Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Morris looks fine to me
Comments
-
I’m on board. I already like Donovan and Jimmy’s offensive scheme better than Pete’s too.WilburHooksHands said:Morris is already better than Browning or Eason cook it
-
Against the capybaras it looked pretty shittyRoadDawg55 said:
I’m on board. I already like Donovan and Jimmy’s offensive scheme better than Pete’s too. -
That should be as conservative as you ever see it againFireCohen said:
Against the capybaras it looked pretty shitty -
Just the fact that there aren’t a million pre snap motions make me like itRoadDawg55 said:
I’m on board. I already like Donovan and Jimmy’s offensive scheme better than Pete’s too. -
I would like to see someone a little more nimble on the outside runs where Ale was the lead. I think he gets there OK but it's hard to be an effective blocker when you're running that hard just to get there. As it is he's basically a big, scary human running toward the defense and forcing them to dodge. He's not real hard for a LB or DB to dodge though.RoadDawg55 said:
When I watched the highlights we were doing kind of shitty when we pulled. Ale has a hard time getting there quick enough. -
10-15 mph winds in a downpour will do thatFireCohen said:
Against the capybaras it looked pretty shitty -
So husky football weatherbackthepack said:
10-15 mph winds in a downpour will do that -
-
I think that played a huge part in the scheme that night. It was so shitty outside that day.backthepack said:
10-15 mph winds in a downpour will do that -
14-24 for 140, including multiple drops that threw away points or at least first downs, on a shitty night where you ran for 270 yards, doesn't look shitty for the scheme or the play caller.FireCohen said:
Against the capybaras it looked pretty shitty -
This. I mentioned it a few times over the last year or two, but there was mention that Huff hated Pete’s run blocking schemes and felt it led to blown assignments.WilburHooksHands said:
imagine a blocking scheme you dont need a MENSA pin for
And that’s exactly what we saw. Game after game.
This year the run blocking schemes are simpler and the line is killing it. Great protection and pockets. Great push. Just locking guys up. And that’s with 3 new starters.
Love to see it. -
I dare anyone to rewatch film of last year's offense. It looks so horrible. What we are doing now scheme/personnel is just way better.DoogCourics said:
This. I mentioned it a few times over the last year or two, but there was mention that Huff hated Pete’s run blocking schemes and felt it led to blown assignments.
And that’s exactly what we saw. Game after game.
This year the run blocking schemes are simpler and the line is killing it. Great protection and pockets. Great push. Just locking guys up. And that’s with 3 new starters.
Love to see it. -
Won’t happen because it’s not Pete’s paralysis by over analysis offense.TurdBomber said:I'll start worrying more the first time Morris sacks himself, a la Brownsox.
-
idk maybe i can't handle the ups and downs of this board. caz last week i can remember people wanting jimmy fired at the 50 yards linechuck said:
14-24 for 140, including multiple drops that threw away points or at least first downs, on a shitty night where you ran for 270 yards, doesn't look shitty for the scheme or the play caller. -
Bi-polar is a hell of a drug.FireCohen said:
idk maybe i can't handle the ups and downs of this board. caz last week i can remember people wanting jimmy fired at the 50 yards line
I wasn't one if the critics but I got it then and still do. Most of them were just reacting to a surprisingly scary game against pretty weak competition. There were some mitigating factors worth considering that few here were in the mood to consider at the time. -
We scored 3 pts in the second half.chuck said:
14-24 for 140, including multiple drops that threw away points or at least first downs, on a shitty night where you ran for 270 yards, doesn't look shitty for the scheme or the play caller.
I’m loving the AZ win as much as everyone else, but let’s not rewrite history after 1 game. Offense looked awesome on Saturday (owing a lot to the fact that we actually threw the ball). Offense looked stale and outdated against the beav. It is what it is. -
Rewrite history? Huh?doogville said:
We scored 3 pts in the second half.
I’m loving the AZ win as much as everyone else, but let’s not rewrite history after 1 game. Offense looked awesome on Saturday (owing a lot to the fact that we actually threw the ball). Offense looked stale and outdated against the beav. It is what it is.
270 yards rushing and 140 passing is decent output regardless of what you think you saw. When you factor in that the best defense for the beav was dropped pass, it was a wet, windy, night game and game one for a freshman QB behind a mostly new OL it looks a little better. It didn't look great, and the passing numbers leave a little to be desired, but arguing in hindsight that it was a bad first outing for the scheme seems dumb. -
The problem in that game was the drops and going with Newton the whole 4th quarter when he wasn’t having a good game.chuck said:
14-24 for 140, including multiple drops that threw away points or at least first downs, on a shitty night where you ran for 270 yards, doesn't look shitty for the scheme or the play caller.
We are all dooging, but we will play more like we did vs Arizona than we did vs Oregon State.
Kwat is going to have a defense that sucks that much vs the run and the drops made our offense look shitty. -
Except 140 yards passing isn’t decent, and you know that. We can ascribe a bunch of factors as to why the playcalling/scheme left a lot to be desired against OSU (new qb, rain, etc), but it doesn’t change the result on the field. The scheme yielded a whopping 5.9 yards per pass attempt. That’s not good. (And OSU is one of the worst teams in the conference). Why do we have to now act like that was a good performance?chuck said:
Rewrite history? Huh?
270 yards rushing and 140 passing is decent output regardless of what you think you saw. When you factor in that the best defense for the beav was dropped pass, it was a wet, windy, night game and game one for a freshman QB behind a mostly new OL it looks a little better. It didn't look great, and the passing numbers leave a little to be desired, but arguing in hindsight that it was a bad first outing for the scheme seems dumb.
Thankfully, they opened up the playbook against AZ and things looked great. I expect we see a lot more of that going forward, in terms of run/pass, pushing the ball downfield, trying to hit explosive plays, etc. Which is great! The offense we saw on Saturday (albeit also against a crappy opponent) is capable of winning the conference. -
If we’re bashing bi-polar, them I’m out of here.chuck said:
Bi-polar is a hell of a drug.
I wasn't one if the critics but I got it then and still do. Most of them were just reacting to a surprisingly scary game against pretty weak competition. There were some mitigating factors worth considering that few here were in the mood to consider at the time.
But when I stop taking my meds I’ll be back. -
I read that as malarkey. Thanks @GrundleStiltzkinRoadDawg55 said:
He moves around in the pocket well. That’s something that QB’s either have or they don’t. They rarely get markedly better at it. -
But is he looking crisp looking crisp?
