Laskey -> "Ready to prove people wrong"

[Oldgoldandwhite]

I trust Laskey. What I want to see is blocking at the point of attack. Laskey and Sims got hit way too many times as soon as they touched the ball. Sometimes bad reads, but most of the time it was poor blocking.

 

[takethepoints]

I thought Laskey should have started last year and I think he would have if Vad had been better at running the option and Coach hadn't been so intent on getting an air game up with him. I think Coach was pretty clear why Sims was starting: he was better at pass blocking. I, oth, thought Laskey had earned the staring job after 2012; he led the team in rushing, never fumbled, and wasn't stopped for a loss once.

Well, Coach sees them everyday and he has the final call. I do, however, think we'll see a much different middle game this year, given the work Laskey has put in. Hope I'm right.

 

[wingsrlevel]

I trust Laskey. What I want to see is blocking at the point of attack. Laskey and Sims got hit way too many times as soon as they touched the ball. Sometimes bad reads, but most of the time it was poor blocking.

+1. I trust Laskey too. I think this offense will roll b/c these guys "bought" into what CPJ is trying to do. It takes balls to play QB and BB in this offense with all the contact that these guys face each and every play. I think JT,TB and ZL has what it takes to get the job done. We have good size on the field with the exception of JT, who makes up for that with his speed. I'm optimistic this year because I also think our O line will be better this year.

 

[collegeballfan]

The offense will be good enough to produce 7 wins; the D will have to give us any wins over that.

 

[takethepoints]

The offense will be good enough to produce 7 wins; the D will have to give us any wins over that.

Yes. I might add that this is what you could say about any good football team in the country. Shoot, Bama's D pulls their chestnuts out of the fire 3 - 4 times a year, as does the Turkey's in our conference. I sure do hope we can get good enough play out of our D this year to give us an extra couple of wins, but, Laws, is the jury ever out on that one.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

Finally, what we all suspected is confirmed:

“I definitely feel like we focused on the core [of the offense] and got rid of some of the fancier stuff that we were alright at,” he said. “When we were doing that, it took away from our option game, and that’s the first time since I’ve been here that happened.”

I, for one, am psyched about getting back to basics!

Fill my GT Tervis with that Kool-Aid and gimme two straws.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Fill my GT Tervis with that Kool-Aid and gimme two straws.

So you are saying less time, attention and focus on the base offense had nothing to do with it's diminished effectiveness?

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

I like Zack and a lot of the guys we see interviewed. But frankly, my excitement/anticipation level for next season is lower than it's been since Gailey's last year.

Understandably so. But, there are some positives. Not sure Zach Laskey is one of them, though. Zach was not the starter last year, and he would not be the starter this year without a quirk of fate. So it is still open for debate as to whether we have improved or even stayed the same at BB. But, we should be better at quarterback, strong at linebacker, at least as good at wide-out and much faster at AB. If we can be healthy and have one or two pleasant surprise players step up we might be okay.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

Understandably so. But, there are some positives. Not sure Zach Laskey is one of them, though. Zach was not the starter last year, and he would not be the starter this year without a quirk of fate. So it is still open for debate as to whether we have improved or even stayed the same at BB. But, we should be better at quarterback, strong at linebacker, at least as good at wide-out and much faster at AB. If we can be healthy and have one or two pleasant surprise players step up we might be okay.

Plus there are at least five atrociously bad teams in the ACC and we get to play two of them.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

+1. I trust Laskey too. I think this offense will roll b/c these guys "bought" into what CPJ is trying to do. It takes balls to play QB and BB in this offense with all the contact that these guys face each and every play. I think JT,TB and ZL has what it takes to get the job done. We have good size on the field with the exception of JT, who makes up for that with his speed. I'm optimistic this year because I also think our O line will be better this year.

They will be better because they got to see that "Coach was right." The fans wanted this, Vad wanted that. So we tried it, it didn't work. Now they can see Coach knows best. Do not underestimate the value of having the players be confident in their coach.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Understandably so. But, there are some positives. Not sure Zach Laskey is one of them, though. Zach was not the starter last year, and he would not be the starter this year without a quirk of fate. So it is still open for debate as to whether we have improved or even stayed the same at BB. But, we should be better at quarterback, strong at linebacker, at least as good at wide-out and much faster at AB. If we can be healthy and have one or two pleasant surprise players step up we might be okay.

