I don't think you will score 30 on us. Our defense against your offense is more than capable. To me the key to the game is field position. With good field position we can win. I think both offenses will struggle to score against long fields. Both defenses just have too much big play capability making it hard to go the distance. Good punting, return game wins this game imo.
Hahahah cuz we played 4th string at the end up three TDs late in the fourth.
Your "4th string" wasn't playing when you scored your garbage pick six off our receiver's bobbled pass he should have caught. If you are going to count garbage points make sure you count both teams garbage points. Also, that was our 4th string running back running through your 4th string defense.
Ha ha, now its time for the name calling. Of course that's expected from a troll but I'm not going to keep feeding you. I said your offense wouldn't score 30 on our defense and they didn't, and the final score was 31-17, not 31-10. Not only that, but we had more yards and first downs than you did. The game turned on 3 plays which were self inflicted mistakes by VT. If we eliminate those its a tight game. So you're the one who's the joke, have a nice day.
So if you eliminate all your bad plays, you play better. If Clemson eliminates the two overthrows of WRs, Clemson has two more touchdowns, and the game is even more of a beat down.
We're defining "turn" differently. I'm not saying you didn't score first or that you didn't always have the lead. Of course you did. What I'm saying is those plays took away any chance we had to win. That if we execute better ourselves, that we could have a very different and better result. One cannot correctly argue that those plays do not matter. They very much matter, especially in a 4 quarter game. That's what I mean when I say turn. Hope that clarifies. You played mistake free. We didn't. You deserved it, we did not. You played better. The best team won.
I said you lack a running game....90 yards rushing did nothing to prove me wrong.
Can't wait to see how many rushing yards you get against their D.
Thanks, and the same to you. I've never noticed the win probability chart before. It looks pretty accurate. Before the game I would have agreed if someone told me our chance going in was about 25-30%.
You had 6 different guys carry the ball with your top guy getting 39 yards....VT ran the ball 28 times and threw 44 times or 71%. Seems pretty one dimensional to me. In 5 games the most yards any RB has rushed for is 72 yards not counting your QB had 40% of your rushing yards in the WVU game. Here are your RB leaders each game....WVU 51....Delaware 32....ECU 72....ODU 66....Clemson 39. In 5 games you have had 4 different rushing leaders counting your QB. I stand by original statement that VT hasn't established a running game at this point.
Ha ha, I know you aren't trying to start anything with me, but you're just wrong. Its a flawed argument. Fuente does in fact use his running backs by committee. We knew that when he came here. That's his running back strategy. So to make an argument about our running game making us one dimensional by quoting the yards for only his "RB leaders" is flawed. And he also uses his QBs in the run game and they are often the leading rusher. He uses wideouts on end arounds and reverses. If you go back and look at our stats overall I'm sure you will find he's probably close to 50/50 run pass ratio. There is nothing one dimensional about his offense.
Ok, I'll change from you being one dimensional to you don't have a good running game......I'm pretty sure that's what I was saying, shouldn't have said "one dimensional" should have said you haven't been able to run against mediocre teams so didn't believe you had any chance to run against Clemson. I felt that would make you one dimensional in this game.
You're still wrong. We have run against mediocre teams. You just have to count all the yards, not just the yards of the "leading running back".
