Toggle sidebar

After watching the VT Spring game, the edge in VT/Alabama goes to

Status
Not open for further replies.
LCN said:
'01-'10 .
Click to expand...

How can 2000 be considered the beginning of a new century, yet not part of the decade that we are currently in? I have always seen decades listed from even to odd (as in 90-99). That is to say the term refers to a period of ten years starting at a multiple of ten.
 
Last edited:
CapstoneGrad06 said:
How can 2000 be considered the beginning of a new century, yet not part of the decade that we are currently in? I have always seen decades listed from even to odd (as in 90-99). That is to say the term refers to a period of ten years starting at a multiple of ten.
Click to expand...

2000 was the actually the end . It was one of useless facts I saw on television back when '99 was turning to 2000 . It's a mistake that has been so common for so long that the original meaning was eventually lost . Like how when someone mentions the 60's you naturally think of 60-69 but technically it's really 61-70 . 6 of one and a half dozen of the same :)
 
2000 was the actually the end . It was one of useless facts I saw on television back when '99 was turning to 2000 . It's a mistake that has been so common for so long that the original meaning was eventually lost . Like how when someone mentions the 60's you naturally think of 60-69 but technically it's really 61-70 . 6 of one and a half dozen of the same
Click to expand...
And I thought I couldn't be more confused by this thread! :)

I guess it makes more sense if you look at the very first decade AD (1 to 10) and then work up from there...
 
haha this is really funny. I don't know the stats. I was only 10 at the time, but all the SEC fans I talked to always pointed to lack of National Titles as a strength becuase they used that as evidence that the SEC was too hard to get through.
 
lilhokie said:
haha this is really funny. I don't know the stats. I was only 10 at the time, but all the SEC fans I talked to always pointed to lack of National Titles as a strength becuase they used that as evidence that the SEC was too hard to get through.
Click to expand...

That's the excuse lower echelon teams use. (Auburn)
 
sabanball said:
Interesting...to say the least.

Virginia Tech's overall success outweighs offensive woes - ACC - ESPN
Click to expand...

An interesting quote I saw in the article:
assistant coach Billy Hite said:
"People have been frustrated because we haven't been as productive," assistant coach Billy Hite said. "On offense, you need to have all 11 players on the same page or it won't be successful. Defense is not like that. You can have one or two breakdowns defensively and still somebody can cover for somebody else. The offense is not that way."
Click to expand...

Does anyone besides me think that Saban would have a cow over that philosophy out of one of his assistants?
 
bmcklv said:
An interesting quote I saw in the article:


Does anyone besides me think that Saban would have a cow over that philosophy out of one of his assistants?
Click to expand...

Billy Hite can get away with anything. He is the only coach there that preceded Beamer. Even though he is only a position coach he is Assistant/Associate/Whatever you call it Head Coach.
 
bamahuey1 said:
i just hope our poor undersized, slow kids don't get outright killed by those big and fast boys from virginia. Maybe coach beamer will take it easy on us and not beat us too bad. I mean, that virginia tech should be playing on sundays instead of saturdays. I tell ya what...it just isn't fair.
Click to expand...

utah.....never forget
 
Utah didn't have any cornfed players either and we saw how that went.
Click to expand...

That's kind of where I was going with that first look at the roster. Small, quick defenders concern me more than big, slow tree trunks.

However, Utah was a unique conflux of events that lead to that particular outcome.

I think Virginia Tech has more to worry about because of the results of the Utah game than Alabama does when we meet in September.
 
Oh and you should have seen how hard it was to get Thompson down to size. Last Spring he was as big or bigger than Cody is now.
 
TexasTideFan said:
Utah didn't have any cornfed players either and we saw how that went.
Click to expand...

Yeah, true. Obviously though thats a totally different issue. Utah's no-huddle spread caught our D off guard in the first quarter, and their QB was able to deliver the ball to wide open recievers almost immediately. All their OL really had to do was get in the way a little for a few seconds. I felt our defense adjusted very well after the first quarter, but by then it was too late (especially with the way our OL was playing without Andre).

Man, that loss to Utah still stings a little. I'd love to play them again soon (maybe in 2015), but I doubt they will want any part of us by then.
 
Oh and you should have seen how hard it was to get Thompson down to size. Last Spring he was as big or bigger than Cody is now.
Click to expand...

With a statement like that I don't think you fully appreciate just how big and athletic Mt Cody really is.

Cordarrow Thompson is 3 inches shorter and weighed 338 lbs at the most according to the 2007 Va Tech roster. He is listed as weighing 303 lbs on last year's roster.

Mt Cody signed with Alabama weighing 412 lbs. He's lost 50 lbs to get "down to size" but is still supporting 365 lbs on his 6' 5" frame.

Even with this frame, Mt Cody can dunk a basketball and run down runningbacks on screen plays.

He's not a butter ball.

He's a mountain.

Va Tech 2007 Roster
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back