Sept. 28, 2009
by Lee Pace
Atlanta has long been a magnet to travelers seeking a good meal (the first-come, first-served fried chicken at the Watershed and the rib-eye at Bone's come to mind); good athletic entertainment (you can't beat a bag of peanuts and the third-base line at Turner Field); a nice run through an eclectic urban neighborhood (try a couple laps between Ponce de Leon and Amsterdam Avenues in the Virginia-Highlands section); or a tour of some wondrous classic architecture (witness the Flatiron Building, the U.S. Courthouse and the Capital City Club downtown).
But over the last decade the South's largest city and the home to the Georgia Institute of Technology has become a chamber of horrors for the Tar Heel football team. There was the overtime loss in the rain in 1999; the Thursday night implosion in '01 after that streak of five wins and ascension into the Top 25; whatever happened in '03 (that season and '02 have been erased from my mental hard drive); the '05 season opener marked by three picks thrown by the Tar Heels and a six-point loss; and Tech's last-minute field goal in '07, a gift of field position following a shanked punt. Gads, the trip to Atlanta has become almost as stupefying as the biennial booby trap in Charlottesville.
On a cloudy, sticky afternoon at Bobby Dodd Stadium that evolved into a fourth quarter rain deluge, the Tar Heels drowned amidst a torrent of Tech weapons--runners, passers, receivers, kickers and defenders of all shapes and sizes, all of them talented and focused and a little hacked off after losing to Carolina by 21 a year ago and by 16 to Miami nine days ago. Quarterback Josh Nesbitt and running back Jonathan Dwyer combined for 255 yards on the ground and two scores on a variety of dives, keepers, counters, reverses and pitches. Meanwhile, safety Morgan Burnett snared two interceptions and made six tackles in spearheading a defensive effort that suffocated the Tar Heels from their opening drive.
The result was a 24-7 final that looked, felt, sounded and smelled much worse than a 17-point differential.
"It was a sound defeat," Tar Heel coach Butch Davis admitted. "In every single one of the measurable and intangible things that determine the outcome of a game, we didn't play well."
"Embarrassing," quarterback T.J. Yates termed his homecoming (he played high school ball in nearby Marietta) and the Heels' feeble offensive effort that yielded a scant 154 yards. "That's all it is, embarrassing."
A few of those measures so lopsided toward the Yellow Jackets were these:
Time of possession: Tech 42 minutes, Carolina 18.
Third down conversions: Tech 10 of 19, Carolina 1 of 11.
Total offensive yards: Tech 406, Carolina 154.
Longest drives: Tech had drives of 17 and 14 snaps and three more of at least eight downs. The Tar Heels had one possession of 10 snaps and that resulted in a missed field goal.
First down production: The Tar Heels opened their first four possessions of the game with a gain of three yards on a run, a gain of one on a run, an incomplete pass and a loss of seven on the ground. Meanwhile, Tech in the first half ran the ball on 13 of 16 first downs and averaged 6.6 yards.
"Our effectiveness on first and 10 was disastrous," Davis said. "Every single possession it seemed was second down and nine, 10, 11. Then it was third down and long, and that's no recipe to play well offensively. Georgia Tech did a much better job moving the ball on first and 10. That was pretty much the story for both sides--we were second and 10, they were second and five."
And then there is the keystone of all statistics: Turnovers. The Tar Heels had three, the Yellow Jackets none. There were some intangible elements to those as well. Tech did drop the ball twice and it appeared both times that Tar Heels had clean shots at the slippery orb at the bottom of the dog pile. But both times someone in gold-and-white popped out with possession. Carolina's one "fumble" was actually a center snap in the shotgun formation that Yates was not ready for. He wasn't quick enough to fall on the ball as it skirted across the turf and allowed Derrick Morgan to pounce on it.
"I'm really proud of the guys," Tech coach Paul Johnson said. "I think a lot of people had written them off, and us off. We came out with some intensity and focus. We didn't do everything right but we played hard."
Carolina entered the game 3-0 and ranked 22nd and 18th in the two major polls while Tech was 2-1 and unranked, having been spanked 33-17 by Miami the previous Thursday. Given Saturday's surprising outcome and Tech's relative ease in claiming the victory, the post-mortem challenge lies in figuring how much of the proceedings were due to Tech being good and how much to Carolina being bad.
