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
Quick poll on the pulse of the fanbase....
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="Eastman" data-source="post: 76577" data-attributes="member: 1390"><p>Techster, if I understand correctly, since we were less successful passing against Tulane than Wofford, that means "<em><strong>we're probably not there yet once the talent in our opponent increased</strong></em>" (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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>We beat a motivated Tulane team at Tulane after some early major mistakes. Isn't that more of a "<em><strong>glass half full</strong></em>" assessment?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Eastman, post: 76577, member: 1390"] Techster, if I understand correctly, since we were less successful passing against Tulane than Wofford, that means "[I][B]we're probably not there yet once the talent in our opponent increased[/B][/I]" (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 "[I][B]glass half full[/B][/I]" assessment? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What is the name of Georgia Tech's mascot?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Quick poll on the pulse of the fanbase....
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