Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Comments

  • Options
    HuskyJWHuskyJW Guest, Member Posts: 14,182
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes
    edited September 2015
    Disagree.

    F-me.....I'm so down on this offense I'm starting to miss drunk Sark calling the plays.
  • Options
    CokeGreaterThanPepsiCokeGreaterThanPepsi Member Posts: 7,646
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes Combo Breaker
    HuskyJW said:

    Disagree.

    F-me.....I'm so down on this offense I'm starting to miss drunk Sark calling the plays.

    Right there with you, man.
  • Options
    greenbloodgreenblood Member Posts: 14,277
    First Anniversary 5 Awesomes First Comment Combo Breaker
    edited September 2015
    The problem with Shaw is that he runs the same offense regardless of the players on the field. While guys like Chip Kelly run the offense to the skill sets he has on the field.

    Point being, Stanford should not be running a pound you in the mouth type of offense when you don't have a pound you in the mouth running back. The years Stanford has been successful, they had hard running backs in the backfield. Last year and again this year, they don't, so teams don't have to load the box to stop it, which in turn shortens the window for the quarterback. This is a huge deal when the quarterback is barely average as it is, and now this makes him terrible.

    I think Stanford should spread it out more. They don't have the speed at receiver, but if they can get those 6'7" tight ends into space, they're almost impossible to stop.
Sign In or Register to comment.