The Yellow Jackets were absolutely very sharp. They added some wrinkles on offense that had the Tar Heel coaches drawing furiously on the grease boards in the first half between possessions. And they subtracted some elements on defense, shrinking their voluminous defensive playbook that had forced Carolina's offense to practice against as many as eight different fronts. Johnson felt his defense was thinking too much and not chasing enough in the Miami loss and ordered the changes through defensive coordinator Dave Wommack.
"We simplified our defense and our kids knew what they were doing," Johnson said. "Our defensive coaches did a good job with that, keeping it simple, and our guys played hard."
Yet nothing Tech did on defense should have resulted in as many wayward passes as Yates launched early in the game. He was high, low, in front of his target, behind his target. He completed only 11 of 26 throws for 137 yards.
"Balls were behind guys, they were short of guys, then obviously you start to press a little," Davis said.
That Yates struggled so was quite the mystery. He had played well through three games, offensive coordinator John Shoop noting that Yates had made only one really bad throw, that an interception against The Citadel coming out from the end zone. Two picks against UConn were 1-on-1 jump balls where it's equally the receiver's job to go up and find the ball. Yates' maturation in his third year starting has allowed the Tar Heels to expand their repertoire of cadences and huddle configurations. Against East Carolina, the Tar Heels used seven different speeds of offense--from the standard huddle to a quick snap and a handful of nuances in between.
"That to me is quarterbacking," Shoop said last week. "The stats aside, what I love is seeing him totally in charge. We watch Tom Brady and Peyton Manning a lot. We focus on how they act like the general. T.J. has had us in and out of cadences, in and out plays. He has been pretty sharp all season."
And he has done so with a patchwork offensive line--two new starters this year following graduation losses and two more due to injury. One of them, Greg Elleby, is a transplant from the defensive line, and though his teammates rave about his athleticism and potential, he's still a newbie and plays like it at times. He was so ineffective in the early stretches of the ECU game that offensive line coach Sam Pittman inserted Jonathan Cooper, gimpy right ankle notwithstanding, into the lineup for a quarter to help put out the fire.
The second neophyte is Cam Holland, whose job as center is trickier amidst the noise of an opposing venue. Carolina understood that the ruckus generated by a home crowd would challenge the precise functioning of its offense and paid considerable attention to practicing its "silent count" last week, but rock music piped in through a sound system on the practice field can be just so effective for rehearsals.
When the curtain fell on Saturday, it was obvious that Holland was in uncharted waters in reading the defense, making the blocking call and simultaneously watching through his legs as Yates was communicating to the offense before giving the snap signal. One of the advantages of running from the shotgun is the formation gives the quarterback a quick escape from the heat of the hard-charging defensive line. But one of the minuses is that Yates has to take his eyes off the defense in order to follow the flight of the center snap and make the catch. Several of Holland's snaps were all over the map and, on one crippling play, he snapped the ball over Yates' head before Yates was ready--the result being a fumble lost to Tech.
So it was obvious there was much going into the stew of ineptitude for the Tar Heels. The good news is that Yates won't often be so off-key and Holland and Elleby will get better as they evolve into their jobs.
"We didn't have anything going early in the game," Yates said. "I was a little off, never in rhythm really ... We were struggling to find that first downfield completion ... I'm very surprised. We had a good week of practice. I thought we were prepared to take on these guys. Give a lot of credit to Georgia Tech. They did an amazing job defensively shutting down every aspect of our offense."
With that, Yates collected his travel bag in the dressing room and joined his teammates as they trudged through the rain to buses waiting to transport them to the airport. For the rest of us, the idea of Saturday night in Hotlanta wasn't as appealing any longer.
Lee Pace writes "Extra Points" twice weekly for Tarheelblue.com and wonders how The Varsity Grill in Atlanta can come up with a price of $1.83 for a Slaw Dog and of $2.22 for a Chili Slaw Dog. He and the broadcast crew for the Tar Heel Sports Network answer reader email on the pre-game show, so send your questions to asktheheels@gmail.com.
