Techster, if I understand correctly, since we were less successful passing against Tulane than Wofford, that means "we're probably not there yet once the talent in our opponent increased" (i.e. Tulane > Wofford). Conversely, vs Wofford we had 228 yards rushing at 5.3yds per run. At Tulane we had 344 yds at 6.0 yds per run. Doesn't that logically require that our running game vastly improved from game 1 to game 2 since we performed better against a more talented opponent?
Isn't each such assessment oversimplification? Against Tulane only 8 passes were thrown vs 16 against Wofford. If 16 had been thrown at Tulane, maybe the passing results would have been more similar to the Wofford game since in the first game JT started slowly passing, but to me this simply shows appropriate play calling. We saw their defense, were running successfully and therefore focused on the run.
We beat a motivated Tulane team at Tulane after some early major mistakes. Isn't that more of a "glass half full" assessment?