Top Passers....so far

[Atlanta Griz1]

Good point. You never want your QB to be among the top QBs in the nation in passing yardage. Because if he is, it means that he is passing the ball way to much, and you have no balance on offense. Notice each week in the NFL, that most of the teams who put up 350-yard+ passing numbers lose the game. The teams who win have a 100-yard rusher, and efficient passing numbers, but not sky-high in yardage. Balance is the key, and that, my friends, is what our problem will be with a weak O-line and average RBs.

Well shoot. I guess we have no chance this season, Stitt's offense is doomed to fail, we should have hired Hauck.

Its just more ignorant manure from (the new) AG1. Who gives a damn where your yardage comes from as long as you get a lot of it and win? The '95 NC team did a lot of passing (vs running) too and they more than managed. As Coach Read explained it then, "our passing game is our running game."

Your post shows your ignorance. Stay with badminton. That game suits you more.

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

Honestly not trying to discredit BG here because I think he has the potential to be a damn fine QB, but if your offense is designed to run 95 plays a game, and you can't or don't want to get the ground game running, you're going to end up with what, 65-70 passes a game?

Good point. You never want your QB to be among the top QBs in the nation in passing yardage. Because if he is, it means that he is passing the ball way to much, and you have no balance on offense. Notice each week in the NFL, that most of the teams who put up 350-yard+ passing numbers lose the game. The teams who win have a 100-yard rusher, and efficient passing numbers, but not sky-high in yardage. Balance is the key, and that, my friends, is what our problem will be with a weak O-line and average RBs.[/quote]

Atlanta Griz1 appears to be right about value of passing yardage, at least in the NFL the metrics confirm that total passing yardage is nowhere near as important as TD/Int ratio. Those numbers for Gus are not great at the moment 1:1. I think this will improve because I am a maroon glass wearer and after only two starts Gus has more upside than Kate Upton.

I also think TO's won't hurt as much in Stitt's scheme as in a more traditional set-up. My reason for this thinking is two fold; first statistically we should have gotten killed by Cal-Poly, the metrics for a team that commits 4 TO's and only generates 1 are terrible and yet we lost only on a career long FG. Secondly, converting 4th downs basically cancels out TO's (though I don't think on a 1:1 ratio), we didn't convert any against the Mustangs and that really hurt but will not continue. Going for it on 4th is still seen as a gamble, the players will become more efficient as they relax and adjust and it becomes more of a routine.[/quote]

Nice to see some intelligence among the forest of pedestrians posting in this thread

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

So what about Prukop from the "scary good offense?"

In his defense the kitties have only played one game.

That was a game? It looked more like a scrimmage.

It was the annual Bring a High School team to the litter box game....I think they just call it the gold rush tho?

The gold rush "game" has been changed to the the "sugar rush scrimmage".