Post Game: Baffling loss

[Eriul]

I never said Stitt makes all the right choices. I did say that there is a VERY little argument for Chalich being the better QB. Before this week Chalich had statistics against 2 awful defenses to argue his case. But he vastly under-performed against a bad defense. Now Chalich doesn't even have stats to argue his side.

The one thing Chalich has over Brady is his mobility, which we saw last week as more of a flaw than a bonus

 

[Eriul]

Yah we get it... you just like to contradict people without actually ever stating an opinion. If you do you get called out on your BS and then you say you "never said that."

I never said to bench BG. I did, on numerous occasions say that Stitt should look to make changes, but that does not automatically mean the QB. Comprehend?

Your shtick is old. Move on. We all know how you felt. This isn't politics here.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Yah we get it... you just like to contradict people without actually ever stating an opinion. If you do you get called out on your BS and then you say you "never said that."

I never said to bench BG. I did, on numerous occasions say that Stitt should look to make changes, but that does not automatically mean the QB. Comprehend?

Your shtick is old. Move on. We all know how you felt. This isn't politics here.

Your bias is showing. And you can only assume, and interpret based on your bias.

 

[Eriul]

Says the guy that called Stitt "too stubborn to sit Brady"

 

[kemajic]

I may be in the minority but I don't like a qb that has 24 rushes in a game. To many times, I just saw him tuck it and run and not really look for his receivers. I don't profess to be a student of the game, but I would prefer my qb stay in the morning, check off the receivers, and the run when needed. His rushes would be even more effective if he only runs 8-10 times a game.

Sounds ideal, but our O-line was getting beat consistently and the WRs were not getting separation.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Says the guy that called Stitt "too stubborn to sit Brady"

Actually I didn't, I asked a question looking for others to input on Stitt.

Anyone think that Stitt is too stubborn to yank Gus?

 

[kemajic]

- The defense still gave up 1 big play but actually did much better than we'd seen in weeks prior. There was some good QB pressure and QB hits, and the coverage (with a few noticeable exceptions) did their job.

We had a 4 point lead with 7+ minutes in the game. Make a stop and we likely win the game. Instead UNC marches 75 yards and scores the TD to win. Defense needs to be good when the game is on the line.

Regarding coverage, McKinley was consistently beaten; an accurate passer would have blown us out.

 

[fanofzoo]

Says the guy that called Stitt "too stubborn to sit Brady"

Actually I didn't, I asked a question looking for others to input on Stitt.

Anyone think that Stitt is too stubborn to yank Gus?

I would call him very inflexible.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I may be in the minority but I don't like a qb that has 24 rushes in a game. To many times, I just saw him tuck it and run and not really look for his receivers. I don't profess to be a student of the game, but I would prefer my qb stay in the morning, check off the receivers, and the run when needed. His rushes would be even more effective if he only runs 8-10 times a game.

Sounds ideal, but our O-line was getting beat consistently.

That 'might have been the worst performance by our O-line this year, IMHO.

 

[fanofzoo]

I may be in the minority but I don't like a qb that has 24 rushes in a game. To many times, I just saw him tuck it and run and not really look for his receivers. I don't profess to be a student of the game, but I would prefer my qb stay in the morning, check off the receivers, and the run when needed. His rushes would be even more effective if he only runs 8-10 times a game.

Sounds ideal, but our O-line was getting beat consistently.

That 'might have been the worst performance by our O-line this year, IMHO.

Come on they are bigger, faster and more experienced than last year, goes the memo.

 

[Eriul]

I may be in the minority but I don't like a qb that has 24 rushes in a game. To many times, I just saw him tuck it and run and not really look for his receivers. I don't profess to be a student of the game, but I would prefer my qb stay in the morning, check off the receivers, and the run when needed. His rushes would be even more effective if he only runs 8-10 times a game.

Sounds ideal, but our O-line was getting beat consistently.

That 'might have been the worst performance by our O-line this year, IMHO.

Which is saying a lot

 

[bigforkgriz]

3. Good thing Chalich was QB & not Brady; loss would have been bigger.

Disagree 100%

Brady would've managed the game in the pocket better, seen the field better, panicked way less in the face of pressure, and stretched the field. Something Chalich had an issue with yesterday.

I saw the game differently. UNC played defense to take the pass away. Eight players played the pass with three down lineman. They played 3 deep safeties frequently. That is why Chalich never threw deep, "stretched the field". I don't think Brady would have thrown it long either. It is also why he ran so much. No one was open. It was 8 against 4 or 5 receivers. It is also why we ran so well and so much. He made the read or Stitt had him hand it off. For the most part except in the case of baffling play calls we took what they gave us.
People find it odd that he threw deep often against ISU but never against UNC. It wasn't odd at all. It wasn't there because of the defensive scheme.
The happy feet statement about Chalich is bogus. You take what a player is good at and use it, plus UNC's defensive scheme made the run game the sensible read more often. This game Chalich did actually keep the ball purposely on a zone/read multiple times, which didn't happen against ISU. It was obviously planned when they saw UNC's defensive scheme.
I think if Brady had played instead of running he would have had numerous throw-a-ways out of bounds because no one was open.

 

[kemajic]

I never said Stitt makes all the right choices. I did say that there is a VERY little argument for Chalich being the better QB. Before this week Chalich had statistics against 2 awful defenses to argue his case. But he vastly under-performed against a bad defense. Now Chalich doesn't even have stats to argue his side.

The one thing Chalich has over Brady is his mobility, which we saw last week as more of a flaw than a bonus

Really? Without Chalich's legs we get blown out.

