Justin "Struggle"

by **DrPeterV** on Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:31 pm

Struggle looked lost out there today. At some point, I think he realized he was in a football game, but still unsure of what team he was on, or if he was fan in the stands.

by **BCEagle74** on Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:33 pm

I said [coined] last year it would be the "Struggle with Tuggle" year and now I have had it.

Marco Polo or Shinskie.

Tuggle is pathetic with his accuracy to wide open recivers and has no touch.

by **talon** on Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:37 pm

If our O-line continues to play like they did today, whoever is behind center won't make a fucking difference.

If you had told me that Haden and Harris would each have less than 20 rushing yards, I'd be bullshit. For them to have less than 20 yards combined is inexcusable.

by **Cadillac90** on Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:39 pm

I'll bet anyone that Shinskie or Marsco would have done no better today. The offensive line was a disgrace and they should shoulder a lot of the blame on this one. Lay off Tuggle and the rest of the QBs for that matter.

by **twballgame9** on Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:05 pm

BCEagle74 {l Wrote}:I said [coined] last year it would be the "Struggle with Tuggle" year and now I have had it.

Marco Polo or Shinskie.

Tuggle is pathetic with his accuracy to wide open recivers and has no touch.

Still wrong.

by **commavegarage** on Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:07 pm

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
BCEagle74 {l Wrote}:I said [coined] last year it would be the "Struggle with Tuggle" year and now I have had it.

Marco Polo or Shinskie.

Tuggle is pathetic with his accuracy to wide open recivers and has no touch.

Still wrong.

Regardless of how bad Tuggle looked today, I don't want to see Shinskie or Marco Polo in another game.

by **BigPete** on Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:09 pm

Shinskie is no good either. Marco Polo is no good either. As a result, given a line with 3 all-ACC's on it, we should run the football with two very talented backs.

WE CAN'T THOUGH BECAUSE OUR OLINE HAS REGRESSED AND SISSIFIED INTO THE LAMEST UNIT I HAVE EVER LAID EYES ON.

Gomez Addams' gheyer, fatter doppelganger Spaz and his OC Uncle Fester have guaranteed that it won't matter.

by **Snooptonydog** on Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:10 pm

Gotta agree with Big Pete. We need to go back to a more simplified blocking scheme. No way Tennant and Costonzo and even Claiborne get tooled that badly. I know the Clemson DL is good - but not that good.

As for Tuggle, he just doesn't know were to lay the ball out for his receivers. That one pass where he led the receiver over his right shoulder instead of left shoulder, resulting in an INT from the Clemson safety, says a lot of how this guy passes.

How can he not realize to throw it more to the sideline? That should be obvious. He's just not on the same page with his WRs. Also, I feel Gunnell had a bad game. Dropped a few gimmees.

by **BigPete** on Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:12 pm

It's not a more challenging system under Coach New Hampshire. The zone scheme we ran was more complex.

I believe that the talent is there, I believe the coaching sucks, and when you have a defeatist excuse maker driving the bus, you are never going anywhere.

So you're not agreeing with me. FUCK YOU SPAZ. FUCK YOU TRANQ, FUCK YOU DEVINE.

by **BCEagles25** on Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:16 pm

BCEagle74 {l Wrote}:I said [coined] last year it would be the "Struggle with Tuggle" year and now I have had it.

Marco Polo or Shinskie.

Tuggle is pathetic with his accuracy to wide open recivers and has no touch.

It's hard to throw an accurate ball when you're getting drilled by DaQuan Bowers on the road as a freshman.

by **Snooptonydog** on Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:17 pm

I have to agree I was surprised by Spaz's halftime comment about - "it could get uglier." WTF? I expected more of - "Well we worked out some schemes for our O-line over the half and I expect them to turn it up about TEN notches and to get back into this thing."

NOT - "Well it could get uglier."

by **BCEagles25** on Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:19 pm

Spaz did a pretty good job of getting them ready and pumped for the rest of that third quarter and they were looking better. That's really all I can say. I still like Spaz though.

by **commavegarage** on Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:31 pm

Snooptonydog {l Wrote}:I have to agree I was surprised by Spaz's halftime comment about - "it could get uglier." WTF? I expected more of - "Well we worked out some schemes for our O-line over the half and I expect them to turn it up about TEN notches and to get back into this thing."

NOT - "Well it could get uglier."

