Nail... Meet head. VERY thin margin when it come to recruiting and red shirting. But... I'm glad alot of young guys are getting experience and it's something different than previous classes. Maybe it will be beneficial in a couple of years. That's what I am hoping happens.
Shotgun ONLY on obvious passing plays or 2 minute drill type situations. It'll atleast get rid of that backwards footwork drop and turn he has to do before he can even look down field for a WRs route to come open. If you take that few seconds of dropback away... he can atleast use that time to survey things and make quicker decisions in the passing game.
AND
Argument for what case?
Now Boomer, such dissembling is unbecoming of you. But perhaps I misunderstood that you felt the current team is much better than its record and it is not a bad team. I reluctantly concluded after that mashup against Virginia that the record speaks for itself. I have been a Tech fan too long not to find the season painful, but there it is: six straight losses, three wins, one signature for certain, but two tuneups, and one of them being paid to take the beating. But again, perhaps it is my misunderstanding.
Andrews was primed for a breakout year, too. He had an awesome OB. When it rains.....
this is only correct if the OL holds. Also, shotgun gives DE's, often the most athletic guys on the field, a flatter, easier trajectory at the mesh point. All you're doing at that point is losing 4 yds instead of 1. IDK what the answer is, but im fairly certain it isnt moving the QB further behind an ol that can't block. My opinion; we've seen underperforming OL's more often than not while Sewak has been here. Many personnel variations, one constant. It's time for him to be moved on.
Once again you leave me confused. "dissembling"? What are you trying to say? Perhaps my vocab isn't up to snuff. Maybe I need to clarify. We have a competitive football team. That is my position or "case" as you say. It is impossible to say we are a good team because we are not finding ways to win. Good teams do that. IMHO "bad" football teams are not competitive in very many games. We have played close games against teams with good records. That makes us competitive in my book. Go back and look at what the teams we have lost to do against "bad" teams. It looks a little different.
You know, we can't go through life meeting this way. I never wrote that you wrote GT was "a good team," but that you felt it is "better than its record and is not a bad" team while being competitive. While my reluctant conclusion -- and it is reluctant for a lot of reasons -- is that it is what its record says it is, all assumptions to the contrary, particularly since all those assumptions tilt in Tech's favor. I agree we have been competitive in four of the losses, though I disagree one of those games was against ND. There was a time when that would be written off as "scoring two TDs late to make it interesting." Not competitive, interesting. I think Clemson and ND waxed us. I appreciate being "competitive". I really do, having once lost a HS game so massively the other guys were down to 3rd and 4th team late in the second quarter -- try that for being embarrassing. I just get no satisfaction from it because at the end of the game the only score that counts is the last one on the scoreboard. I do not suggest you, or any other board member, does. Merely that to talk about being competitive with a six-loss team is excessively optimistic. There is a difference in "competing" -- and except for Clemson, I think we have competed to the end -- and in "being competitive."
I agree there are no moral victories. However there is a difference between being a "bad team" and being a "competitive team that can't find a way to win" when projecting forward. Bad teams have a long, long way to go to be competitive, much less winners. Competitive teams have less ground to make up.
Don't argue with your conclusions at all. '14 over '13 is more than enough evidence that one year's performance does not necessary mean it will repeat the next. But there are deep, systemic problems on defense that have festered eight years. I have no idea what they are or how to fix them. Johnson makes enough money to do that. There are other areas as well, but my main concern is finishing '16 strong and then the fan base, me included, having a reasonable and nuanced view of the 2016 season. But what the heck. Maybe if nothing else this season has deep -sixed the cocky view that Abacks, Bbacks and WRs are plug-and-play in this offense. If I recall, and that is not a lock, you were one of the very few on the board who were cautioning about that very early.
if the defensive end is the most athletic guy on the field, he would not be at DE.
Where would he be? Ask most NCAA or NFL coaches. Big Time DE's are athletic cyborgs with forty inch verticals and no conscious.
No argument the "big time" DE's are athletic. Just the anointing as "the best on the field." Given two "big" time players, I'd go with the MLB who has greater responsibilities and more space to cover. As for "the most", Calvin Johnson wins in a landslide, and as a rule WRs are more athletic. RBs now not so much. Maybe "big time" corners if they have the size. I was tempted to say kicker just to start an argument.
You can "pick up" another formation by seeing it chalked on the board. Actually doing it is the trick. Besides which arguments like this are monumental wastes because Johnson is not going there. Next.