Which one applies??
1) Team A played ugly, regressed offensively, and if not for two uncharacteristic, individual, gut it out moments in crunch time, would have lost and proven they just aren't gonna be any good. They just have huge deficiencies offensively that apparently are gonna take miracles to overcome.
2) Team A from a power conference pushed Team B around all night, pounding them in the run game (242-34) and in total yards (419-330) finally wearing Team B down in the fourth quarter because they are just bigger and stronger and the truth eventually came out (and because that's what happens to a weaker team who is "scrappy" and gives a "valiant effort") as Team A sprung free on two huge runs (after threatening all night) that sealed the deal. Team B wishes they could have a #7 from Team A. He just wore them down and "got stronger as the game went on." And this was all bound to happen because Team A's had big yardage stats offensively and great defensive stats in each and every game, despite some tough losses to ranked teams. Team B's offensive prowess up till now was likely smoke and mirrors because they just hadn't played a really tough defense yet. The truth came out in the end.
I've heard a WHOLE lot of that #2 scenario about us over the years when we are Team B who loses close to bigger, better teams because we just don't have the horses and wear out in the fourth quarter. I don't hear it, though, when it just might apply to us on the flip side. But our offensive and defensive stats just keep rolling along through the season regardless of opponent, location, injuries on the line, etc. and last night ended up too much for MTSU to overcome. The "stats" ended up overcoming our three bad turnovers and overcoming some critical penalties late in the game.
Which way do you see it? Am I not right about how folks have seen and described our team in reverse situations??
1) Team A played ugly, regressed offensively, and if not for two uncharacteristic, individual, gut it out moments in crunch time, would have lost and proven they just aren't gonna be any good. They just have huge deficiencies offensively that apparently are gonna take miracles to overcome.
2) Team A from a power conference pushed Team B around all night, pounding them in the run game (242-34) and in total yards (419-330) finally wearing Team B down in the fourth quarter because they are just bigger and stronger and the truth eventually came out (and because that's what happens to a weaker team who is "scrappy" and gives a "valiant effort") as Team A sprung free on two huge runs (after threatening all night) that sealed the deal. Team B wishes they could have a #7 from Team A. He just wore them down and "got stronger as the game went on." And this was all bound to happen because Team A's had big yardage stats offensively and great defensive stats in each and every game, despite some tough losses to ranked teams. Team B's offensive prowess up till now was likely smoke and mirrors because they just hadn't played a really tough defense yet. The truth came out in the end.
I've heard a WHOLE lot of that #2 scenario about us over the years when we are Team B who loses close to bigger, better teams because we just don't have the horses and wear out in the fourth quarter. I don't hear it, though, when it just might apply to us on the flip side. But our offensive and defensive stats just keep rolling along through the season regardless of opponent, location, injuries on the line, etc. and last night ended up too much for MTSU to overcome. The "stats" ended up overcoming our three bad turnovers and overcoming some critical penalties late in the game.
Which way do you see it? Am I not right about how folks have seen and described our team in reverse situations??
