|
|
100% agree. No running game should begin with the ball carrier going back to the QB to get the ball and then change direction to go sideways or forward. It’s too much wasted effort and too slow to attack. Run straight ahead and run quick. It’s easier on the linemen that way.Originally Posted by HogDawg
Even with a dynamic passing game, some past Tech teams have been able to run between the tackles with success. BRT, Moats, Porter, and Dixon were great. Had great OLine play though.
Special teams C has to include kickoff team. The new kicker gets no lower than an A- with close to as many touchbacks in one game as Tech had all of last year.
Just think what difference that could have made at Starkville last year. Of course Skippy might have still called for a skykick up 20.
What I saw as the problem for the Dawgs in this game: PISS POOR TACKLING!!!!
What I saw was what a few of us had been saying the past 3 years -
NO talent -
Skippy by enlarge left this program void of talent, especially on the the offensive side of the ball...
We were slow and undersized at every position
Coach Cumbie has his work cut out for him
''Don't be a bad dagh..."
Mostly due to lazy recruiting.
It be nice to have a KR/PR be able to go more than 30 yards without running out of gas. Dude needs to try to go smoke free. He has a great initial burst and some shiftiness, but if you watch that kickoff return, he was smoked after running 30-35 yards. I thought they had him on a nutrition plan to help with his conditioning, but I think his gut is bigger than mine! And, I am 48 btw...
He’s wearing pads that cause that look
....well, it's not working for him. I tend to agree with the other poster......"Smoke" has some nice moves, but he seems to tire out quickly.
Protecting a kidney that has been ruptured is one reason to wear the pads. Never heard what his condition is, but that is one that required those pads.
Actually, mostly due to Cost of Attendance.
Sorry. That's a factor, but not the primary reason.
That's fair.
I didn’t see a dearth of talent. Sure, compared to Mizzou, there was a big talent gap, but the OL looked better than it has in years. QB2 looked decent. QB1s main issue was that he’s too short. The WR group is not bad and Allen may be a freshman all-American. The linebackers are slow, but they’ll look faster after the Clemson game. The D looked decent until they were left on the field too long. In this O, you’ll never have an effective running game if the passing game isn’t clicking…and it wasn’t.
Top to bottom, I think this team is better than Skip’s first.
So I'm a bit puzzled by this. My impression of most of Holtz's tenure is that we had talent but the coaching was mediocre. Holtz seemed content to play close to good competition--and lost a lot of games he should have won. But the "should have won" thing implies talent to me. Was it a last year slide that left the cupboard empty?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
