Mr. Yost

August 31st, 2013 at 6:52 PM ^

Final Score:

THoughts?

My thoughts...

QB: I thought Gardner played better as the game went along. My thing with Devin is that we need to use the talent around him more. We call too many plays that feature him and not enough stuf that gets him safe plays or in a rythym. We need more screens, more quick passes, more safe stuff. Treat him like a freshman QB early in the game and let him get into the flow, then open things up a little. Let him see what the defense is doing before we put the entire offense on him.

RB: I think we're fine...I have no idea why people "shit on" Fitz so much, he played well. The other guys are all improved or improving as true freshman.

WR: It'll take 3-4 games to get an opinion on these guys, but Gallon, Dileo and Reynolds made some very good plays.

TE: The potential here is limitless, all 3 guys can play B1G football. Praying that Funchess is okay.

OL: Better than most predicted. I think they're better going straight forward than with the misdirection stuff. Lewan is like having 5.5 linemen on the field.

DL: I'm not ready to say "they've earned the right to rush 4"...it's just CMU. But if they can do what they did today, every Saturday. I'll scream it from the mountain tops.

LB: Solid, need better tackling.

CB: Solid, need to play a touch tighter. Stribling is the real deal.

S: n/a with the starters out. Furman is not the answer.

K/P: We've got 2 (maybe 3) of the best.

evenyoubrutus

August 31st, 2013 at 7:30 PM ^

I agree about the offensive line. I was honestly a little worried they might not be any better than last year (at least the interior) but I think they proved they are a big step up and are starting the year about where I had hoped they would be by week 10.

alum96

August 31st, 2013 at 8:27 PM ^

Also thought Wilson played well.  It was CMU but that was the team in front of them.  DBs get exposed for any mistake whereas if a D-lineman screws up there are 2 layers of defense behind him and LBers - 1 layer.  When these DBs make errors its so obvious and usually a chunk play so they seem to get sniffed towards in a much more harsh manner.   On the other hand, Clark did not do much against an OL he should have dominated.

Boom Goes the …

August 31st, 2013 at 6:57 PM ^

getting the youngins playing time will pay off down the line.  Didn't have any major injuries so we should come out full tilt next week. GO BLUE

MGoBlue96

August 31st, 2013 at 7:18 PM ^

inferior teams like CMU, no idea what your talking about. Let's not turn this into a spread versus prostyle debate, espcially considering that both were utilized today.

It is nice to have a  good defense though.

OMG Shirtless

August 31st, 2013 at 7:25 PM ^

It's the only reason you can possibly come to this conclusion.  

Smith had 7 carries for 12 yards.

Green had 11 carries for 58 yards, with one long run.  10 carries for 28 yards if you want to take out the long run for some weird reason. 

You can't make any serious comparisons between the two.  There was nothing to show that either back ran harder than the other.  

They both looked good on some runs.  They both looked bad on some runs.  They both went down easily on some runs.  All of the backs went down easily on some runs.  Fitz tripped over a dead body in the backfield on one play.

Brown Bear

August 31st, 2013 at 7:30 PM ^

I don't understand why a large portion of this board feels a need to have these two compete with each other. Can't we just be happy that they both look promising? I feel there are some posters openly rooting for Green to fail and Smth to shine. THE TEAM THE TEAM THE TEAM!!!!! LETS CUT THIS STUPID SHIT!

alum96

August 31st, 2013 at 8:32 PM ^

Yes and yes.  Why contrast and pit two future Heisman winners and instead not root for two future Heisman winners?  What I like about Smith is he always seems to churn forward as he was hit but he was hit earlier in his runs than Green - maybe that is on him or the lines on those runs but both looked like men out there.  Those are 19 year olds.  Very happy... and it showed that much discussed depth chart was off by "1 spot" as both came in ahead of #3 Rawls. (who also looked solid but lets see him against Big 10 competition)