For years, I've read post after post pining for an OC that would scheme his available talent to beat an otherwise superior opponent taking advantage of what's available rather than stubbornly stick to the philosophy of we'll line up and do what we do and if we execute we'll be in a position to win. Well, on Saturday night, that's exactly what happens. I keep reading how Corny needed to go down field more despite the fact JJ was getting hit on the quick drops. The fake field goal is some how the worst call ever - yes, hyperbole - but ignores the fact that 12+ yard plays were pretty hard to come by all night so why not try something a bit different. I keep hearing it was predictable, yet lining up the O to roll JJ looking for the quick out or inside slant (the two routes that were working) wasn't? There are no good play calls when it's 4th and 12, down by 21, vs one of the best D in the country with a lot of freshman, and the refs pretty well letting both sides play (no, they weren't going to call a PI on that play barring something really obvious). And finally, without 3 turnovers VT has a chance to win that game with that game plan. That's a big if, I understand and needs to be taken in the context the quality of the game plan and not in the UNC/UVA I need an excuse as to why the team is still better than the opponent despite the score. Most definitely Clemson was the better team, but I think CJF and CBC called a descent game that could have had VT in a position to win without those TOs. If I'm wrong please tell me what the alternatives were that were not used. Happy to hear them but I think an honest appraisal will show that the options were limited and the coaches got things directionally correct.