If you're referring to the Custis situation, then you're stating opinion as fact, and that ain't cool. Additionally, if that's your opinion, then you're in the definite minority with that opinion.

If you're saying something else, then I apologize for misinterpreting what you wrote.

 

[LongforDodd]

We all know that this all depends on what the O-line does and what the A-backs do on the edge. Not much to get excited about yet except for perhaps the seemingly improved recruiting.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

If you're referring to the Custis situation, then you're stating opinion as fact, and that ain't cool. Additionally, if that's your opinion, then you're in the definite minority with that opinion.

If you're saying something else, then I apologize for misinterpreting what you wrote.

An apology is unnecessary. If you are familiar with my posts, I am certain you have found that I am about as un-cool as it gets.

 

[DSGB]

The offense will be good enough to produce 7 wins; the D will have to give us any wins over that.

I disagree with this. Outside of Alabama, FSU, 49ers, Seahawks, and maybe the Jets, there are not a lot of defenses in football that "give" wins. Football is all about the offense on all levels. The purpose of defense is to force a few punts, hold for a few FGs, and get a turnover or 2. That's good defense with the rules of today.

For GT to be successful, we have to be explosive on offense. No way about it. If we are very explosive, we win 9-10 games regardless of the defense. When we were good, we had stretches where we would punt 6-7 times in a month.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I disagree with this. Outside of Alabama, FSU, 49ers, Seahawks, and maybe the Jets, there are not a lot of defenses in football that "give" wins. Football is all about the offense on all levels. The purpose of defense is to force a few punts, hold for a few FGs, and get a turnover or 2. That's good defense with the rules of today.

For GT to be successful, we have to be explosive on offense. No way about it. If we are very explosive, we win 9-10 games regardless of the defense. When we were good, we had stretches where we would punt 6-7 times in a month.

The purpose of defense is to limit the scoring of the opposition, period. Very successful teams usually have very good defenses. Yes, there are some rare exeptions, but by and large, this is true.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

I disagree with this. Outside of Alabama, FSU, 49ers, Seahawks, and maybe the Jets, there are not a lot of defenses in football that "give" wins. Football is all about the offense on all levels. The purpose of defense is to force a few punts, hold for a few FGs, and get a turnover or 2. That's good defense with the rules of today.

For GT to be successful, we have to be explosive on offense. No way about it. If we are very explosive, we win 9-10 games regardless of the defense. When we were good, we had stretches where we would punt 6-7 times in a month.

I disagree about the role of defense, but I agree that for Georgia Tech, offense will be the key to success. But we are not going to win nine or ten games "regardless of the defense" even if our offense suddenly has Erik Dickerson and Barry Sanders at AB with Ironhead Heyward at BB and Eric Crouch at quarterback. I think our defense can and will give us the stops we need to have more offensive possessions. I think they will limit scoring by most of the teams on our schedule, and I think they will provide the offense with improved field position throughout most of our games. But we still probably need a minimum of 30 points to win most of our games, and at least 36 or 38 against the better teams on the schedule. I'm not confident we have that kind of offensive ability yet. That's in the neighborhood of scoring about 400 in the season. A tall order.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

We all know that this all depends on what the O-line does and what the A-backs do on the edge. Not much to get excited about yet except for perhaps the seemingly improved recruiting.

Call me crazy, I got excited even when Curry was coaching.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I disagree about the role of defense, but I agree that for Georgia Tech, offense will be the key to success. But we are not going to win nine or ten games "regardless of the defense" even if our offense suddenly has Erik Dickerson and Barry Sanders at AB with Ironhead Heyward at BB and Eric Crouch at quarterback. I think our defense can and will give us the stops we need to have more offensive possessions. I think they will limit scoring by most of the teams on our schedule, and I think they will provide the offense with improved field position throughout most of our games. But we still probably need a minimum of 30 points to win most of our games, and at least 36 or 38 against the better teams on the schedule. I'm not confident we have that kind of offensive ability yet. That's in the neighborhood of scoring about 400 in the season. A tall order.

We were a slightly better defense away from 9 or 10 wins last year with the offense we had.

 

[DSGB]

We were a slightly better defense away from 9 or 10 wins last year with the offense we had.

And I think, we were a slightly better offense (particularly OLINE) from 9-10 wins.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

And I think, we were a slightly better offense (particularly OLINE) from 9-10 wins.

You may be right, but it is much, much, much easier to go from bad to average (defense) and it is to from good to great (offense).