Page 3 of 3

Re: Why Are We Harboring Three Failed UT Rejects?

Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:06 pm
by SMU2007
Although the jump from 5a state championship teams to Tulane, Rice and co is debatable...

Re: Why Are We Harboring Three Failed UT Rejects?

Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:17 pm
by Alaric
RyanSMU98 wrote:
Rayburn wrote:Frankly, even with some of his mistakes, I don't think GG played too badly last night.
I agree. GG for most of the game looked pretty confident and solid. There were a few times where it seemed like he got lost in the scheme (and generally got clobbered for it), but overall I think he can build off of last night. Shead did not impress me. Injury aside, his blocking was so-so and he never seemed to be the strong, fast RB as advertised. I honestly was more impressed with Line 2.0. Didn't really notice anything about Ashcraft, which in itself says something. So basically we are on 1 for 3 on UT castoffs based on yesterday.
Snead still hampered by hamstring injury

Re: Why Are We Harboring Three Failed UT Rejects?

Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:23 pm
by lwjr
One of the few knocks on Shead during practices was he runs upright. That was pretty evident during the game. Maybe that worked at the JC level but not against Tech or any other opponent. Hopefully the coaching staff wil be able to correct that.

Re: Why Are We Harboring Three Failed UT Rejects?

Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:41 pm
by Stallion