(10-19-2014 04:57 PM)No Bull Wrote:  I am not just saying this because we looked like crap.. but this Tulane team plays good ball. The Green Wave's offensive line and defensive line play far superior than in the past.

For about 3-4 years after Katrina, our recruiting was simply horrible. God bless those players for their willingness to step into a challenging situation, but (with a few exceptions, of course) they were simply not FBS-caliber athletes, across the board. That started to change about 2009-10, and the shift to the American will definitely accelerate that process.

Tulane/UCF
First downs: 17-14
Total yards: 278-233
Passing yards: 147-139
Rushing yards: 131-94
Third down conversions 5-4
Turnovers: 2-4
Time of possession game: 31:41-28:19

Score: 13-20

I was at the game in the Dome 4-5 years ago when UCF blew out Tulane 60 or 70 something to 3 or 6 or something. Well, I was there until halfway through the 2nd Quarter.

UCF has backed up a bit but Tulane is FAR better than it was during the Buffet Bob years. Get rid of Price and bring in hungry new OC and Tulane will contend for a while.

(10-19-2014 04:57 PM)No Bull Wrote:  I am not just saying this because we looked like crap.. but this Tulane team plays good ball. The Green Wave's offensive line and defensive line play far superior than in the past.

Spot on post. Their d-line was in our backfield all game long.

This game showed me we are moving in the right direction. We finally have some talent on this team. I think we get better next year and 2016 will be Tulane's breakout year where we win 10 or 11 games.

(10-19-2014 07:27 PM)Mike the Knight Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 04:57 PM)No Bull Wrote:  I am not just saying this because we looked like crap.. but this Tulane team plays good ball. The Green Wave's offensive line and defensive line play far superior than in the past.

Spot on post. Their d-line was in our backfield all game long.

Every teams d-line has been in our backfield all season long...

(10-18-2014 02:37 PM)knightmite Wrote:  Stop blaming Holman and start blaming the O-line and the coaches. IF the O-line starts playing much better then you can start worrying about Holman.

Agree, good O line will open up the run game and Holman won't have to rush so many of his passes.

(10-18-2014 03:01 PM)knightmite Wrote:  Tulane just might surprise some people yet. If you don't play well against them they will make your life tough.

There isn't a single AAC team which cannot beat you if you don't play well. I have said all along that Tulane is a valuable member of the conference, INCLUDING competitiveness. They have had great teams in the past and surely will again.

(10-19-2014 08:09 PM)Dark Knight Wrote:  

(10-18-2014 02:37 PM)knightmite Wrote:  Stop blaming Holman and start blaming the O-line and the coaches. IF the O-line starts playing much better then you can start worrying about Holman.

Agree, good O line will open up the run game and Holman won't have to rush so many of his passes.

Yep. Tulane's dline could be better than Missouri or worse than Bethune Cookman. The o-line play has been so terrible and inconsistent you can't judge an opposition based on it.

(10-19-2014 08:23 PM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 08:09 PM)Dark Knight Wrote:  

(10-18-2014 02:37 PM)knightmite Wrote:  Stop blaming Holman and start blaming the O-line and the coaches. IF the O-line starts playing much better then you can start worrying about Holman.

Agree, good O line will open up the run game and Holman won't have to rush so many of his passes.

Yep. Tulane's dline could be better than Missouri or worse than Bethune Cookman. The o-line play has been so terrible and inconsistent you can't judge an opposition based on it.

FWIW: Tulane's 2 defensive tackles were a true sophomore, Tanzel Smart (19 years old), & a true freshman, Sean Wilson (19 years old).

(10-19-2014 07:50 PM)FonzKnight Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 07:27 PM)Mike the Knight Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 04:57 PM)No Bull Wrote:  I am not just saying this because we looked like crap.. but this Tulane team plays good ball. The Green Wave's offensive line and defensive line play far superior than in the past.

Spot on post. Their d-line was in our backfield all game long.

Every teams d-line has been in our backfield all season long...

This is true..but in year's past Tulane wouldn't have been able to take advantage of our lousy offensive line.

(10-19-2014 08:16 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(10-18-2014 03:01 PM)knightmite Wrote:  Tulane just might surprise some people yet. If you don't play well against them they will make your life tough.

There isn't a single AAC team which cannot beat you if you don't play well. I have said all along that Tulane is a valuable member of the conference, INCLUDING competitiveness. They have had great teams in the past and surely will again.

True; with the exception of SMU.

(10-19-2014 07:50 PM)FonzKnight Wrote:  Every teams d-line has been in our backfield all season long...

+1

(10-18-2014 02:44 PM)knightastic Wrote:  

(10-18-2014 02:37 PM)knightmite Wrote:  Stop blaming Holman and start blaming the O-line and the coaches. IF the O-line starts playing much better then you can start worrying about Holman.

+1

Its pretty obvious that a lot of people are clueless and don't watch the games...or if they did, they don't understand what they are seeing.

Even GOL (and writers covering the last game) noted how Holman missed 4 wide open WR's just in the 1st Q when he wasn't under pressure.

You can't blame the OL when Holman is missing wide open WR's and/or making the wrong reads (i.e. throwing to the wrong receiver...not going thru his progressions).

UCF is having consistency problems at QB, RB and OL….who could have imagined that?

QB: Holman reminds me a little bit of former USF QB Ronnie Banks. Cannon for an arm, plus athleticism and great practice player. Yet when he was given the opportunity to win the job several times he couldn't get past telegraphing passes, zero touch and lack of overall QB IQ. I do think that Holman has a chance to overcome his slow start b/c he is basically a kid that should have been redshirted last year…but GOL or whoever is your new coach next year won’t give this kid a long leash. Bortles probably saved himself some money by leaving early…as I am not sure if he would have had a great season while running for his life.

