Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Shott?
12 views
Skip to first unread message
CaptMyng
Sep 12, 2011, 2:29:34 PM9/12/11
to
Why is every run "up the gut".
Do the Jet's even have a sweep or a pitch out in their playbook?
Do the Jet's even have a sweep or a pitch out in their playbook?
graybeard
Sep 12, 2011, 3:23:07 PM9/12/11
to
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:29:34 -0700 (PDT), CaptMyng <dfu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Why is every run "up the gut".
>Do the Jet's even have a sweep or a pitch out in their playbook?
I was wondering exactly the same thing. I don't recall seeing a wide
running play the entire game. Possibly because Ware and Spencer were
playing in the Jets' backfield all night, the coaching staff did not
think a wide run would have time to develop before being stopped for a
loss. Or maybe, since some of the Jets OL personnel seemed to be unable
to block guys who were standing right in front of them, the coaches did
not trust them to be able to pull out and block for a RB in space.
--
graybeard
wrote:
>Why is every run "up the gut".
>Do the Jet's even have a sweep or a pitch out in their playbook?
running play the entire game. Possibly because Ware and Spencer were
playing in the Jets' backfield all night, the coaching staff did not
think a wide run would have time to develop before being stopped for a
loss. Or maybe, since some of the Jets OL personnel seemed to be unable
to block guys who were standing right in front of them, the coaches did
not trust them to be able to pull out and block for a RB in space.
--
graybeard
Michael
Sep 12, 2011, 2:37:52 PM9/12/11
to
On Sep 12, 2:29 pm, CaptMyng <dfu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why is every run "up the gut".
> Do the Jet's even have a sweep or a pitch out in their playbook?
d'brick is not a good run blocking LT. hunter is not a good run
> Why is every run "up the gut".
> Do the Jet's even have a sweep or a pitch out in their playbook?
blocking RT. Green is not fast enough to run a sweep or end around.
They simply do not have the manpower for that. Also... Dallas has a
very good front seven. They set the edge as well as man the gut.
Percy Flage
Sep 12, 2011, 4:23:09 PM9/12/11
to
in the right direction. Tom Moore's influence?
--
Percy Flage
"Life is too short to have to explain everyday."
Papa Carl
Sep 12, 2011, 4:38:58 PM9/12/11
to
"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ce854769-7338-4176...@19g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
good DC figures this out they will kill them...if you can't attack the
perimeter you can't successfully do any roll out play action type plays
either...so if you are right...it will get a lot worse.
Michael
Sep 12, 2011, 6:27:10 PM9/12/11
to
On Sep 12, 4:38 pm, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
papa... a lot of fans get frustrated when they see the jets offense
run the wide screen to the flanker. often to the left side and for
little or no gain. yet they continue to do this. i could be mistaken,
but i think they run that play in part to counter for their inability
to run outside. to keep the defense from clogging the center of the
field. the cowboys did exactly just that. run blitizing up the gut.
the jets could not do anything on the ground.
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
run the wide screen to the flanker. often to the left side and for
little or no gain. yet they continue to do this. i could be mistaken,
but i think they run that play in part to counter for their inability
to run outside. to keep the defense from clogging the center of the
field. the cowboys did exactly just that. run blitizing up the gut.
the jets could not do anything on the ground.
Message has been deleted
Papa Carl
Sep 12, 2011, 8:58:56 PM9/12/11
to
news:4dc38c6b-0af2-4041...@b20g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
_______________________________________________________
Well...I'd say you can't really run that till you do run outside
successfully...get them committed to defending the perimeter run and then
they come up..allowing the screen to the outside to go...that's just basic
stuff. The old Green Bay sweep developed into that pattern and over the
years in the many different offensive schemes it continued. Make them
attack a run situation in a given area and then do the play action pass.
The Jets are doing what they do to try and take some attention off the
middle, using the pass perhaps to set up some kind of run...but they
absolutely need a perimeter attack. Which takes us back to a topic that
has been developing over the last several years...they have gone backwards
with O line from where they were a few years back. Now, with an injury they
are in deep trouble.
