Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Chris Landry on 680
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Technut1990" data-source="post: 598031" data-attributes="member: 3774"><p>No I’m not ignoring anything but I do know football is football. The talk is that we have less talent not that we are young and inexperienced. What was the comparative ? We are empty, akin to another program starting with absolutely nothing ( don’t want to go back and see which program). Those statements aren’t comparative statements they are football statements. They aren’t saying Clemson returns more talent, they are saying we have nothing in the way of talent at all. Yes other teams are in schemes they know better. I thought the slam on Tech was that nobody in high school wants to play in a 3O ? Meaning that most kids came out of standard schemes, which mean that ALL of our kids most likely played in some form of our defense and offense for most of their football lives. Talent we have. Experience maybe maybe not. We have kids who’ve never played in a college level scheme at all and that was the case in the old system at Tech. I’m pretty sure for example that Camp is better suited for our current scheme than a 3O. What about LJ ? option QB or Pocket QB ? Are you gonna say he has no experience passing ? He doesn’t in our old system but he was outstanding in what we are going to run.</p><p></p><p>The old knock was we didn’t have the talent or the scheme playing in an old near extinct 3O yet we won big games with both, now it’s that we have no talent at all , cupboards bare. Thats BS because it’s being measured against a false comparative, nobody has seen our kids in either of our current schemes, at no time ! in or against college competition. They don’t know wether we do or don’t have the ability. Matter of fact the ‘ they don’t have proven ability to run, tackle and pass can be said about 90% of every college backup out there. Only the factories plug and play consistently good.</p><p></p><p>If we’ve been winning with the 3O we will continue to beat the likes of Pitt, UVA and Temple using systems that our kids should actually know better, that’s part of the staffs reason for being pumped, there is way more here than what they anticipated and you would struggle to make the argument that there isn’t if you went position by position and starting 22. Just off the top of my head I can think of a 4 star LB, QB and RB that will be on the field, that’s not a talent deficit.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Technut1990, post: 598031, member: 3774"] No I’m not ignoring anything but I do know football is football. The talk is that we have less talent not that we are young and inexperienced. What was the comparative ? We are empty, akin to another program starting with absolutely nothing ( don’t want to go back and see which program). Those statements aren’t comparative statements they are football statements. They aren’t saying Clemson returns more talent, they are saying we have nothing in the way of talent at all. Yes other teams are in schemes they know better. I thought the slam on Tech was that nobody in high school wants to play in a 3O ? Meaning that most kids came out of standard schemes, which mean that ALL of our kids most likely played in some form of our defense and offense for most of their football lives. Talent we have. Experience maybe maybe not. We have kids who’ve never played in a college level scheme at all and that was the case in the old system at Tech. I’m pretty sure for example that Camp is better suited for our current scheme than a 3O. What about LJ ? option QB or Pocket QB ? Are you gonna say he has no experience passing ? He doesn’t in our old system but he was outstanding in what we are going to run. The old knock was we didn’t have the talent or the scheme playing in an old near extinct 3O yet we won big games with both, now it’s that we have no talent at all , cupboards bare. Thats BS because it’s being measured against a false comparative, nobody has seen our kids in either of our current schemes, at no time ! in or against college competition. They don’t know wether we do or don’t have the ability. Matter of fact the ‘ they don’t have proven ability to run, tackle and pass can be said about 90% of every college backup out there. Only the factories plug and play consistently good. If we’ve been winning with the 3O we will continue to beat the likes of Pitt, UVA and Temple using systems that our kids should actually know better, that’s part of the staffs reason for being pumped, there is way more here than what they anticipated and you would struggle to make the argument that there isn’t if you went position by position and starting 22. Just off the top of my head I can think of a 4 star LB, QB and RB that will be on the field, that’s not a talent deficit. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What is the last name of the current Head Football Coach?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Chris Landry on 680
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top