This line really pissed me off. If you have that attitude whether or not you say it to your players it's clearly going to show. That was vintage TOB. Say what you want about Jags, but he had balls and always expected to win.

by **BC923** on Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:13 pm

Is this weakshit line due to a change in scheme? If so why did we do that?

by **StayBlessed** on Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:36 pm

It didn't matter who was the QB in this game...the O-Line was terrible. Now BC needs to stick w/ Tuggle and have a few designed running plays for him. The offense was at its best when Tuggle ran the ball...it seem to take away some of the aggressiveness of Clemson defense.

by **innocentbystander** on Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:03 am

4 for 20, (20% completion percentage for your BC Engineering majors)

23 total yards

1 TD

3 interceptions

Dominique Davis's numbers werent even that bad.

If Tuggle is back on the field vs Wake Forest (because he's the best we have), he better not throw the ball all game. He either hands the ball off, or he takes off and runs with it. There is no third way. Sorry Justin, sorry Gunnell, I know this is your last year, but your numbers are going to suck this year because for the second year in a row, we have no QB.

by **innocentbystander** on Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:05 am

I'll bet Heather Dinnich is reading this board, reading all our comments about her ignorance, and laughing her fucking ass off right now.

I don't know, 6 and 6 if we are lucky?

by **MaxxPower325** on Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:01 am

innocentbystander {l Wrote}:4 for 20, (20% completion percentage for your BC Engineering majors)

23 total yards

1 TD

3 interceptions

Dominique Davis's numbers werent even that bad.

If Tuggle is back on the field vs Wake Forest (because he's the best we have), he better not throw the ball all game. He either hands the ball off, or he takes off and runs with it. There is no third way. Sorry Justin, sorry Gunnell, I know this is your last year, but your numbers are going to suck this year because for the second year in a row, we have no QB.

Any comparison to Davis is bullshit. Davis was terrified every minute of every game under center. How many fumbles did he have again?

Tuggle may well be lacking the arm necessary to be successful, but its awfully hard to tell with the entire DL in his face the whole game. Give credit for showing some poise even if everything else was a disaster.

by **BC923** on Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:04 am

true. I don't think matt ryan can do very well with 4 guys in the backfield every play.

by **innocentbystander** on Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:34 pm

true. I don't think matt ryan can do very well with 4 guys in the backfield every play.

2 of the 5 guys on the O-Line out there yesterday blocked for Matt Ryan, and somehow, someway, he got it don. Oh well, I guess Tennant and Castanzo were so much better when they were only 20 and 18? Or perhaps, we don't have a QB? You can go with the former, I'll take the latter.

by **BCFAN94** on Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:14 am

BC923 {l Wrote}:Is this weakshit line due to a change in scheme? If so why did we do that?

I just can't believe that these guys forgot how to block, they were looking down, wiffing on blocks, handing blocks off to no one. Could they have been sending a message?

by **twballgame9** on Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:35 am

innocentbystander {l Wrote}:true. I don't think matt ryan can do very well with 4 guys in the backfield every play.

2 of the 5 guys on the O-Line out there yesterday blocked for Matt Ryan, and somehow, someway, he got it don. Oh well, I guess Tennant and Castanzo were so much better when they were only 20 and 18? Or perhaps, we don't have a QB? You can go with the former, I'll take the latter.

Seriously? You are retarded. The key to your post is that the two guys "blocked for Matt Ryan". Saturday those two guys didn't block for anyone, QB or RB alike. And those two idiots better wake up or they are going to cost themselves a lot of money regressing.

by **BC923** on Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:58 am

innocentbystander {l Wrote}:true. I don't think matt ryan can do very well with 4 guys in the backfield every play.

2 of the 5 guys on the O-Line out there yesterday blocked for Matt Ryan, and somehow, someway, he got it don. Oh well, I guess Tennant and Castanzo were so much better when they were only 20 and 18? Or perhaps, we don't have a QB? You can go with the former, I'll take the latter.

and they were good with matt ryan in the backfield. You can't tell me that this line is the same line we watched last year as we could run last year. And yes I agree we don't have a good quarterback situation.

Justin "Struggle"

Justin "Struggle"

Re: Justin "Struggle"

Re: Justin "Struggle"

Re: Justin "Struggle"

Re: Justin "Struggle"

Re: Justin "Struggle"

Re: Justin "Struggle"

Re: Justin "Struggle"

Re: Justin "Struggle"

Re: Justin "Struggle"

Re: Justin "Struggle"

Re: Justin "Struggle"

Re: Justin "Struggle"

Re: Justin "Struggle"

Re: Justin "Struggle"

Re: Justin "Struggle"

Re: Justin "Struggle"

Re: Justin "Struggle"

Re: Justin "Struggle"

Re: Justin "Struggle"

Re: Justin "Struggle"

Re: Justin "Struggle"

Re: Justin "Struggle"

Who is online