Better atheletes?

[Bone_afide_Dawg]

I've read on this board over and over that Tech should win this game and that if for no other reason than we have better atheletes than what most of the WAC has. Well I hadn't believed that whole heartedly since I first heard it and now after seeing more games in person and watching some WAC games on TV I actually believe we are behind in the talent pool especially on the defensive side of the ball.

Nevada moved the ball against us in every fashion possible except for kick returns. Granted the refs aided alot of their possessions with their BS calls and non calls, but the refs didn't make any blocks for them, run their routes or catch their passes.

Our defensive backs have got to be either the worst cover guys or our scheme shows total lack of confidence in their cover skills. We rarely if ever play guys head up man to man and tight off the line.

Our linebacks don't seem to hardly ever be in the right place at the right time. They knock down very few passes, intercept even less and they aren't making sacks either - so where are they?

We barely managed to outlast Nevada and had we not had our "O" working it could have been ugly. A win is a win and that is great but I'm still fearfull of what the rest of this season holds.

[ARKDAWG02]

I agree with regards to our defense. We did rise up and make the big stop when we had to but I think Nevada ran the ball 4 straight plays, correct me on that if I'm wrong. With Boise St coming up we had better hope the offense continues to improve because their offense is clicking on all cylinders presently. They beat San Jose St pretty handily today. Fresno St is capable of putting up some numbers offensively also. Look for some high scoring games in the future.

[Tech77]

I think we're in the same class with most of our WAC opponents, talent-wise. We are NOT, as some have suggested, head and shoulders above our conference mates in that area. Many people just don't accept that going into the WAC was a big step UP for us when you compare these conference teams to the teams we would have normally had coming into our stadium. The glaring areas of need in terms of talent seem to be at defensive back, receiver, D line and linebacker. I'm told that we have some bigger receivers on the squad who will become eligible next year. It seems to me that defensive backs and linebackers may be where we really need to concentrate our recruiting efforts.

[Cool Hand Clyde]

We've gone from a 4- 3 to a 3-4 back to a 4-3 in three years. That may have something to do with our backers being out of position.

Why can't anyone cover the TE?

[Gooddawg]

I actually thought we had the TE covered pretty well on most of his catches, we just didn't knock the ball away. There was once we didn't cover him very well. Last year against BSU we NEVER covered the TE and they threw to him on EVERY 3rd down and completed every stinking one of them, it was ridiculous.

[Cool Hand Clyde]

We never covered the tight end at SMU either.

If he catches the ball, he ain't covered in my book.

[glm47]

If we don't recruit anything else, please get some DB's that can play tight man to man and cover and are taller than 5'9".

[turbodawg]

and are taller than 5'9".

Fred Thomas? Dre Bly? Duane Starks?

How tall are you? Got any eligibility left?

[glm47]

and are taller than 5'9".

Fred Thomas? Dre Bly? Duane Starks?

How tall are you? Got any eligibility left?

But we don't have those 3 guys. Should i assume you are satisfied with our pass coverage?

I think Corey Brazile is going to be pretty good though.

[turbodawg]

Satisified? Not completely.

But I don't think it has anything to do with how tall our secondary is.

We've been getting beat, I think, because of defensive breakdowns and failure to recognize offenses. I mean, if we blitz, the offense recognizes it and it's picked up right, and the te slips loose into man with a cb, you like the te's chances no matter who's playing corner or how tall they are. Not much you can do about it by that point. Same thing, say, if a cb is expecting inside help, and doesn't get it. Then people start yelling about the cb getting "burned" (and he's too short, or too slow, or whatever you want to come up with) when the reality is a breakdown and failure to execute by the defensive unit. And the receiver's always going to have an advantage if by nothing else, by knowing where the play is going. That's why, i think, cb is the toughest place on the field to play.

You know, youl always hear people talking about receivers matching up on shorter corners, but I don't think it makes that big of a difference at all. I bet the majority of NFL corners are under 6'.

I totally agree with you about Brazile.