Sign in to follow this  
StatTiger

Upon Further Review - GSU Game

Recommended Posts

AU04ever    88
1 hour ago, lionheartkc said:

Really?  I totally don't remember that.  No surprise, however, I bet he was tired.

This is the exact play I was referencing earlier and as you stated, I can understand running from the same formation but giving the same guy the ball after its obvious he ran out of steam is something I dont understand. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




AUFAN78    454
14 hours ago, StatTiger said:

41.7% of Jarrett Stidham's pass attempts were within 5-yards of the line of scrimmage. He was only 3 of 8 in passing beyond 10-yards of the LOS, but three of those attempts were dropped passes.

Another troublesome stat. Expect 8 in the box if we cant do a better job of stretching the field. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lala    92

Thanks Stat.  I agree with you 1000% on Kam Martin.  He has a gear and elusiveness that KJ doesn't.   I feel a couple of those 2 yards up the middle would have been different if he played earlier.  I get KJ tho, as you have to block to protect the QB plus I am concerned with Kam's size.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indy    18
17 hours ago, StatTiger said:
  •  
  • The defense was stellar Saturday, preventing the Eagles from converting a single 3rd down conversion. GSU went 0 for 15 on third down but an even more telling stat was the yardage gained on third down. Of their 15 third down situations, the Eagles needed to gain 132-yards combined to convert all 15 third down plays. They netted -14 yards on third down.

This stat is just stunning.

I knew we were watching an amazing defensive effort Saturday night at J-H, but I had no idea just how special it was, statistically speaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McLoofus    3,586
47 minutes ago, Indy said:

This stat is just stunning.

I knew we were watching an amazing defensive effort Saturday night at J-H, but I had no idea just how special it was, statistically speaking.

Almost like we were playing 2005 bama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
meh130    128
On 9/5/2017 at 10:49 PM, McLoofus said:

Almost like we were playing 2005 bama.

This game reminded me of that one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lionheartkc    4,027
On 9/5/2017 at 6:11 PM, AUFAN78 said:

Another troublesome stat. Expect 8 in the box if we cant do a better job of stretching the field. 

If you listen to Gus's press conference on Tuesday, the lack of long balls was by design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AUFAN78    454
4 hours ago, lionheartkc said:

If you listen to Gus's press conference on Tuesday, the lack of long balls was by design.

Thanks! I missed the press conference. Still no clue why we would not at least show the long ball as a possibility. Give Clemson something to think about. I suppose it goes back to what some have stated about not showing your hand. Just not sure I agree with that tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oracle79    817
4 hours ago, lionheartkc said:

If you listen to Gus's press conference on Tuesday, the lack of long balls was by design.

So, he doesn't throw long in the game to keep Clemson in the dark about our plan.  But, he then gives his plan away in a press conference saying we didn't throw long on purpose?  OK, he's way smarter than me if that works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lionheartkc    4,027
2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Thanks! I missed the press conference. Still no clue why we would not at least show the long ball as a possibility. Give Clemson something to think about. I suppose it goes back to what some have stated about not showing your hand. Just not sure I agree with that tactic.

Well... we tried... incomplete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lionheartkc    4,027
1 hour ago, oracle79 said:

So, he doesn't throw long in the game to keep Clemson in the dark about our plan.  But, he then gives his plan away in a press conference saying we didn't throw long on purpose?  OK, he's way smarter than me if that works.

He didn't say it was to keep them in the dark, he said that we used different plane for different games and Nate Craig Meyers was less sctive by design, but will be very active in future game plans. You can interpret that however you feel like you should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oracle79    817
22 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

by design

Question for anyone.  What does GM mean when he says "by design"?  Because, I don't think that phrase means what he thinks it means.  Inconceivable I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lionheartkc    4,027
11 minutes ago, oracle79 said:

Question for anyone.  What does GM mean when he says "by design"?  Because, I don't think that phrase means what he thinks it means.  Inconceivable I know.

Note, I paraphrased. I wasn't watching the conference when I wrote that.

That being said, what I got from it is that there is a different plan for each team based on their strengths/weaknesses and what it will take to beat them. If we can beat a team on the ground, easily, you know we're going to because of the "three things that can happen when you pass".

Here's an interesting thought. One of the reasons that we limited long routes last weak may have bent to minimize the number of potential hits Stidham would have to take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
milehighfan    429
On 9/5/2017 at 8:49 PM, McLoofus said:

Almost like we were playing 2005 bama.

I hope Saturday's game against Clemson also reminds us of the 2005 bama game.:wareagle:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Members Online

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.