Recent Comments

Agree so much. My biggest hope for our future offense is that we move the ball regularly enough to not do the whole three phase cheer after a first down. Maybe just cut it down the the last phase

12 PM on Saturday is going to be really stressful for me. I'm focusing on the VT-UVA game, but have a strategy planned to where I can also see parts of anOSU-UM, Clemson-USCe, GT-UGA, and UK-UL...

Now I need to add SMU-Memphis to the list because I have to watch how Justin Fuente acts on the sidelines since we have this report...

The question begs, is Memphis successful this year because Paxton is star that was uncovered or developed by Fuente? Fuente is probably a good developer, as he has shown the ability to develop multiple unheralded QBs into high draft picks: Andy Dalton at TCU, now Paxton at Memphis. So, even if the system relies too heavy on the QB, in my mind, that's ok because Fuente can coach up QBs.

Sounds like that's generally the case. It's hard to tell how many of Lynch's runs are designed compared to broken plays, scrambles, or tackles for loss that aren't counted as sacks. Lynch has already been sacked as many times this year as last year, so I'm led to believe that their offensive line isn't that great. I haven't watched them close enough to tell you whether they rely on Lynch as even a secondary runner, but from the few times I've seen them play, it looks as though the utilize Lynch's mobility, which he's very good at, to catch the opponent off guard as they sit on passing routes.

False because their lack of success comes from the fact that they haven't had a standout QB. A strong defense and a good RB can win some games, but you won't win them all without a QB. They haven't had that and so they haven't been great. Every system is going to rely on a QB. How much will vary, but GT is the closest I can come up with to a team that tries to not rely on the QB only because I hesitate to call the person receiving the snap a QB. Even then, get behind the sticks or behind in the game and they flounder. You need a QB to run an offense. Plain and simple. If the statement was that he relies on the passing game rather than a power running game, that's a valid point and one that I addressed above, but to say he "relies on the QB" makes no sense.

My biggest concern with Fuente would be recruiting but remember the main knack on Urban Meyer at Utah was that he couldn't recruit and also Jim McElwain at Colorado State, but once those guys got in a place where they had all the resources to recruit and hired the right staff, they took off and never looked back. I think that Fuente could do the same here.

I think that may have been when the fans first saw Beamer in the tunnel and the start of Enter Sandman. The pause has to be when we realized Metallica did a tribute video for Frank. Then the big jump when Enter Sandman really started. Or, that's my theory...

I don't think there is much difference between Fuente and Mullen. Both have won in places where you have no right to win. Both are program builders. They are both offensive guys, Fuente's offense may be more pass centric than Mullens. There is concern that both are reflections of their current QB's, but both are also renown for their ability to get the best out of QB's. And both would probably have recruiting as their relative weakness, but if they surround themselves with a good recruiting staff, may improve.

That said, Fuente is probably $1M/year less than Mullen. I think you can get Fuente for the $3M that Memphis offered. Mullen will take closer to $4M.

Pages