Sure they do. Salaries, individual awards come to mindOriginally Posted by DONW
|
|
|
|
|
Sure they do. Salaries, individual awards come to mind
I know it wasn't, and I was not intending to be argumentative. What I was trying to say was that I think Bradshaw could have played NFL football as a linebacker had he lacked a rocket arm. As a QB, he was extremely good and played very well by optimizing the talent around him as the play caller. Man, I wish he had been calling plays in the 4th quarter of the Houston game in Ruston. We wouldn't have seen Franklin's nonsense that quarter costing Tech a game. Even with the nonsensical play calls, we still would have won merely by snapping the ball with 5 seconds instead of 15 or more. That game still bothers me as our team was used to promote a system instead of playing to win the game.
Yeah. Bradshaw had some awesome players to aide his talent. There have been better QBs with no help that never had a chance. Rattay and McCown are NOT terry, but could you imagine a young "them" getting a great team around them?
Dang! wish I had said that
Did I inadvertently plagiarize you? My memory is poor so it is possible.Dang! wish I had said that
Rattay had great players around him. Lot's of 'em. That's why his teams beat Alabama twice.
Absolutely. His offenses were loaded.
Luke didn't have elite WR's but he had some good ones and some very good RB's playing behind him in Joe and Gitmo.
Out problem back then was defense. Had some good individual players but overall our defense wasn't being played at a high enough level.
I think he's talking about in the NFL.
Have you considered those Dogs?
Ahh..... Well then he's definitely correct. IIRC Rattay's offensive lines in Frisco were among the worst I've ever seen. And Luke was drafted by the Browns, nothing more needs to be said about that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otm4RusESNU
Thank you. College, our quarterbacks were set talent wise. That's why their numbers showed their arm talent
Actually, I started a thread after that game where I detailed that we could have burned 8+ mins off the clock, beginning in the middle of the 3rd qtr simply by waiting to snap the ball. I knew that because at the game I started my stopwatch, on my watch, and accumulated the time that could have been run off, but wasn't. The counter argument by some was "that's not who we are, and by doing that our offense would have lost its edge." Well...we never scored another point after the middle of the 3rd qtr anyway, being stuck on 34. So that argument was rendered moot. If we were to be stuck on 34, it would have been better to shorten the game and deny the Coogs the time they needed to come back.
Water under the bridge now, eh.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
