Satterfield and Brown don’t have the chops to finish the game. When we had the ball on 4th down on our own 20, we should’ve gone for the first down to seal the game. Going for a field goal is not the play especially when your defense is playing like Swiss cheese.
Can’t Finish
- Thread starter Knucklehank1
- Start date
I agree because you knew with the cushion we were giving their receivers they were going to match Dow field and score.
I was screaming at the TV to go for it because I knew a 6 point lead was not going to hold up. I know Petrino is a villain but no way would he ever call offensive plays like this.
SS plays not to lose instead of playing to win.
MC body language, showed that he disagreed with several play calls. If you can stomach it, watch his body language after he gets the call from the sideline. Several times you could tell that he questioned the call and knew it would blow up.
IF what I saw is accurate, SS may have started some BS in his own locker room because of this.
On the other hand, I didn't like it when MC gave up on the run because he thought our guys screwed up again, but, it does support my theory about division in the locker room.
MC body language, showed that he disagreed with several play calls. If you can stomach it, watch his body language after he gets the call from the sideline. Several times you could tell that he questioned the call and knew it would blow up.
IF what I saw is accurate, SS may have started some BS in his own locker room because of this.
On the other hand, I didn't like it when MC gave up on the run because he thought our guys screwed up again, but, it does support my theory about division in the locker room.
That play was very uncharacteristic of MC. You may be on to something...I hope not. This could be a stretch to infer that...however, anything is possible.
Had he not quit on the play he was going to gain much more yardage for sure. Not sure if the Cards could have declined the penalty or not.
Just one of those things i would like coach to address to clarify what the heck happened.I thought getting the points was the smart thing to do, but is hindsight it wasn’t. It is a conservative approach which lead to running on 3 straight downs to burn their timeouts. A more aggressive approach opens up the playbook while still burning timeouts.
With that said hit either FG at end of half they win. In close games you have to hit field goals. Notre Dame and Michigan both won on last second FG’s. No one wants to be that close but the reality is this won’t be the last time he will need to make a FG to tie or win a game this year.
With that said hit either FG at end of half they win. In close games you have to hit field goals. Notre Dame and Michigan both won on last second FG’s. No one wants to be that close but the reality is this won’t be the last time he will need to make a FG to tie or win a game this year.
I just keep going back the Cards D rushing 3 with the lead. To me, this is the deciding factor in the game. So I don't point to a player(s) inability to close out a game, I put it on the coach decisions to think rushing 3 on D being the best way to close out the game.
I hate the rushing 3 as well. I hate showing it early and not mixing it up. However we are assuming VA doesn’t score against an aggressive defense. Remember 3rd and Grantham. That is a pretty big leap. Do we really feel that much better if they were aggressive they still scored and Louisville still missed a FG to win? I doubt it.
I agree they can’t keep playing defense like they are it just won’t work with their personnel.
I agree they can’t keep playing defense like they are it just won’t work with their personnel.
I took Malik's pulling up on that penalty as frustration because several big runs by him have been negated for holding. But still, he should have ran it out and it was just one of the several little things that cost the game. There is no room for error with this team.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a difference of opinion with Malik and the coach. You know his teammates tell him all the time he could have a monster game if allowed to.
Coach is just trying to build a culture and tough nose, running the ball is his philosophy. But what he needs to realize is that some adjustments against particular opponents may need a more aggressive approach.
A top head coach in that 4th quarter would have seen to it that there would be no 3 and outs and if that means going away from your philosophy you do it. Notice how set up Virginia's defense was for some mis direction or even a trick play. Instead all they did was guess correctly and gang tackle the running back.
Coach did this twice in the 4th quarter which proves his strategy of running clock and not attacking the defense. It was only when the lead was cut to three that the offense went back to what it was the first three quarters.
Yet his conservative approach settled for a FG for just a six point lead. I just can't think of many coaches who would have kicked a FG instead of going for it.
It is what it is. He can't run from the charge he coaches not to lose instead of coaching to win.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a difference of opinion with Malik and the coach. You know his teammates tell him all the time he could have a monster game if allowed to.
Coach is just trying to build a culture and tough nose, running the ball is his philosophy. But what he needs to realize is that some adjustments against particular opponents may need a more aggressive approach.
A top head coach in that 4th quarter would have seen to it that there would be no 3 and outs and if that means going away from your philosophy you do it. Notice how set up Virginia's defense was for some mis direction or even a trick play. Instead all they did was guess correctly and gang tackle the running back.
Coach did this twice in the 4th quarter which proves his strategy of running clock and not attacking the defense. It was only when the lead was cut to three that the offense went back to what it was the first three quarters.
Yet his conservative approach settled for a FG for just a six point lead. I just can't think of many coaches who would have kicked a FG instead of going for it.
It is what it is. He can't run from the charge he coaches not to lose instead of coaching to win.
It’s been proven many times this year. You give Armstrong time he kills you. You pressure him and he throws interceptions. Satt screwed up by not pressuring him.
I don't understand why BB won't put at least one DB up on the line to jam a receiver?
Brown screwed up by not pressuring him.
I would like to hope that Satterfield has a real frank conversation with Brown about the defense and in two weeks we see something different. I sure hope so anyway.
WRs can be jammed with a 3 man rush. They can be jammed by giving a 3 yards or less cushion to at least try to disrupt a route. 1 CB can play man to man in order to shut down the opponents "go to guy" if the CB can handle it. If none of the above are true, then the defense has become 100% obvious as far as when they are defending the run or the pass. BB defense tells you pretty much, if there isn't a 7-10 yard cushion we are playing the run. Giving a 7-10 yard cushion also greatly negates the ability to run blitz etc.... I can see a BB blitz when he is trying to hide it a MILE away. That means that a professional or a well coached QB can too. BB defense will get shredded by any QB that has been given the ability to change a play at the line, in other words any redshirt sophomore or older.
IMO BB either needs to get his feces coagulated and stop playing buddy buddy rah rah cheerleader with the players or hit the door. The only thing that kind of coach will accomplish is getting players hyped up pre-game and as long as things are going well they'll be ok, but, if things start to head south all of that emotion will turn negative. I'd much rather see a coach instill a blue collar work ethic and an all business attitude than a cheerleader. When you play buddy buddy it often blurs the line between leader and friend.
Last edited:
Similar threads
