Elf, I agree this isn’t high school football. TT did not play wildcat a lot in HS as far as I see. He was an excellent passer (see stats). He ran when he had to and was great with the run, option or not. In fact, he was recruited on the basis of those HS abilities. In my opinion the coaches had a unique problem or opportunity with this hybrid season, however your view. They had HR, a junior who was a very good QB and who had played well last season. They also had TT who was a great talent but unproven. So they had to start with HR who did very well! And they used TT at the wildcat to see what he could do there. He excelled. If he was told last year that he had a chance to be the next Aggie QB if he muscled up and stayed quick, he certainly did that. Put on 20 lbs of pure muscle and won the iron man competition as a QB! This is the players decision not the coaches. I think as a QB he will put fear into the opposition defense with his skill set. Injures: TT played after his RS got hit. Not serious. HR not serious. UG getting better with time (do not think it was an in game injury either). Again, all IMHO. Look forward to your thoughts. We have a lot to be happy about for Aggie football next season.

In HS he was listed as 195 & 200, are we saying he's now 215#s?

MUST WATCH first 15 seconds - student reaction to late TT touchdown. ... WHERE is this???

https://twitter.com/DavisGuys/status/1378184446910717954?s=20

This is a meme format, an edited video. I believe the original video is the bar reacting to a goal a soccer game.

Agree completely on role of QB in Aggie offense and meditating high school stats where the best athlete often plays QB. Hopefully things will shakeout and the right personnel will be in the right spots this fall. Definitely need to open up some things and get more balls to Babb, Castles, and of course to reliable Crawford. Spreading the field vertically should help all phases of game. Also seems like pass protection could be shored up a bit - with the heavy dose of running, I’d have thought their would be more time in the pocket - maybe just my impression or perhaps the loss of Gilliam who may have been a bit more savvy on picking up blitzes?

I totally agree that without Gilliam things changed. Aside from putting fear into opposing coaches, he is a great blocker. He’s our veteran RB. Larison and Hutton are impressive and this spring schedule provided valuable experience. They will continue to mature.

Same applies to HR and Tompkins. Hunter has some things to work on such as fumbles, throwing the ball away, and PIs. But he certainly has a real nice long ball, which we have been missing for a while.

Can you imagine what would have happened if poly would have grabbed up Tompkins for the triple option? We are blessed to have so much talent at QB and other positions.

regarding your question about why we don't see flagless reviews of other plays. I think targeting is safety-focused, so officials make an exception for tackles that can result in head injuries to both players. I doubt they're going to call it on line play, the rule is written for tackles.

As a Steeler fan I watched Ryan Shazier repeatedly lead with the crown of his helmet when he tackled opponents. I cringed every time, including the last time he did it. I didn't get a good look at the call against us, saw it on my phone and didn't want to have to yell at the screen, so I haven't watched it again. Generally I can't complain about rules to take this out of the game. It's good for the ball-carrier and the tackler.

The thing about the rule is that it’s broad enough that people don’t know what the infraction was, and assume it was some dangerous or dirty play. No way the play involved possible head injury to the ball carrier, his head was not involved. No way was it intended to injure. In my opinion it was t even forceable contact beyond making a legal tackle.
The issue of the review with no flag in order to protect players is pretty questionable. If a players play is excessively dangerous or forceful, that should be apparent on the field. Looking at a tackle in slow motion to determine in a legalistic way if a rule was violated is overkill.

Ag alum.NC, Movie. Oh, since I (we) have become such great on-line offensive coordinators, I have a dream of may greatest play! ! HR at QB. UG at RB. TT second back or slot. OK. Imagine HR gets the snap. Fakes to UG, hands to TT who fakes thru the line. TT then pitches back to HR who throws to TT for the TD to .

we need Crawford involved in that play.

center eligible?

the best analogy to targeting calls is airport security - vague, broad rules with wildly different application day to day and crew to crew, a high incidence of false positives yet paradoxically still missing a lot of instances, appearances of quotas to be met, and serious questions as to whether the point is actually safety or the theatrics of perceived safety. The egregious/malicious instances of targeting should be painfully obvious to the zebras on the field. This one was apparently so marginal that nobody on the field saw it and it took the booth 5 minutes to review. The piece that doesn’t make sense is that it was simultaneously apparently so obvious to the booth that he was compelled to call the penalty - which I wasn’t aware the booth could even do in FCS. If we are saying the booth can call penalties in the name of safety, is every play going to be reviewed post-mortem for potential missed violations? Who exactly is “the booth?” Is it one person or more than one? Are they sequestered or can Big Sky reps or others come breathe over their shoulder? Kind of wonder if this ref consultant had access to pressure the call on this one and if that is ethical. I think any reasonable person would acknowledge that the debate was really not about whether this was substantially the most dangerous contact of the game (I really doubt it was), this was about academically whether the contact inched over the arbitrary red line of this rule. It was akin to the TSA bull rushing an old lady because her knitting needles are a quarter of an inch too long for spec.

I've seen some articles (since been lost on the web) that Japanese collegiate teams would call the three-QB formation the "Golden Dragonfly". American coaches scoffed at it during exhibition games, because the thinking was that replacing two skill players with QBs reduces the overall size and athleticism on the field. Ironically the Ags don't have much of that problem with Tompkins, Crawford, and HR on the field.

I've been curious whether Hawk knows about this piece of gridiron trivia or not -- he seems like the type that might especially since he has coaching experience in international competition.

I love it! “Golden Dragonfly on Three” and what would it be with LL on the field? The Hawk cannot pass up on a name like that. . . . Too cool!

kinda sounds like something from the Kama Sutra

LOL.
Reminds me of a Kung fu episode:
Grasshopper - “master, what are those two dragonflies doing flying around stuck together”?
Master-“Ah, good question grasshopper; it is called “the golden dragonfly” “

In this case maybe a ménage a trois

kung fu ménage a trois?This would be enough to throw a gender and ethnic studies professor into an outraged fit, lol.