I heard the interview this morning and it got me pumped just to hear some of his thoughts. PJ said that he will find a medium between his days in Hawaii's offense and Navy's offense. Said he will not run as much as he did at Navy but will not pass as much as he did in Hawaii. Asked if he feels he could put up points against BCS schools? He answered by saying he has played 29 BCS schools and have averaged like 30 points. Gave examples of piling up 400 yards against Wake and putting up over 40 against Duke. He then went on to say if we can do that at Navy with slower and smaller guys imagine what we will do at Tech with Bigger and faster guys. When asked about staff he was quite mum. Said it was a possibility for Tenuta, but didn't go into to much detail. He said a few more thing, but these are what stuck out. Sorry if grammar or spelling is off.
Perception is reality. Until we see the product on the field, we only have recent history to go on. And recruits (17-18 yos) are only looking at recent history.wonder why that is not translating well to the Chris Jackson's and AJ Jenkins of the world?
BTW, is Jackson still wavering? I thought he was planning on meeting with CPJ?
He met with Johnson and Giff Smith last night, and his official visit is scheduled for this coming weekend.
And to reiterate what I said in another thread, he was 11-18 (.379) in those BCS team games where he averaged 37 points.Just to reiterate what another poster said in another thread. PJ actually average 37 points against BCS teams with Navy.
You have to extrapolate to make them worth it, though. If you're trying to understand the productivity of his offense, then you need to compare what Tech would have gotten vs those guys under Gailey to what Navy got under PJ, ideally vs the same teams.And to reiterate what I said in another thread, he was 11-18 (.379) in those BCS team games where he averaged 37 points.
Stats suck when they only tell half the story.
And to reiterate what I said in another thread, he was 11-18 (.379) in those BCS team games where he averaged 37 points.
Stats suck when they only tell half the story.
It could also mean they're getting way behind in most of those games and scoring a lot of "mop up" points against 2nd and 3rd teamers.What story does that tell you?
It says Navy had the scheme on offense (not the Talent, which they do not have) to score alot of points, but they don't have the athlete nor the scheme on defense to hold teams to a respectable amount.
It could also mean they're getting way behind in most of those games and scoring a lot of "mop up" points against 2nd and 3rd teamers.
just playin' devil's advocate
It could also mean they're getting way behind in most of those games and scoring a lot of "mop up" points against 2nd and 3rd teamers.