Well...I'd say you can't really run that till you do run outside
successfully...get them committed to defending the perimeter run and then
they come up..allowing the screen to the outside to go...that's just basic
stuff. The old Green Bay sweep developed into that pattern and over the
years in the many different offensive schemes it continued. Make them
attack a run situation in a given area and then do the play action pass.
The Jets are doing what they do to try and take some attention off the
middle, using the pass perhaps to set up some kind of run...but they
absolutely need a perimeter attack. Which takes us back to a topic that
has been developing over the last several years...they have gone backwards
with O line from where they were a few years back. Now, with an injury they
are in deep trouble.
Michael
Sep 12, 2011, 9:45:49 PM9/12/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
the jets line was good the first year faneca was there... that is when
brick really started coming on. faneca was playing well and damian
woody had his best year as a jet. the next year, faneca ran out of gas
and could not pass block. last year, damian woody ran out of gas.
this year, it may be the worst jet line since the anthony clement -
adrian clarke line as neither brick or hunter can run block. the run
game has little to no outside option on the left and now on the right
too. i'm wondering now if hunter can even pass block. i know he was
up against ware a lot of the time, but he really had trouble. he also
had trouble vs. the giants in the preseason. IMHO, O-line should be at
the top of the grocery list next year along with safety and d-line
Papa Carl
Sep 12, 2011, 11:10:06 PM9/12/11
to
news:30702dd2-acd7-477b...@t9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
You just nailed it...when they let Faneca go, and others you could
argue...they did not place a top priority on getting top players for those
positions...they went with projects and guys the felt the could coach or
develop...it ain't working...
argue...they did not place a top priority on getting top players for those
positions...they went with projects and guys the felt the could coach or
develop...it ain't working...
John C TX
Sep 12, 2011, 11:23:37 PM9/12/11
to
On Sep 12, 6:24 pm, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> I think I saw Moore's influence in the 2nd half, when they started spreading out
> Cumberland & Keller, making Ware drop into coverage-mode.
> We've had similar problems in the past, and this adjustment was never made before (umm,
> usually no adjustments are made on O).
> I'd bet that was Moore.
Schott never ran a 2 TE set very often until halfway through year one
of Rexso that may be a fair conclusion.
Maybe or maybe Rex trusts Moore more than Schott, maybe for good
reason, or maybe & they have a TE in Cumberland they didnt have in
Hunter, Hartsock, etc. when Rex changed the offense and jammed up the
line.
> Cumberland & Keller, making Ware drop into coverage-mode.
> We've had similar problems in the past, and this adjustment was never made before (umm,
> usually no adjustments are made on O).
> I'd bet that was Moore.
Schott never ran a 2 TE set very often until halfway through year one
of Rexso that may be a fair conclusion.
Maybe or maybe Rex trusts Moore more than Schott, maybe for good
reason, or maybe & they have a TE in Cumberland they didnt have in
Hunter, Hartsock, etc. when Rex changed the offense and jammed up the
line.
Message has been deleted
John C TX
Sep 13, 2011, 8:29:08 AM9/13/11
to
On Sep 13, 7:21 am, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> I don't think it has as much to do with what players we have, as just a totally different
> philosophy of offense.
> Schott has his scheme, and doesn't often make adjustments. This was an adjustment, to
> force the D out of what it wanted to do. Which seems to me, was very out of Schott's
> character. Either someone else made the suggestion to do it, or someone else is rubbing
> off on Schott.
> Either way, it was a good sign.
>
> The extent of how Schott tries to force a D alignment, was normally a trick-play, or the
> Seminole (Wildcat).
> There wasn't much of that Sunday nite... so there's hope.
I think it as much about Sanchez as it is about Schott.
Because of his height I would like to see them move pocket from time
to time which Schott used to do with both Pennington & Clemens.
