Bennett puts passing game on his shoulders (LINK)

Pretty much what I expected from a guy like Bennett. Although somewhere deep down he knows that it's partly on the WRs too.
 
I'd say it's more along the lines of 50/50 right now. I do like the statement though. He's at least attempting to lead this team off the field. The on-field issues should slowly be resolved.
 
I didn't see the WRs' Clemson drops in the first half plus 5:00... Were they really obvious, blatant drops?
 
Yeah, they were, at least two of them. Not 'could of' been cought, but OMG, "should of" been caught.
 
They were pretty blatant, and a couple of those happen and it really messes up the rhythm between the QB and WRs, I think, and also seemed to make the coaches reluctant to call more pass plays. It's good that Bennett said this, but to me the onus right now is really on the receivers to step up, and the coaches to give Bennett the opportunity to throw downfield more.
 
gth816f said:
They were pretty blatant, and a couple of those happen and it really messes up the rhythm between the QB and WRs, I think, and also seemed to make the coaches reluctant to call more pass plays. It's good that Bennett said this, but to me the onus right now is really on the receivers to step up, and the coaches to give Bennett the opportunity to throw downfield more.
Click to expand...

When you have receivers with teflon coated holves for hands, and you think the only way the opponent is going to score is if the offense commits a turnover, you aren't going to pass much. Last thing we needed last week against Clemson was an interception due to a ball ricocheting off our receivers hands.
 
aeromech said:
When you have receivers with teflon coated holves for hands, and you think the only way the opponent is going to score is if the offense commits a turnover, you aren't going to pass much. Last thing we needed last week against Clemson was an interception due to a ball ricocheting off our receivers hands.
Click to expand...

No doubt, but the playcalling we saw at Clemson was nothing different than what we saw in the first four games(two of which we weren't worried about losing). Taylor still hasn't been given a chance to really open up the passing game.
 
gth816f said:
No doubt, but the playcalling we saw at Clemson was nothing different than what we saw in the first four games(two of which we weren't worried about losing). Taylor still hasn't been given a chance to really open up the passing game.
Click to expand...

The first two games we didn't need to pass, we were blowing out our opponents; so what the offense did or didn't do in those games isn't real relevant. Against BC we were just getting beat on the line of scrimmage and had poor pass protection; but I tend to agree with you for that game. I listened to the second half of the UVa game on radio, so I really don't think I can honestly comment on it. I think we lost confidence in the passing game early during the Clemson game for the reasons previously stated.

We are due for a breakout in the passing game, where we have good blocking up front, a good performance from the QB, and good performance from the receivers. We have not put all three pieces together in the last three games, and having two or fewer pieces working doesn't help you much. I am of the opinion that the OL and the QB did their job last week; but the receivers didn't do theirs. I don't think we have the tools to air the ball out like a Spurrier offense; but we do have the talent to have a good (but not great) passing game.
 
Well he threw the ball 40 times against UVA and 15 against Clemson. But what do I know...I guess it was the same play calling.
 
aeromech said:
The first two games we didn't need to pass, we were blowing out our opponents; so what the offense did or didn't do in those games isn't real relevant.
Click to expand...

I'd like to talk about this. I found it surprising that everyone said that then, and especially surprising that everyone says it now, with our passing game being the most maligned part of our team. With a new QB at the helm who needed to develop a rhythm with his receivers and get some experience for himself, did you think at the time that it would have been good to at least try passing deep several times? What about now, specifically after the Clemson game, when the biggest weakness in our game was clearly the inability of our receivers and quarterback to hook up on very easy plays.

Overall, I guess, what would everyone say is the reason that the coaches just have not let us try to develop an aerial attack? To me, Bennett has looked fairly sharp on his throws. Not great, but accurate enough to make some plays. Our receivers have shown the ability to get open, but they have not shown the ability to catch the ball or make plays on thrown balls. I think that we have the pieces to create an average to above average passing offense when you consider our rushing ability, and yet so far we might as well not have played with a QB for all the passing we've done.

To me, catching balls and making easy throws comes with repetition at game speed, and for some reason we have not really tried to do this yet. Why does everyone think this is, and do you think it will change in the coming games?

Edit: Unfortunately, I can only comment on the four games I've seen. Maybe someone can enlighten me on the type of passing game we had against UVA. I heard that James Johnson was injured for most of it?
 
ncjacket said:
Well he threw the ball 40 times against UVA and 15 against Clemson. But what do I know...I guess it was the same play calling.
Click to expand...

IIRC, Chan said that UVA's early touchdowns forced us out of our game plan and we had to throw the ball. That causes me to believe that he simply doesn't want to throw the ball unless he has to.

However, I recall that we came out throwing against BC and then went to the ground game. ???

Mystifying, although I agree with his thoughts about turnovers. Take away a turnover and we beat UVA. There's lots of opportunities for turnovers in the passing game...misreads, tipped balls, fumbles when the QB is hit while holding the ball with one hand, fumbles when the receiver is hit as he catches the ball.

Bobby Dodd often punted on third down if Tech wasn't moving the ball. His philosophy was that if a team had to march eighty yards to score it would likely make a mistake before it crossed the goal line and the defense could capitalize and put us in a position to win. So Chan's philosophy, if I read him correctly, is not unlike successful coaches like Dodd.

Personally, I like the passing game and would like to see more of it. But I am not the coach whose ass is on the line with each loss. Every coach has his own style of play and keys to success.

BTW, one of the big gripes against "Dodd Ball" was that it was not exciting. Another BTW, but more interesting, is that Dodd called many plays from the sidelines. Bear Bryant called him the best sideline strategist in football.
 
gth816f said:
I'd like to talk about this. I found it surprising that everyone said that then, and especially surprising that everyone says it now, with our passing game being the most maligned part of our team. With a new QB at the helm who needed to develop a rhythm with his receivers and get some experience for himself, did you think at the time that it would have been good to at least try passing deep several times?
Click to expand...

Honestly, at the time I felt we didn't get what we needed out of the Samford game; but I blame that in part on Samford. I sat in the broiling heat of the Samford game expecting Samford to at least make a game of it for 1-2 quarters. Samford didn't do squat, and before you could get back from the bathroom we were ahead by about 4 touchdowns. At that point, which seemed like 5 minutes into the first quarter, to have worked on our passing game would have made us looked like a-holes.

gth816f said:
What about now, specifically after the Clemson game, when the biggest weakness in our game was clearly the inability of our receivers and quarterback to hook up on very easy plays.

Overall, I guess, what would everyone say is the reason that the coaches just have not let us try to develop an aerial attack? To me, Bennett has looked fairly sharp on his throws. Not great, but accurate enough to make some plays. Our receivers have shown the ability to get open, but they have not shown the ability to catch the ball or make plays on thrown balls. I think that we have the pieces to create an average to above average passing offense when you consider our rushing ability, and yet so far we might as well not have played with a QB for all the passing we've done.

To me, catching balls and making easy throws comes with repetition at game speed, and for some reason we have not really tried to do this yet. Why does everyone think this is, and do you think it will change in the coming games?

Edit: Unfortunately, I can only comment on the four games I've seen. Maybe someone can enlighten me on the type of passing game we had against UVA. I heard that James Johnson was injured for most of it?
Click to expand...

Overall, I don't think we've had an opportunity in a game to simply work on the passing game. Since Samford we've been scratching a clawing to try and simply win the game. I think Bennett played well against Clemson (and I had not been a TB fan prior to that game) and if the receivers had caught one of those passes early in the game, maybe we would have seen different play calling later in the game.
 
I'd like to see Tashard get up in the face of receivers who drop the ball, to challenge them more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top