I think it was meant as if we were in short-yardage situations, and Justin had a history of not being able to get those tough yards (4th and 1, 3rd and 2...).Why are you guys wanting JT at a-back? We need a play making qb. He is our best athlete on the offensive side of the ball. We need the ball in his hands every play not 10 plays a game.
I think it was meant as if we were in short-yardage situations, and Justin had a history of not being able to get those tough yards (4th and 1, 3rd and 2...).
You are correct, but in theory, the advantage here may be that you would then have 2 options of guys who could get you those tough yards. I highly doubt that this would be implemented anyways, but that was the point of the idea.That's why you give it to the BB. He's used to picking up short yardage and has momentum to the line off the snap.
Seems to me that we have tried Days at QB before, and it didn't work then.If that is indeed a problem, then we could move Thomas to wr, Smelter to ab, and Days to qb. We could use this alignment to establish a tendency in the early games and break the tendency at a crucial time later in the schedule.
Seems to me that we have tried Days at QB before, and it didn't work then.
Days is turning into a real blocking stud, but he is not the answer to our QB position.
Agree with you about winning, but disagree that hype doesn't sell tickets. Check out the Atlanta Braves.Hype doesn't sell tickets.
Sustained winning is what sells.
I love how everyone is scared about this when although vad was bigger he did not run near as hard and we still scored a td 40 out of our 49 attempts in the red zone
Agree with you about winning, but disagree that hype doesn't sell tickets. Check out the Atlanta Braves.
When was our last "losing" season? Chan was fired not because of his record. He was fired because the fan base was no longer excited about the program. Now I'm not saying PJ should go out and tell people that JT is the best thing since sliced bread. I'm simply suggesting he stop poo-pooing every assumption by the media that we might have a special player or two.
Hit the nail on the head with the hammer here. This is what I've been preaching for a long time!Every time I see posts like these, which break down offensive numbers since 2008, I think the same thing: At the end of the day, no one on this board or any other should ever come to the conclusion that we have a problem with offense. I'm sorry, but those that state that are just wrong. Every good team has ebbs and flows in offensive production, but we have been incredibly consistent with scoring, RZ, etc. The bottom line is that if we want elite seasons, we'll need to continue the improvements on the other side of the ball that we began to see last year.
You can't include G-W in 2008 just because we didn't score many points. If you're going to exclude FCS schools, you have to exclude them all.
Edit: you can really do anything you like. It's not valid to include Gardner-Webb just because we scored well below our season average in that game. There were extenuating circumstances.