goTULA.NEt

Same old Tulane.

nowave wrote:fau put up 326 yards on navy last week and we only managed 262. i thought willie was supposed to be some offensive whiz?

Defense wins games. Our defense played well enough for us to win. FAU's did not--at all!!

We scored only 14 points on offense today and that won't win one game in the high scoring AAC.

GreenPuddleSplash wrote:

tpstulane wrote:

GreenPuddleSplash wrote:

nowave wrote:fau put up 326 yards on navy last week and we only managed 262. i thought willie was supposed to be some offensive whiz?

Well, a lot of it has to do with your starting qb going down very early in the game.

Our backup QB came in and did better than Banks.

TPS that's not fair to Banks. Banks/offense was still feeling out Navy at the early period. We didn't really hit any traction till the 4th.

Brantley didn't feel them out. He got it done right away. He makes better decisions in the option. It was obvious. Banks has the better passing game. We need more balance between the run and pass to win in this league.
Plain and simple we didn't lose because Banks went down. Brantley did a great job replacing him.

It's too soon to tell how good Tulane is as this point. Tulane's first game against a non-Oklahoma, non-triple option team (Tulsa) should provide clarity.

tpstulane wrote:

GreenPuddleSplash wrote:

tpstulane wrote:

GreenPuddleSplash wrote:

nowave wrote:fau put up 326 yards on navy last week and we only managed 262. i thought willie was supposed to be some offensive whiz?

Well, a lot of it has to do with your starting qb going down very early in the game.

Our backup QB came in and did better than Banks.

TPS that's not fair to Banks. Banks/offense was still feeling out Navy at the early period. We didn't really hit any traction till the 4th.

Brantley didn't feel them out. He got it done right away. He makes better decisions in the option. It was obvious. Banks has a better passing game.

I agree.

tpstulane wrote:

GreenPuddleSplash wrote:

tpstulane wrote:

GreenPuddleSplash wrote:

nowave wrote:fau put up 326 yards on navy last week and we only managed 262. i thought willie was supposed to be some offensive whiz?

Well, a lot of it has to do with your starting qb going down very early in the game.

Our backup QB came in and did better than Banks.

TPS that's not fair to Banks. Banks/offense was still feeling out Navy at the early period. We didn't really hit any traction till the 4th.

Brantley didn't feel them out. He got it done right away. He makes better decisions in the option. It was obvious. Banks has the better passing game. We need more balance between the run and pass to win in this league.
Plain and simple we didn't lose because Banks went down. Brantley did a great job replacing him.

Brantley did play well. Defensive front 7 did a good job most of the day. I thought Luke Jackson did well and made a big strip on the qb.

It is kind of ironic that when we ran the triple option against Navy, they had fits just like last year when we pulled GC and put in Brantley. Maybe we should have just stuck with it from the beginning of the game.

GreenPuddleSplash wrote:

nowave wrote:fau put up 326 yards on navy last week and we only managed 262. i thought willie was supposed to be some offensive whiz?

Well, a lot of it has to do with your starting qb going down very early in the game.

we werent exactly moving the chains with banks at the helm. something like 60 yards across four series. and keep in mind that six our points came from our defense. im not sold on fritzs offense

Brantley was very good. He came in and gave the team a big lift. He's improved a lot from last year. If he could only develop his passing game. No way in hell can anyone blame this loss on Banks going down. This is what Tulane does every year. We have a pivotal game that's there for the taking a we fail to take advantage of it. Navy was very beatable today and we blow it.
Show Me otherwise. That's why I'm not a cheerleader I've been disappointed time and time again.

As to Brantley the staff has to be more open to letting him pass. He has improved there. The staff is too risk averse. We have to open it up some.

No one is blaming this loss on Banks going down. I was saying that it's not fair to ask where all the offense is when your starting QB went down very early.

winwave wrote:As to Brantley the staff has to be more open to letting him pass. He has improved there. The staff is too risk averse. We have to open it up some.

No question. Need to try to throw a little at least to keep the other team honest.

We're better than last year because our QB play is better and our defense is still strong. I projected 6-6 so I think we'll get that. I'm not panicking over this loss though I thought we would win today. But too many mistakes on the road. Still we're better than last year. If anyone is questioning WF, go look and see how Ga Southern has done since he left.

