minutes. Against WFU, we didn't punch it in on the goal line, and then we didn't tackle a WR and allowed a 66-yd catch and run. We earned that close loss.

We could easily be -- not should be, but could be -- 1-10 right now: BC makes an extra point, basically, and JDO doesn't get a paw on the ball at FIU, and we're sitting at 1-10.

On the other hand, we could be -- not should be, but could be -- 6-5 or 8-3 right now, if we'd just done a few more things, or a few more things went our way. So, 1-10 or 8-3.

We are what we should be: 3-8. 3-8 teams turn the ball over twice in their own territory and miss short FGs against mediocre I-AA teams and lose ... 3-8 teams don't punch it in on the goal line and give up long TD passes instead of breaking an 11-year losing streak ... 3-8 teams get the dropsies in Charlottesville ... 3-8 teams allow option QBs to run to the short side of the field, through nearly every defender, and scamper to the endzone.

All that being said, I agree with your bottom line analysis: "All I'm saying is that as bad as the record looks, Duke is not that far away from being a competitive football team." In fact, I'll go you one better: we *are* a competitive football team. If we can beat UNC or lose by 1 score or less, then 8 of our 12 games will have been either a win or a 1-score or less loss this year (67%). Each of the past 3 years, we had 7 of 12 as a win or close loss (58% over the 3-years). In the 3 years before Cut, only 25% of our games were a win or a close loss. We've gone from having a chance 1 out of 4 Saturdays to having a chance 2 out of every 3 Saturdays. Massive improvement. Looking at wins + close losses percentage allows us to take into account the vagaries of the game, the bad bounces, the dumb luck.

In the end, I'm in the tank for Cut ... I'm on the bus ... I believe we *are* a competitve team ... and I *also* believe we have won our fair share (or nearly our fair share) of our close games this year and that we have earned our record.