OL : losing the McCray twins was probably the biggest loss b/c it makes developing a young QB tougher and your running game doesn’t look like a GOL running game. Too many dumb penalties…and beyond the inexperience the talent level doesn’t seem to be the same.

RB: Stanback looks slower and not the explosive player Johnson was for UCF so teams have adjusted. Plus it’s made easier with your struggles at QB.

Biggest losers: UCF's wide receiver corp. Hungry group that can't get the ball enough.

(10-20-2014 02:36 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(10-18-2014 02:44 PM)knightastic Wrote:  

(10-18-2014 02:37 PM)knightmite Wrote:  Stop blaming Holman and start blaming the O-line and the coaches. IF the O-line starts playing much better then you can start worrying about Holman.

+1

Its pretty obvious that a lot of people are clueless and don't watch the games...or if they did, they don't understand what they are seeing.

Even GOL (and writers covering the last game) noted how Holman missed 4 wide open WR's just in the 1st Q when he wasn't under pressure.

You can't blame the OL when Holman is missing wide open WR's and/or making the wrong reads (i.e. throwing to the wrong receiver...not going thru his progressions).

He rarely if ever has a clean pocket. What did 'little Giants' Patti do? go negative 15 yards running around looking completely out of his element. It was a complete waste to put Patti in

Holman is this year's team best chance to win. No point in pulling Harris's redshirt for this oline

(10-20-2014 03:00 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  UCF is having consistency problems at QB, RB and OL….who could have imagined that?

Last Sept...UCF Coaches and fans thought UCF would have Bortles playing QB and Storm Johnson at RB this year...and once they decided to bolt for the NFL, smart UCF fans knew it would be far from easy this year and a big drop off at those 2 positions.

OL was a toss-up...as it was a box of chocolate as you didn't know what you will get...as UCF has had some good success over the last 5 years or so replacing OL.

I even noted late last Nov how Stanback was struggling in yds per carry over the last part of the season.

Hopefully, with UCF back at full scholarship strength next year, UCF will be able to handle better players leaving early and/or those that started 2-3 years and graduate.

(10-20-2014 03:02 PM)knightastic Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 02:36 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(10-18-2014 02:44 PM)knightastic Wrote:  

(10-18-2014 02:37 PM)knightmite Wrote:  Stop blaming Holman and start blaming the O-line and the coaches. IF the O-line starts playing much better then you can start worrying about Holman.

+1

Its pretty obvious that a lot of people are clueless and don't watch the games...or if they did, they don't understand what they are seeing.

Even GOL (and writers covering the last game) noted how Holman missed 4 wide open WR's just in the 1st Q when he wasn't under pressure.

You can't blame the OL when Holman is missing wide open WR's and/or making the wrong reads (i.e. throwing to the wrong receiver...not going thru his progressions).

He rarely if ever has a clean pocket. What did 'little Giants' Patti do? go negative 15 yards running around looking completely out of his element. It was a complete waste to put Patti in

Huh?

Are you talking about the 2 straight holding calls by UCF OL Chester Brown?

Patti put points on the board on each of his 3 possessions...including a game best 85 yd TD drive...where he was 3-3 plus had a 16 yd run.

Don't think anyone is calling Patti a savior and yes, Holman has the tools but he has yet to play a complete game (I think BYU was pretty close).

Holman scored on just 1 out of 11 drives vs Tulane...ONE...and if you think that is good enough to not get benched for a few series...especially AFTER missing 4 wide open WR's...I don't know what to tell you...as GOL said it was good for him to view the game from the sidelines...and GOL rightfully put Holman back in to start/play the entire 2nd half.

UCF finds the way to win.


If they keep it up, ECU may need to worry...

speaking of Patti there is no way he is even 5'11

(10-20-2014 03:11 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 03:02 PM)knightastic Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 02:36 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(10-18-2014 02:44 PM)knightastic Wrote:  

(10-18-2014 02:37 PM)knightmite Wrote:  Stop blaming Holman and start blaming the O-line and the coaches. IF the O-line starts playing much better then you can start worrying about Holman.

+1

Its pretty obvious that a lot of people are clueless and don't watch the games...or if they did, they don't understand what they are seeing.

Even GOL (and writers covering the last game) noted how Holman missed 4 wide open WR's just in the 1st Q when he wasn't under pressure.

You can't blame the OL when Holman is missing wide open WR's and/or making the wrong reads (i.e. throwing to the wrong receiver...not going thru his progressions).

He rarely if ever has a clean pocket. What did 'little Giants' Patti do? go negative 15 yards running around looking completely out of his element. It was a complete waste to put Patti in

Huh?

Are you talking about the 2 straight holding calls by UCF OL Chester Brown?

Patti put points on the board on each of his 3 possessions...including a game best 85 yd TD drive...where he was 3-3 plus had a 16 yd run.

Don't think anyone is calling Patti a savior and yes, Holman has the tools but he has yet to play a complete game (I think BYU was pretty close).

Holman scored on just 1 out of 11 drives Tulane...ONE...and if you think that is good enough to not get benched for a few series...especially AFTER missing 4 wide open WR's...I don't know what to tell you...as GOL said it was good for him to view the game from the sidelines...and GOL rightfully put Holman back in to start/play the entire 2nd half.

This^^^^^^^, was KnightAstic watching the same game as everyone else? Perhaps he enjoyed a little too much beer.