(10-23-2017 12:09 PM)At Ease Wrote: (10-23-2017 08:26 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote: Last week in my rant about 1's, 2's, and 3's, I warned that I was curious to see the play-calling based on some of the spin coming out of media reports and quotations after various performances. To be brief, I'll paraphrase:
"I'm interested to see the gameplan because the current number one has had very protective play calling and has not been asked to "make plays"... the current number two has shown youth and cannot protect the football or execute... and the now number three (who spent the evening signalling) was asked to throw over 30 passes at Pitt with no designed runs and was hence deemed ineffective".....
So... with that in mind.... 9....nine...nueve... pass attempts for the "starter". A conference game against a CUSA defense. nine forward passes of which how many were shuffle passes?
30 plus at Pitt an ACC school, and a very quick narrative to deem that QB ineffective.
Nine at UTSA and we say it was a "lack of communication"...
I warned of agendas last week ladies and gentlemen. I only go where the evidence takes me.....
Tyner has had many opportunities beyond the Pitt game with similar results. I haven't seen evidence of an agenda with the coaches. Can't say the same with your posts.
You're right... I have a bias... I have two agendas actually...
1) Tyner is my guy... I favor him. I don't think the offense fits any of these guys. I think for you to say he's been ineffective is certainly within the realm of what would be your right to say... I only counter with this: How effective are the other guys? Either the staff has recruited three guys who can't play, or they've designed a system and called plays rendering all three ineffective. Either way, it's on them. I would love to see Tyner, Glaesman, and/or Smalls in a "playmaker's, run first, QB as a dual threat weapon" offense. But don't sell me this box of poop and tell me its a dozen tulips
2) 2nd agenda-- sniff out Bullsmack... I'm absolutely 110% fine with whoever they want to start. But when you do make a decision on anyone, hold them to the same standard. It's one thing to "game plan" a little conservative. It's yet another to tank a game plan to protect youth and still have youth give up scores by their own hand crippling a hard playing defense. If they don't want Tyner to play QB, great. They make a bunch of money to make those calls and obviously because they coach big time multi-million dollar football and I only gamble $50/week on the same football, they are inherently more qualified and have their reasons. BUT..... don't tell me "A" is this, but "B" is that and "C" can possibly give us "A+B" when in fact... and the facts at this point are indisputable... "A" > "B" and "C" even if by a small margin....
The facts are pretty plain: Pittsburgh has arguably two NFL prospect DB's, we threw 32 times and ran the QB zero... UTSA .... not UT, UTSA, and we trusted the QB's enough to attempt 15 passes... three of which were picked and one other fumbled for a TD. As John Adams said, "Facts are stubborn things".
And like my signature line says, if one player is the problem, change the player... But if a lot of players are the problem, It's you....