Comments on “Sugar Bowl Postgame”

1. Just thought I’d chime in support of your comments, since I had a different perspective of the game (i.e., I was watching on TV…stupid honeymoon gobbling up all my vacation —oh wait!)

   Anyway, I agree with most of your points. The refereeing was horribly one-sided. For the most part the zebras let the teams play, but it was hard NOT to call them biased pigs at when they do make calls. The D played AWESOME! The Auburn offense is the real deal, they don’t just win, they blow teams out! Our offense played well, spurred by some great playcalling, (more on that later) but the physical play and speed of the Auburn Defense is nearly unbeatable in a short(read: red-zone) field.

   Now, a few things Josh didn’t mention:

   1) Special Teams: We didn’t play poorly (Eddie Royal is gonna be something…ur, special) we just met our match. The TV folks were timing the Auburn punter and he took less than 2 seconds to get off every punt!

   capt.taco on January 4th, 2005 at 11:06 am

2. I noticed the AU punter on the last punt — seemed like he took maybe one step at best. That 2-second stat is crazy, you’re right. Good execution by them.

   Also agree on the playcalling — Stinespring knows his stuff now. I’d still like to see the 5-yard-deep swing pass dead and buried, as well as the deep handoff. But I was telling John this morning that I don’t even really get worked up over first-quarter plays anymore, because I’m starting to see how those are called to set up the fun stuff later. The throw to Allen was a great call, but Auburn also defended it well — they had a CB right on Allen and a safety close behind, despite the power set and Imoh’s air show on the fake.

   (fixed the name link)

   Josh on January 4th, 2005 at 11:27 am

3. I think some of your post is good in a VT bias sort of way. However, at the end you blow it calling AU classless. Give me a break. I guess you did not notice any of the trash talking by both sides the whole game, and, perhaps you did not see the Zebras jumping in between players numerous times during the game to stop potential fights. It sure looked to me like the extra pushing and shoving that you call classless fights went on from both sides. I understand your pain from being on the losing end. I think VT is a good team and has a great future ahead of it. However, last night they met a team that was just a little better than them and got beat. They did not beat themselves. The better team rises to the occassion when the game is on the line and capitalizes on the other teams mistakes. Thats what happened my friend. Don’t be a sore loser and call us classless. Good luck to you guys next year.

   Randy on January 4th, 2005 at 11:53 am

4. Randy, until the 1:53 mark the word “classless” wouldn’t have been part of this game report. Your offensive lineman brought that one on his entire team, by using a fight as his way to accomplish Auburn’s main goal for that final drive. There was some of the typical back-and-forth during the run of play by both sides, but using a fight to run out the clock is so far outside the rules of play it’s unbelievable.

   And what do you call dropping wide-open passes, throwing balls five feet over receivers’ heads, and missing chip-shot field goals, if not VT beating itself? No question that AU was at least VT’s equal in this game during the run of play, but VT’s score could have been a lot better. So could Auburn’s, by converting any of those FGs into TDs. I saw far less errors from Auburn than I did from VT, so they earned the win. That’s football, and I’m not disputing it.

   Josh on January 4th, 2005 at 4:42 pm

5. I was there and I don’t know if the “fight” was a calculated move on AU’s part. VT players were rightfully frustrated and were trying to make a play at the end. AU’s O Line guy came in to do what all O Linemen do, protect their QB. Whether it needed to be done could be your arguement, but surely you don’t believe that people don’t get frustrated after beating on each other for 3 hours. ? Come on. I think the game was just hard fought and got (as many games do) a little heated at the end.

   Your post comes from a VT view, I understand that. But there have been many, and not just AU fans, that have accused Beamer’s VT teams for playing dirty. I am not making that accusation, because I didn’t see it, but it has been said in many circles.

   As for the rest of the post, I agree that VT missed chances, but do you really think that the 4 times AU was in the red zone and only got nine points were not a mistake? That game could have/should have been over at the half. VT fought hard and didn’t let it happen, but to say VT’s score could have been a lot better and not AU’s, that’s a little short-sighted.

   andy on January 14th, 2005 at 10:46 am

6. Good comment, andy — thanks for dropping by.

   That’s a reasonable explanation of the scuffle at the end, and I don’t doubt it’s true in part. I just think the timing was very questionable given Auburn’s clock status and the result of VT’s previous drive — they had to be scared to death of giving the ball back to Bryan Randall with a 4-wide set. But I don’t suppose we’ll ever know the real motivation unless somebody on either side fesses up.

   I’m not sure I worded my comment about the mistakes right. What I meant to say was that the potential upside for VT, had the Hokies fixed their problems, was greater than that for Auburn. On those four redzone trips for Auburn in the first through third quarters, they got 9 but could have scored 28 (ignoring 2-pointers for the sake of argument), a potential increase of 19 points. The biased Hokie fan in me also recalls quite a few redzone stops by the VT defense during the ‘04 season pre-Sugar, which leads me to think at least two of those four stops in the Sugar were thanks to VT’s D and not AU mistakes. VT got nothing for the first 54 minutes of the game, and squandered at least three good scoring opportunities I can recall, giving a potential 21-point increase at least.

   I didn’t see a lot of Jason Campbell overthrowing receivers or those receivers dropping passes, while I did from Tech. Basically, I think Auburn played up to their potential better than the Hokies did. Sure, that’s a biased view, but that’s why I pay for the webspace, y’know? ;-)

   Also, a comment not directed at you: the dirty play accusations against Tech usually come from Miami fans (after we beat them) or UVa fans (after we beat them, or just because UVa sucks in general). I’ve been kinda disappointed to hear them from Auburn fans. I expected better understanding of physical-vs-dirty from fans of such a physically tough conference as the SEC is reputed to be.

   Again, thanks for the comment.

   Josh on January 14th, 2005 at 4:06 pm