With Fuller out & our inability to cover, Boyd could go nuts.
On the other hand, running QBs tend to give us fits.
Peterman has the nod, but both will play.
Which would you rather see on Saturday?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
via GIPHY
VOYTIK, no question. We can get pressure on a pocket passer. But the scrambling might kill us.
Please I am trying not to start drinking until Friday afternoon! Can't we just be positive?
Edit: OK?! Definitely tried to attach another neither photo but keeps coming up this. So I guess I will be leaving it. But would neither suffice as a choice
this post is confusing because the title of the post and the last question of the post are asking two entirely different questions.
I would rather see Tom Savage but that's not an option. I don't really think our defense is built to defend this type of team, especially with our lack of linebackers. They will establish the run early and run all over us. It won't matter who the QB is.
I understand your logic but I would say we have done a decent job of stopping the run(running backs). Granted that's against subpar teams(minus ECU and OSU). It's Quarterbacks we have a tough time with. I know I'm being optimistic here, but I think if we step up and make some tackles in space this weekend and if Bud can draw up a better way to stop Voytik when he comes in, we win. Of course, asking this team to tackle has been a dumpster fire at best this year.
Dadi as a linebacker purely spying the QB... no more problem!
"Entirely different," but clearly related --
assuming you want the guy who'll give us the most problems to sit.
Who will give us the most problem? Who would you rather see?
A: Voytik
Tell me that's not ambiguous
I'm assuming you are funning' me, but just in case you are truly in the dark -- confusion arose only b/c you gave a one word answer (Voytik) to two different, but obviously related Qs.
Let me help you with a simple example response:
"I think Voytik would likely hurt us the most because we struggle to tackle mobile QBs. Further, the field will be wet. That, in theory, the D at a greater disadvantage. So, I prefer they play Peterman, the better passer -- despite our deficiencies defending the pass."
I'm not so dense that I can't figure it out...the whole reason I brought up the point that your post had two questions resulting in a single answer being the opposite answer for one as it is for the other was sparked by this comment:
without any historical context that comment does not make it clear which questions is being answered. It really isn't a big deal, I was just poking fun at it.
After ECU? Either one. Just surprise me.
Joaquin.
And it's pronounced "Kevin."
Snorted on the phone. +1
seen this quite a bit but for the less informed, can I get a reference please!
Whichever one has the ball
Seriously, our defense is not in a good place
Probably their super athletic backup who is a runner that they have kept a secret until they play us. -_-
but hey they may not even need that because their average speed pocket passer who hadn't run much all year did the same to us last year.
That was an embarrassing play... I hope Ekanem makes up for it this game!
I just hope they're working on tackling technique this week.
Really though, if that's the case, then my question is why haven't we been working on it ALL year?
And they can practice tackling in the rain. Got lots. Bud should not let them practice in the Barn.
Playing inside is for winners.
Did you look at the pictures of the practice fields? Not going to be able to practice on them the last few days.
They've got firehoses in the barn.
OK, I'm kidding, but seriously, tackling is an issue.
No I have not seen them, but I think that with the tackling issues, they should do it anyway!
Neither.
I like that response 'cause we're gonna see both.
I'm gonna go with Peter Man