What did we learn: Rutgers

admo said:
True.  If the OC wants to keep running the same offense with the backup, I guess you go with Purdy?  But if the OC can see that the offense can be more efficient by changing up the strategy, you go with Smothers (more run game, some option, some QB draws).  Therefor, I think Purdy comes in because he throws well in practices.  If it were me, and my starter was out, I'd bring in Smothers and switch to a survival mode, which is a run type of game.  
Click to expand...
Smothers has had some pretty bad fumbles. 

 
HC fires staff to scapegoat them and about 12 months later the HC gets fired.  
 

Kinda a kick in NEB fb balls to say we are so bad that to lose to us is a fireable offense!  Ugh 

Hope we somehow get about 7 more coaches fired!!!   Lol

 
BigRedBuster said:
Smothers has had some pretty bad fumbles. 
Click to expand...
But is CT any better?   He looked like a cross between Mahomes and Brees in the first 1/2 of the Northwestern game- then looked like crap. Same, but maybe reverse with Indiana.  Oklahoma was crap all the way around.  
 

Friday, he looked horrible in the first half. Passes were flaying ducks. They were the worst I’ve ever seen since maybe Armstrong? Then he lays one in there perfectly for Palmer.  He has a lot of hesitation to take 5-8 easy runs yards in front of him.  For a few games, I though CT and Amart would have been interchangeable, but I don’t see CT getting better and I think he will always need to sit a series or two to gather his head.  I’m not sure that backed up on our own 8 the right time for a backup to come in.  Maybe it would be better just to punt than take a safety.  I guess Purdy had some success against Oklahoma, so maybe Whipple was thinking along that line of thought. 

I miss #2am. He could take a lickin and keep on keeping on. I’ve heard how banged up CT is, but I’ve never really seen him get laid out like Amart used to get, so I do question his toughness some. 

 
Red Five said:
We’ve been on the other end of these, so I guess it’s good to finally get “lucky”
Click to expand...
You joke about getting lucky,  but two of those interceptions were thrown directly to our guys.  Some of the worst QB play I've ever seen, which I think is indeed some luck.

 
krc1995 said:
we did not win the game because we are good. 
Click to expand...
Cool story man. Better than losing because we aren’t good. No freaking pleasing some people. We were on the right side of luck for once.. and that IS a step in the right direction. Please come back soon to spread some more cynicism.  

 
Cornfed said:
Cool story man. Better than losing because we aren’t good. No freaking pleasing some people. We were on the right side of luck for once.. and that IS a step in the right direction. Please come back soon to spread some more cynicism.  
Click to expand...
Oh stop it. You just assumed a whole bunch. And I m not going anywhere, so no need for me to come back. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top