They are getting better. Ten years ago we didn't even compete. Fritz made some mistakes, but if he beats Army then six wins remains on the table.

I think we underestimate how far in the tank Tulane football really was. A lot went wrong and we only lost by 15 fewer points than two years ago.

We were on FIU's level not that long ago.

oliveandblue wrote:They are getting better. Ten years ago we didn't even compete. Fritz made some mistakes, but if he beats Army then six wins remains on the table.

I think we underestimate how far in the tank Tulane football really was. A lot went wrong and we only lost by 15 fewer points than two years ago.

We were on FIU's level not that long ago.

This. I also think once Fritz' lineman start to develop we will really start seeing dividends. Our line was all over the place today. They couldn't pass protect and at times had trouble with the run and then they started run blocking like madmen for a couple of drives. We need more Corey Dublins.

Aberzombie1892 wrote:It's too soon to tell how good Tulane is as this point. Tulane's first game against a non-Oklahoma, non-triple option team (Tulsa) should provide clarity.

And, oh, by the way; Final: Tulsa 66, ULALA 42. Tulsa will be a very winnable game for us.

Show Me wrote:Brantley was very good. He came in and gave the team a big lift. He's improved a lot from last year. If he could only develop his passing game. No way in hell can anyone blame this loss on Banks going down. This is what Tulane does every year. We have a pivotal game that's there for the taking a we fail to take advantage of it. Navy was very beatable today and we blow it.
Show Me otherwise. That's why I'm not a cheerleader I've been disappointed time and time again.

Oh it's obvious you are not a cheerleader. Your constant negativity is tiresome and boring. If you don't like Tulane, follow someone else.

Why did we attempt less than 10 passes in the 1st half with dual threat qbs? And why in the hell can we not find a kicker that can kick a 20 harder?

Defense played admirably but 3rd down on both sides was less than stellar.

Whoever was returning kicks and punts (Badie?) made horrible decisions at wrong points in the game.

One last thing re quarterbacks-- Brantley did well overall from what I saw. He had a few too many balls batted down at the line though. Too many drop back passes behind a Swiss cheese line with a smallish qb. Any word on Banks' injury?

You're right about third dows. We were among the worst on both sides of the ball last year and despite emphasis on it this year we are still doing poorly.

What will the OU line be?

anEngineer wrote:

Show Me wrote:Brantley was very good. He came in and gave the team a big lift. He's improved a lot from last year. If he could only develop his passing game. No way in hell can anyone blame this loss on Banks going down. This is what Tulane does every year. We have a pivotal game that's there for the taking a we fail to take advantage of it. Navy was very beatable today and we blow it.
Show Me otherwise. That's why I'm not a cheerleader I've been disappointed time and time again.

Oh it's obvious you are not a cheerleader. Your constant negativity is tiresome and boring. If you don't like Tulane, follow someone else.

Losing will tend to do that. I'm not negative only pointing out the negative. I wish it were otherwise. Just gets old losing this type of game year after year.

Wave755 wrote:

Aberzombie1892 wrote:It's too soon to tell how good Tulane is as this point. Tulane's first game against a non-Oklahoma, non-triple option team (Tulsa) should provide clarity.

And, oh, by the way; Final: Tulsa 66, ULALA 42. Tulsa will be a very winnable game for us.

Unlikely. I don't see how we keep up with their offense. Houston is probably a better matchup for us. Right now I think the path to 6-6 runs through Army, FIU, ECU, and two of SMU/UH/Cincinnati.

Blah, Blah, Blah..we're getting better, things are on the right track, we're making progress. Blah, Blah, Blah.

UNTIL we win games like this, HANDILY, we ain't doing nothing!!'

OUG wrote:

Wave755 wrote:

Aberzombie1892 wrote:It's too soon to tell how good Tulane is as this point. Tulane's first game against a non-Oklahoma, non-triple option team (Tulsa) should provide clarity.

And, oh, by the way; Final: Tulsa 66, ULALA 42. Tulsa will be a very winnable game for us.

Unlikely. I don't see how we keep up with their offense. Houston is probably a better matchup for us. Right now I think the path to 6-6 runs through Army, FIU, ECU, and two of SMU/UH/Cincinnati.

I don't know, they gave up 42 points to ULALA?