 

[Eriul]

I never said Stitt makes all the right choices. I did say that there is a VERY little argument for Chalich being the better QB. Before this week Chalich had statistics against 2 awful defenses to argue his case. But he vastly under-performed against a bad defense. Now Chalich doesn't even have stats to argue his side.

The one thing Chalich has over Brady is his mobility, which we saw last week as more of a flaw than a bonus

Really? Without Chalich's legs we get blown out.

I disagree.

 

[grizindabox]

I never said Stitt makes all the right choices. I did say that there is a VERY little argument for Chalich being the better QB. Before this week Chalich had statistics against 2 awful defenses to argue his case. But he vastly under-performed against a bad defense. Now Chalich doesn't even have stats to argue his side.

The one thing Chalich has over Brady is his mobility, which we saw last week as more of a flaw than a bonus

Really? Without Chalich's legs we get blown out.

I disagree.

.....of course you do.....color me.....surprised....

 

[bigforkgriz]

3. Good thing Chalich was QB & not Brady; loss would have been bigger.

Disagree 100%

Brady would've managed the game in the pocket better, seen the field better, panicked way less in the face of pressure, and stretched the field. Something Chalich had an issue with yesterday.

I saw the game differently. UNC played defense to take the pass away. Eight players played the pass with three down lineman. They played 3 deep safeties frequently. That is why Chalich never threw deep, "stretched the field". I don't think Brady would have thrown it long either. It is also why he ran so much. No one was open. It was 8 against 4 or 5 receivers. It is also why we ran so well and so much. He made the read or Stitt had him hand it off. For the most part except in the case of baffling play calls we took what they gave us.
People find it odd that he threw deep often against ISU but never against UNC. It wasn't odd at all. It wasn't there because of the defensive scheme.
The happy feet statement about Chalich is bogus. You take what a player is good at and use it, plus UNC's defensive scheme made the run game the sensible read more often. This game Chalich did actually keep the ball purposely on a zone/read multiple times, which didn't happen against ISU. It was obviously planned when they saw UNC's defensive scheme.
I think if Brady had played instead of running he would have had numerous throw-a-ways out of bounds because no one was open.

Also I don't think the the O-line blocked any better for the run game. They just had fewer people to block for the RB to get to the second level.

 

[kemajic]

3. Good thing Chalich was QB & not Brady; loss would have been bigger.

Disagree 100%

Brady would've managed the game in the pocket better, seen the field better, panicked way less in the face of pressure, and stretched the field. Something Chalich had an issue with yesterday.

I saw the game differently. UNC played defense to take the pass away. Eight players played the pass with three down lineman. They played 3 deep safeties frequently. That is why Chalich never threw deep, "stretched the field". I don't think Brady would have thrown it long either. It is also why he ran so much. No one was open. It was 8 against 4 or 5 receivers. It is also why we ran so well and so much. He made the read or Stitt had him hand it off. For the most part except in the case of baffling play calls we took what they gave us.
People find it odd that he threw deep often against ISU but never against UNC. It wasn't odd at all. It wasn't there because of the defensive scheme.
The happy feet statement about Chalich is bogus. You take what a player is good at and use it, plus UNC's defensive scheme made the run game the sensible read more often. This game Chalich did actually keep the ball purposely on a zone/read multiple times, which didn't happen against ISU. It was obviously planned when they saw UNC's defensive scheme.
I think if Brady had played instead of running he would have had numerous throw-a-ways out of bounds because no one was open.

I saw it like you and I was there on the 50.

 

[Eriul]

I never said Stitt makes all the right choices. I did say that there is a VERY little argument for Chalich being the better QB. Before this week Chalich had statistics against 2 awful defenses to argue his case. But he vastly under-performed against a bad defense. Now Chalich doesn't even have stats to argue his side.

The one thing Chalich has over Brady is his mobility, which we saw last week as more of a flaw than a bonus

Really? Without Chalich's legs we get blown out.

I disagree.

.....of course you do.....color me.....surprised....

Yup and I am the only one in the universe who thinks so :lol:

 

[zirge]

3. Good thing Chalich was QB & not Brady; loss would have been bigger.

Disagree 100%

Brady would've managed the game in the pocket better, seen the field better, panicked way less in the face of pressure, and stretched the field. Something Chalich had an issue with yesterday.

I saw the game differently. UNC played defense to take the pass away. Eight players played the pass with three down lineman. They played 3 deep safeties frequently. That is why Chalich never threw deep, "stretched the field". I don't think Brady would have thrown it long either. It is also why he ran so much. No one was open. It was 8 against 4 or 5 receivers. It is also why we ran so well and so much. He made the read or Stitt had him hand it off. For the most part except in the case of baffling play calls we took what they gave us.
People find it odd that he threw deep often against ISU but never against UNC. It wasn't odd at all. It wasn't there because of the defensive scheme.
The happy feet statement about Chalich is bogus. You take what a player is good at and use it, plus UNC's defensive scheme made the run game the sensible read more often. This game Chalich did actually keep the ball purposely on a zone/read multiple times, which didn't happen against ISU. It was obviously planned when they saw UNC's defensive scheme.
I think if Brady had played instead of running he would have had numerous throw-a-ways out of bounds because no one was open.

I saw it like you and I was there on the 50.

me as well...........that is with a 3 man rush......chad was faced with a different situation yesterday, impossible to compare to last weeks game against ISU.
he held it together the best he could.........we gave up an easy TD with the bobbled punt and could not hold them in the last series......end of story

 

[grizindabox]

Really? Without Chalich's legs we get blown out.

I disagree.

.....of course you do.....color me.....surprised....

Yup and I am the only one in the universe who thinks so :lol:

...if you....say so.....