Hopefully the real value in Moore is that Ryan may loosen up. If it
comes out later that Ryan didn't like Schott & carried him for years
then shame on him.
> philosophy of offense.
> Schott has his scheme, and doesn't often make adjustments. This was an adjustment, to
> force the D out of what it wanted to do. Which seems to me, was very out of Schott's
> character. Either someone else made the suggestion to do it, or someone else is rubbing
> off on Schott.
> Either way, it was a good sign.
>
> The extent of how Schott tries to force a D alignment, was normally a trick-play, or the
> Seminole (Wildcat).
> There wasn't much of that Sunday nite... so there's hope.
I think it as much about Sanchez as it is about Schott.
Because of his height I would like to see them move pocket from time
to time which Schott used to do with both Pennington & Clemens.
Hopefully the real value in Moore is that Ryan may loosen up. If it
comes out later that Ryan didn't like Schott & carried him for years
then shame on him.
Message has been deleted
John C TX
Sep 13, 2011, 1:40:42 PM9/13/11
to
On Sep 13, 12:13 pm, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> That's where we disagree. Sanchez has come up big, in crucial situations, often enough...
> and he's in year three. It's the coaching, and management priorities. They started
> correctly, drafting Brick & Mangold, then went the cheap route, picking up castoffs &
> projects.
Listen he has the intangible & revels in being the man which is good
and he has stepped up. He has also made some bonehead moves & missed
wide open players. I hope it is youth.
> hasn't happened. Also, why not do no-huddle to begin the game, since that's when Sanchez
> & the O is at its best.
???
I have my theories & a certain fat guy is involved. Schott moved
Pennington & even Clemens around. As for the no huddle I am not sure
but maybe they want to keep him calm. Cumberland is the key to all of
this.
> and he's in year three. It's the coaching, and management priorities. They started
> correctly, drafting Brick & Mangold, then went the cheap route, picking up castoffs &
> projects.
Listen he has the intangible & revels in being the man which is good
and he has stepped up. He has also made some bonehead moves & missed
wide open players. I hope it is youth.
>
>
>
> >Because of his height I would like to see them move pocket from time
> >to time which Schott used to do with both Pennington & Clemens.
> >Hopefully the real value in Moore is that Ryan may loosen up. If it
> >comes out later that Ryan didn't like Schott & carried him for years
> >then shame on him.
>
> Moving Sanchez more, is something all of us would like to see, and remain puzzled why it
>
>
> >Because of his height I would like to see them move pocket from time
> >to time which Schott used to do with both Pennington & Clemens.
> >Hopefully the real value in Moore is that Ryan may loosen up. If it
> >comes out later that Ryan didn't like Schott & carried him for years
> >then shame on him.
>
> hasn't happened. Also, why not do no-huddle to begin the game, since that's when Sanchez
> & the O is at its best.
???
I have my theories & a certain fat guy is involved. Schott moved
Pennington & even Clemens around. As for the no huddle I am not sure
but maybe they want to keep him calm. Cumberland is the key to all of
this.
Papa Carl
Sep 13, 2011, 6:25:50 PM9/13/11
to
"John C TX" <johnc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f1d860f-d1c3-483f...@u7g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
One big problem, ( and I agree with your analysis) to move the pocket you
need O linemen who can do that, and that is much like pulling and
moving...they don't have that.
Papa Carl
Sep 13, 2011, 6:27:39 PM9/13/11
to
"buRford" <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote in message
news:bd3v67dn4p4n1mgp1...@4ax.com...
> That's where we disagree. Sanchez has come up big, in crucial situations,
> often enough...
> and he's in year three. It's the coaching, and management priorities.
> They started
> correctly, drafting Brick & Mangold, then went the cheap route, picking up
> castoffs &
> projects.
>
>>
> often enough...
> and he's in year three. It's the coaching, and management priorities.
> They started
> correctly, drafting Brick & Mangold, then went the cheap route, picking up
> castoffs &
> projects.
