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
Tech favored over Duke
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="bke1984" data-source="post: 830566" data-attributes="member: 932"><p>Fwiw I think we have improved. But let me play devils advocate for a minute. </p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Our QB turned the ball over twice in the first four plays of last week’s game. Same guy that turned the ball over once in something like twelve snaps in game one. As such I’m not quite ready to say we are past shooting ourselves in the foot on offense if he is going to be the starting QB. He’s still very inconsistent and needs to get past this. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The defense has admittedly looked like a bright spot at times. But they basically negated a game winning drive against NIU and looked non existent against Pitt. Kennesaw is FCS and Clemson looks to be really bad on offense. So we are left with what appears to be one impressive performance. Let’s not crown them just yet. I’d like to see more of what we saw against UNC. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Penalties are better. There were a couple times against Clemson things looked dicey, but not much to complain about here</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Yes, we now have an adequate field goal unit - but we beat NIU with a field goal. </li> </ul><p>My problem is this…are we really going to judge improvement by being able to not jump offsides and being able to make a 30 yd field goal? Those types of things should be a given and should not be fluid between coaching staffs. We need to start scoring in the red zone on offense and forcing punts on defense. We had a flash, but one game is not a pattern. We need to develop a pattern.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bke1984, post: 830566, member: 932"] Fwiw I think we have improved. But let me play devils advocate for a minute. [LIST] [*]Our QB turned the ball over twice in the first four plays of last week’s game. Same guy that turned the ball over once in something like twelve snaps in game one. As such I’m not quite ready to say we are past shooting ourselves in the foot on offense if he is going to be the starting QB. He’s still very inconsistent and needs to get past this. [*]The defense has admittedly looked like a bright spot at times. But they basically negated a game winning drive against NIU and looked non existent against Pitt. Kennesaw is FCS and Clemson looks to be really bad on offense. So we are left with what appears to be one impressive performance. Let’s not crown them just yet. I’d like to see more of what we saw against UNC. [*]Penalties are better. There were a couple times against Clemson things looked dicey, but not much to complain about here [*]Yes, we now have an adequate field goal unit - but we beat NIU with a field goal. [/LIST] My problem is this…are we really going to judge improvement by being able to not jump offsides and being able to make a 30 yd field goal? Those types of things should be a given and should not be fluid between coaching staffs. We need to start scoring in the red zone on offense and forcing punts on defense. We had a flash, but one game is not a pattern. We need to develop a pattern. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What's the good word?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Tech favored over Duke
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