1. Offensive ineffectiveness
So far in the season, it has been difficult for the Panthers to score. They have only scored 112 points and have a total rushing yardage of 853 yards in seven games. Running back Donald Russell leads the team in yards rushed, but his amount of carries per game is very scarce. Georgia State has also suffered from interceptions, since their opponents have 15 against them. The offensive line has had trouble to protect the quarterback.
2. Defensive fallacies
Defensively, Georgia State has been watered down by its opponents easily as they allowed an average of 34.7 points per game. Also, they’re the worst in the Colonial Athletic Association conference in yards given up.
Defensively, Georgia State has been watered down by its opponents easily as they allowed an average of 34.7 points per game. Also, they’re the worst in the Colonial Athletic Association conference in yards given up.
4. Tougher opponents
Since Georgia State’s inaugural season in 2010, the difficulty of the Panthers’ rivals has gradually increased season by season. In the first year, despite playing Alabama in the last game, the team played an easier schedule and finished with a winning record. This season, the Panthers are playing the most rigorous schedule in their history. They play the CAA conference schedule for the first time, added to the game they lost against Tennessee.
5. Big name coach, little production
Georgia State Athletics has repeatedly recognized their appreciation for head coach Bill Curry’s contribution to the program. Though he created the team, served as an ambassador to Georgia State and has brought national attention to the program, his contribution didn’t translate to the team’s performance on the field. He hadn’t coached since 1996 before he signed with the Panthers and, despite having the accolades of coaching Alabama and Kentucky, his overall career coaching record shows 11 losing seasons (including 2012) and nine winning seasons.
The failure to finish games has haunted Georgia State since 2011. Before the 2012 season started, Coach Curry and some players addressed this as one of the main problems the team had to overcome. However, the Panthers still encountered the same problem this season. They have started strong on the first quarters of the game but have decayed during the second half. For the next season, running back Donald Russell said that learning how to “finish” is still an issue that the team has to fix.
I was waiting to catch this online, since I missed it in the print edition.
I heard about the headline, and didn’t agree with it at all, though I decided to tender my distaste for it until I finally saw the meat of the article.
Having read it now, I’m thoroughly disgusted. It is severely lacking in any sort of football knowledge and very poorly written. I don’t care to discuss the editing, but rather the content and the reasons selected.
For the first point, you give zero credit to the level of competition the program has faced this season. You talk about it later, but it’s important to contextualize that up front. You give random statistics which don’t really mean anything. 853 rushing yards in seven games is actually decent. Thats well over 100 yards rushing per game. You talk about Donald Russell being the leading rusher and hint at some sort of deficient statistics, but never mention them.
The second point says it’s about the defensive line, but the text has absolutely nothing at all to do with the defensive line. I really can’t tell what you’re talking about here. It’s certainly not the defensive line, which is a part of the defensive unit. It seems like you were referring to the defense as a whole, which leads me to question why you’re qualified to tell someone they suck at a sport you don’t grasp sufficient knowledge of.
Your third point is solid. It makes sense and is something I’ve pointed at myself. Again the heading is not relevant to the text. “Inconsistent quarterback selection” is the reason you’re detailing, not the play. The play itself has been quite consistent, consistently suspect.
Your fourth point is all factually correct. Why that has anything to do with “why we suck,” I don’t know. You don’t “suck” or fail epically by simply playing tougher opponents. It seems like you were having a hard time finding reasonable reasons.
Your fifth point is tip-toeing around what you want to say. If what you want to say is “Bill Curry is no longer a good football coach, and was always average due to his record,” then come out and say it. Don’t try and soften the blow, it’s insulting. And the way you write it doesn’t drive home the point you’re trying to make of “why we suck.”
Your sixth point is undeniable. Fair enough.
As a whole, this article, the way it’s written is a slap in the face to good journalism. It makes a profound point, but not on merit. Only by the eye-catching headline does it get readers attention. It quickly loses their attention thereafter.
As a journalist, you should provide something constructive. I don’t see how this article helps anyone at all. It is a slap in the face to everyone at the school and every alumni associated with it. It spits on the terrific athletes that get up everyday and put out everything they have for their school and their pride. It undermines all of the hard work our athletic department puts in every day.
If it was at least well written and made halfway decent points, I could forgive it perhaps.
Thoroughly disappointed that something like this made it through the editing process for grammar, AP and content.
The Signal, and more specifically the sports section, is doing fantastic things this year. It’s building terrifically on work done in the past few years. This is a massive step backwards.
As harsh as this post might be, I’d appreciate it if it weren’t deleted. It is my opinion and constructive criticism of the article.