>
>>
>>Because of his height I would like to see them move pocket from time
>>to time which Schott used to do with both Pennington & Clemens.
>>Hopefully the real value in Moore is that Ryan may loosen up. If it
>>comes out later that Ryan didn't like Schott & carried him for years
>>then shame on him.
>
>>to time which Schott used to do with both Pennington & Clemens.
>>Hopefully the real value in Moore is that Ryan may loosen up. If it
>>comes out later that Ryan didn't like Schott & carried him for years
>>then shame on him.
>
> Moving Sanchez more, is something all of us would like to see, and remain
> puzzled why it
> hasn't happened. Also, why not do no-huddle to begin the game, since
> that's when Sanchez
> & the O is at its best.
Answer : The O line other than Mangold and Brick can't get it done...they
> puzzled why it
> hasn't happened. Also, why not do no-huddle to begin the game, since
> that's when Sanchez
> & the O is at its best.
are struggling as it is, moving the pocket takes more athletic ability and
skill.
Johnny Morongo
Sep 13, 2011, 11:13:47 PM9/13/11
to
On 9/13/2011 10:40 AM, John C TX wrote:
> On Sep 13, 12:13 pm, buRford<buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 05:29:08 -0700 (PDT), John C TX<johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 13, 7:21 am, buRford<buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:23:37 -0700 (PDT), John C TX<johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Sep 12, 6:24 pm, buRford<buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:23:09 +0100, Percy Flage<percy.flage_REM@OVE_ianwhitephoto.co.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On 12/09/2011 20:23, graybeard wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:29:34 -0700 (PDT), CaptMyng<dfu...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> Why is every run "up the gut".
>>>>>>>>> Do the Jet's even have a sweep or a pitch out in their playbook?
>>
>>>>>>>> I was wondering exactly the same thing. I don't recall seeing a wide
>>>>>>>> running play the entire game. Possibly because Ware and Spencer were
>>>>>>>> playing in the Jets' backfield all night, the coaching staff did not
>>>>>>>> think a wide run would have time to develop before being stopped for a
>>>>>>>> loss. Or maybe, since some of the Jets OL personnel seemed to be unable
>>>>>>>> to block guys who were standing right in front of them, the coaches did
>>>>>>>> not trust them to be able to pull out and block for a RB in space.
>>
>>>>>>> Well, at least they figured this out *prior* to the game. That's a step
>>>>>>> in the right direction. Tom Moore's influence?
>>
>>>>>> I think I saw Moore's influence in the 2nd half, when they started spreading out
>>>>>> Cumberland& Keller, making Ware drop into coverage-mode.> On Sep 13, 12:13 pm, buRford<buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 05:29:08 -0700 (PDT), John C TX<johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 13, 7:21 am, buRford<buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:23:37 -0700 (PDT), John C TX<johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Sep 12, 6:24 pm, buRford<buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:23:09 +0100, Percy Flage<percy.flage_REM@OVE_ianwhitephoto.co.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On 12/09/2011 20:23, graybeard wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:29:34 -0700 (PDT), CaptMyng<dfu...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> Why is every run "up the gut".
>>>>>>>>> Do the Jet's even have a sweep or a pitch out in their playbook?
>>
>>>>>>>> I was wondering exactly the same thing. I don't recall seeing a wide
>>>>>>>> running play the entire game. Possibly because Ware and Spencer were
>>>>>>>> playing in the Jets' backfield all night, the coaching staff did not
>>>>>>>> think a wide run would have time to develop before being stopped for a
>>>>>>>> loss. Or maybe, since some of the Jets OL personnel seemed to be unable
>>>>>>>> to block guys who were standing right in front of them, the coaches did
>>>>>>>> not trust them to be able to pull out and block for a RB in space.
>>
>>>>>>> Well, at least they figured this out *prior* to the game. That's a step
>>>>>>> in the right direction. Tom Moore's influence?
