Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Why Would you NOT Want The Ball?


Stovewood

Recommended Posts

The sun's not in your eyes. Winds are calm. Nice day altogether. You win the toss of the coin to determine first possession. BUT YOU DON'T ELECT TO RECIEVE!!!!!!! What the F............!!!!!! :mad2:

And of course Clausen didn't want it a couple of times. Has he got little hands? You know like that guy wit h the little hands on the hamburger commercial? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sun's not in your eyes. Winds are calm. Nice day altogether. You win the toss of the coin to determine first possession. BUT YOU DON'T ELECT TO RECIEVE!!!!!!! What the F............!!!!!! :mad2:

And of course Clausen didn't want it a couple of times. Has he got little hands? You know like that guy wit h the little hands on the hamburger commercial? :P

What difference does it make wether we get it now or later?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because if they do have the lead going into halftime, they'll get the ball back and play time management the second half of the game.

Caugh! Choke! Snort! Time managment? WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A 2 MINUTE DRILL!!!!!!!! Sorry... We don't have a red zone plan. We have a defense and a field goal kicker. The best thing we could do would be to develop better down field blocking for when we intercept. Get the DB into the end zone or at least close enough for Kasay to boot one through. Then, "D" get the ball back and repeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same reason you challenge a "catch" for a 3 yard gain that would've had you at 4th and 6 instead of 4th and 9 but still out of FG range. We really have no direction/leadership.

Actually, I think if it had been overturned we would have been on the edge of field goal range (he went out around the 35 or I could be thinking of something else). That is the only reason I can think he would even challenge it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Yeah they were bad QBs - but QB's that stayed on their teams for several years.  BY is better than all of those. 
    • This is the right move even if you think Bryce isn't the future. Everything except signing him to a long term deal until proven otherwise. There's a decent chance we have a shot to draft a QB next year that we like. 
    • If we're still bad enough that Canales gets fired, especially if it's during the season, there is no way we could ever attract any HC worthy of the job if we told them they had to keep Bryce their first year. That would be 2 coaches he's gotten fired and 4 years of not performing up to par. I still say replace both of them next offseason.  I like Canales the man and I think he's done an absolutely outstanding job at fixing our locker room issues, as it was really bad before he showed up.  But I just don't see it from him with his in game decision making, I think he's held us back just as much as Bryce has, just in different ways. Canales was our Dan Campbell, the coach you hire to turn the franchises culture around for the HC after them to inherit and take to the next level.   The difference was he had some elite coordinators early on and really let him focus on his "leader of men" role as opposed to the X's and O's that Canales does himself and it's turned out well for him.
×
×
  • Create New...