Mike Honcho wrote: Agree about the D, thriller...and i do still think CTG is using these non-con games to try out stuff on defense that we'll need for the meat of our schedule...i.e., less concerned about stats as he is building depth/developing schemes. As for the O, the thing I like the best is seeing aspects of no less than three different offensive styles being ran successfully...bread n butter I formation, shotgun pro-style/pistol formation, and 4 receiver spread. Should cause difficulty in game-planning for opposing D's, and should help our o-line by keeping defenses from stacking the box on us or getting too sophisticated with blitz packages. On the subject of our o-line, we definitely need to clean some things up, but I'm proud of our guys, especially the young pups for learning the assignments necessary to run the different formations.
Overall, glad to see an all around "team" that can bail either side out when necessary and not be a liability to the other. Defense has had some hiccups, but we did play the game yesterday without three of our best defenders.
Mike, from where I sit, a quality post.
Think that there has been a lot of "game planning" going on through the first three games.
Missouri, caused some concerns for me, but regardless of what their fan base and media hypes had to say after the game was over, the final score did not stack up to what I read on the internet or the way I viewed the game. I would pose this question to the Missouri Tigers . . . . want to play the game again for all the marbles? Missouri, mean this sincerely . . . welcome to the SEC. One flaw . . . the SEC ran Urban Meyer out of the Southeast with the same basic offensive plan that you have.
Mike, really like the word "team". This group of "coaches" and "players" seem to understand the meaning, not sure prior to a year or two back that it meant anything.