>>
>>>>>> I think I saw Moore's influence in the 2nd half, when they started spreading out
>>>>>> We've had similar problems in the past, and this adjustment was never made before (umm,
>>>>>> usually no adjustments are made on O).
>>>>>> I'd bet that was Moore.
>>
>>>>> Schott never ran a 2 TE set very often until halfway through year one
>>>>> of Rexso that may be a fair conclusion.
>>
>>>>> Maybe or maybe Rex trusts Moore more than Schott, maybe for good
>>>>> Hunter, Hartsock, etc. when Rex changed the offense and jammed up the
>>>>> line.
>>
>>>> I don't think it has as much to do with what players we have, as just a totally different
>>>> philosophy of offense.
>>>> Schott has his scheme, and doesn't often make adjustments. This was an adjustment, to
>>>> force the D out of what it wanted to do. Which seems to me, was very out of Schott's
>>>> character. Either someone else made the suggestion to do it, or someone else is rubbing
>>>> off on Schott.
>>>> Either way, it was a good sign.
>>
>>>> The extent of how Schott tries to force a D alignment, was normally a trick-play, or the
>>>> Seminole (Wildcat).
>>>> There wasn't much of that Sunday nite... so there's hope.
>>
>>> I think it as much about Sanchez as it is about Schott.
>>
>> That's where we disagree. Sanchez has come up big, in crucial situations, often enough...
>> and he's in year three. It's the coaching, and management priorities. They started
>> projects.
>
> Listen he has the intangible& revels in being the man which is good
> and he has stepped up. He has also made some bonehead moves& missed
> wide open players. I hope it is youth.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Because of his height I would like to see them move pocket from time
>>> Hopefully the real value in Moore is that Ryan may loosen up. If it
>>> then shame on him.
>>
>> Moving Sanchez more, is something all of us would like to see, and remain puzzled why it
>> hasn't happened. Also, why not do no-huddle to begin the game, since that's when Sanchez
>> & the O is at its best.
I don't get it either. And both moving him in a no-huddle almost
certainly be a cool thing to do, and to do it on a opening offensive
possession. Fuck this shit of always going for the defense to open the
game with. Have some faith in the offense too. Man up and change up,
Rex. Let the O set the tone.
Or not.
> I have my theories& a certain fat guy is involved. Schott moved
> Pennington& even Clemens around. As for the no huddle I am not sure
> but maybe they want to keep him calm. Cumberland is the key to all of
> this.
I don't know that I would say that Cumberland was the key to ALL OF
THIS, but you hit on one big key - viable two pass catching TE sets.
Cumberland HAS to become a presence. Look at the TEs in NE, for
example. Very effective weapons for Brady.
We still need a Welker. Could McKnight=Woodhead? Ground and pound this!
And I think, unlike Papa, that there were more than a few perimeter
plays that worked, especially from LT, even though perimeter passes to
Mason didn't always get completed.
Papa Carl
Sep 13, 2011, 11:31:03 PM9/13/11
to
"Johnny Morongo" <Mor...@Burf.com> wrote in message
news:j4p65h$5t9$1...@dont-email.me...
season, I doubt it. The overall perimeter attack is weak and it does not
get set up like it should...which would allow a lot of other stuff to work
better.
Johnny Morongo
Sep 13, 2011, 11:46:01 PM9/13/11
to
running game what helps with the outside? Especially since the G guys
are both stronger as straight ahead maulers? Not to mention that play
action works off the inside game. Not much of that Sunday either.
Lots of head scratching out here.
Papa Carl
Sep 14, 2011, 1:21:01 AM9/14/11
to
"Johnny Morongo" <Mor...@Burf.com> wrote in message
Do they have a scheme that develops? Traps will always set up the primeter
game, mostly because the LB will read that guard and fill to where he thinks
the trap is and when that back he expects to be the ball carrier blocks him
the rest of the play continues to develop...tha's how I would set it up.
Then, the bootleg works better in any version of it....ALL play action works
better and any rollout passes become effective. The key is tomake multiple
things all look the same at the start...that's how I would do it.
John C TX
Sep 14, 2011, 8:45:37 AM9/14/11
to
On Sep 13, 5:25 pm, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1f1d860f-d1c3-483f...@u7g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1f1d860f-d1c3-483f...@u7g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Are the guards critical? Moore seems to be able to move. You know my
thoughts on Slausson.
John C TX
Sep 14, 2011, 10:06:33 AM9/14/11
to
meaning on moving the pocket..can you do it with one guard with feet
(sorry Michael)
Michael
Sep 14, 2011, 11:42:27 AM9/14/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
i am wondering about this myself... how fast and slick do you really
> - Show quoted text -
need your line guys to be in order to attack the ends by moving the
pocket ??? i know slauson is not faneca, but i think he'd be able to
take a few steps to the side while controling a defender. this is
where my lack of real experience with the game comes in...
just what exactly do you need to do at the fundamental level to move a
pocket ??? do you really need twinkle toes to do it ??? why cant you
do it with moore and slauson ??? is it really their limitatons that
keep them from moving the line for sanchez, or is the coaching simply
not incorporating it into the game ??? i know slauson cant pull like
faneca, but why cant he be part of a line shift ???
John C TX
Sep 14, 2011, 2:00:27 PM9/14/11
to
Schaub moves like a garbage truck & rolls out to the left on play
action quite a bit. The Texans line is a good unit but probably not
better than ours. I have to imagine Sanchez speed has to help.
Wouldn't the fear of him taking off make it that much more effective?
I am curios as to what the PC has to say.
Papa Carl
Sep 14, 2011, 2:58:57 PM9/14/11
to
news:1d55f72d-5ad1-46f8...@j13g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
It's not just move...move and play football too...move and pick up the right
block. They don't use a lot of pulling guards I'm thinking so they have
some bias against getting the guys in motion I'd think. I think Slausson
was a big step backwards, maybe he will develop...but they need players and
not development projects to win now.
Papa Carl
Sep 14, 2011, 2:59:50 PM9/14/11
to
news:2f344e3b-5c1b-4052...@x29g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
I don't know...I'm only familiar with what I know...and it means the group
all knows what they are doing...somebody on that backside has to pull and
pick stuff off.
Papa Carl
Sep 14, 2011, 3:03:01 PM9/14/11
to
news:1127c76e-192a-4a64...@s20g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
Now I'm confused...attacking the "ends" that is way different than moving
the pocket. Sanchez appears to be able to move, and throw on the move so
that's why you want to be able to move the pocket...and the key in it is
picking up the right people, not just moving, you don't just move and stay
engaged with the guy in front of you, they won't cooperate like that and
somebody on the backside away from the drift needs to pull and pick stuff
off. If I recall correctly, teams with somewhat undersized O linemen like
to do this, keep it moving and it can wear out a D line too.
Papa Carl
Sep 14, 2011, 3:06:23 PM9/14/11
to
news:0a77da23-1b3c-43d8...@x32g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I don't think they want Sanchez taking off...that's why they ran all that
Wildcat stuff....it's a strange offense and as I go back and look more and
more it looks somewhat different quite often. I think they fear Sanchez
getting hurt too much to let him attack the perimeter....watching Sunday
night a second time makes me feel like in the first half a lot of stuff got
blown up before it got started...I honestly don't know what some of it was,
but it looks like the O line is not a speedy bunch at all.
Michael
Sep 14, 2011, 4:19:03 PM9/14/11
to
On Sep 14, 3:03 pm, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message> to do this, keep it moving and it can wear out a D line too.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
do you remember the o-lines that denver had when elway won the
superbowl ??? the line was one of the most mobile i can recall. all
sorts of post snap motion that shadowed elway as he rolled. i also
recall those guys throwing low blocks on defenders regularly. it was
a really high tech line.
0 new messages