Lavon Coleman 2 carries Myles Gaskin 6 carries against mighty Griz
Comments
-
3 to 1. One and three. Gaskin to the Coleman.
-
It's Montana. Why give them a lot of carries?
If this was a game against a real team, I would maybe think otherwise. It's not though. -
Pretty sure they've had enough scrimmage carries this year. Should be ready for the conference schedule which is when the ol will remember how to block.
I haven't watched a down of uw football yet this season though so I know even less than usual. -
Like USC, Alabama? I guess watching Brownsocks run and Trey Adams catch is much more entertainingRoadDawg55 said:It's Montana. Why give them a lot of carries?
If this was a game against a real team, I would maybe think otherwise. It's not though. -
As I said last week when this same shit came up, Gaskin and Coleman don't need extra practice against Montana. It won't matter worth a fuck against pac 12 teams if they get 5 carries or 25 against Montana
-
Actually it would matter is they got 25 and were dinged .bananasnblondes said:As I said last week when this same shit came up, Gaskin and Coleman don't need extra practice against Montana. It won't matter worth a fuck against pac 12 teams if they get 5 carries or 25 against Montana
Rest em up for conference -
It was exactly like last week's game. Get people reps. See who's going to play in conference this year.
-
I was going to add that. Pete don't give a fuck about padding his players' statsTommySQC said:
Actually it would matter is they got 25 and were dinged .bananasnblondes said:As I said last week when this same shit came up, Gaskin and Coleman don't need extra practice against Montana. It won't matter worth a fuck against pac 12 teams if they get 5 carries or 25 against Montana
Rest em up for conference -
I knew what you meantbananasnblondes said:
I was going to add that. Pete don't give a fuck about padding his players' statsTommySQC said:
Actually it would matter is they got 25 and were dinged .bananasnblondes said:As I said last week when this same shit came up, Gaskin and Coleman don't need extra practice against Montana. It won't matter worth a fuck against pac 12 teams if they get 5 carries or 25 against Montana
Rest em up for conference -
Because, as anybody that understands sports will tell you... you are good at what you practice.RoadDawg55 said:It's Montana. Why give them a lot of carries?
If this was a game against a real team, I would maybe think otherwise. It's not though.
If we can't run on Montana or Rutgers, how the fuck are we going to run on Oregon, Stanford, or any other Pac-12 team?
And it isn't just about Gaskin or Coleman, it is also about our OL doing run blocking against somebody other than our scout team or our own D. -
They were even shittier at running the ball in the first three games of last year. LIPOuzi said:
Because, as anybody that understands sports will tell you... you are good at what you practice.RoadDawg55 said:It's Montana. Why give them a lot of carries?
If this was a game against a real team, I would maybe think otherwise. It's not though.
If we can't run on Montana or Rutgers, how the fuck are we going to run on Oregon, Stanford, or any other Pac-12 team?
And it isn't just about Gaskin or Coleman, it is also about our OL doing run blocking against somebody other than our scout team or our own D. -
And look how that worked for us when it came time to play good defenses (USC, Bama).UWhuskytskeet said:
They were even shittier at running the ball in the first three games of last year. LIPOuzi said:
Because, as anybody that understands sports will tell you... you are good at what you practice.RoadDawg55 said:It's Montana. Why give them a lot of carries?
If this was a game against a real team, I would maybe think otherwise. It's not though.
If we can't run on Montana or Rutgers, how the fuck are we going to run on Oregon, Stanford, or any other Pac-12 team?
And it isn't just about Gaskin or Coleman, it is also about our OL doing run blocking against somebody other than our scout team or our own D. -
So you're saying that if we had let Gaskin and Coleman run wild against Portland State, we would have run all over Bama and USC?uzi said:
And look how that worked for us when it came time to play good defenses (USC, Bama).UWhuskytskeet said:
They were even shittier at running the ball in the first three games of last year. LIPOuzi said:
Because, as anybody that understands sports will tell you... you are good at what you practice.RoadDawg55 said:It's Montana. Why give them a lot of carries?
If this was a game against a real team, I would maybe think otherwise. It's not though.
If we can't run on Montana or Rutgers, how the fuck are we going to run on Oregon, Stanford, or any other Pac-12 team?
And it isn't just about Gaskin or Coleman, it is also about our OL doing run blocking against somebody other than our scout team or our own D. -
I'm saying if we prioritized the run in all games, we'd be better at the run in big games.bananasnblondes said:
So you're saying that if we had let Gaskin and Coleman run wild against Portland State, we would have run all over Bama and USC?uzi said:
And look how that worked for us when it came time to play good defenses (USC, Bama).UWhuskytskeet said:
They were even shittier at running the ball in the first three games of last year. LIPOuzi said:
Because, as anybody that understands sports will tell you... you are good at what you practice.RoadDawg55 said:It's Montana. Why give them a lot of carries?
If this was a game against a real team, I would maybe think otherwise. It's not though.
If we can't run on Montana or Rutgers, how the fuck are we going to run on Oregon, Stanford, or any other Pac-12 team?
And it isn't just about Gaskin or Coleman, it is also about our OL doing run blocking against somebody other than our scout team or our own D.
I don't see other good teams trying to save their RBs from getting dinged up, it is a pussy excuse.
Pete himself has said we need to prioritize the run more... you think you know better than him?
Something is wrong with our run game, and it needs to be fixed, or we will be back to 3rd place in the Pac12 North. -
Wow there's a lot of hidden sucking SmithFS off in this thread. Absolutely no excuse for not running when it's a glaring weakness. And for all those worried about dinging up the running backs, fuck off. Because having your QB (white) leading the team in rushing (among starters) makes more sense.
-
I agree with this so much, I'm gonna quote it a second time.NeGgaPlEaSe said:Wow there's a lot of hidden sucking SmithFS off in this thread. Absolutely no excuse for not running when it's a glaring weakness. And for all those worried about dinging up the running backs, fuck off. Because having your QB (white) leading the team in rushing (among starters) makes more sense.
There.NeGgaPlEaSe said:Wow there's a lot of hidden sucking SmithFS off in this thread. Absolutely no excuse for not running when it's a glaring weakness. And for all those worried about dinging up the running backs, fuck off. Because having your QB (white) leading the team in rushing (among starters) makes more sense.
-
Scrimmages are serious business.
-
We ran the ball well in every game but one. We didn't run well against Alabama because they were dominant up front. Nobody could run on them.uzi said:
I'm saying if we prioritized the run in all games, we'd be better at the run in big games.bananasnblondes said:
So you're saying that if we had let Gaskin and Coleman run wild against Portland State, we would have run all over Bama and USC?uzi said:
And look how that worked for us when it came time to play good defenses (USC, Bama).UWhuskytskeet said:
They were even shittier at running the ball in the first three games of last year. LIPOuzi said:
Because, as anybody that understands sports will tell you... you are good at what you practice.RoadDawg55 said:It's Montana. Why give them a lot of carries?
If this was a game against a real team, I would maybe think otherwise. It's not though.
If we can't run on Montana or Rutgers, how the fuck are we going to run on Oregon, Stanford, or any other Pac-12 team?
And it isn't just about Gaskin or Coleman, it is also about our OL doing run blocking against somebody other than our scout team or our own D.
I don't see other good teams trying to save their RBs from getting dinged up, it is a pussy excuse.
Pete himself has said we need to prioritize the run more... you think you know better than him?
Something is wrong with our run game, and it needs to be fixed, or we will be back to 3rd place in the Pac12 North.
We ran fairly well against USC, especially in the first half. We abandoned it way too early. -
I wanted Smith fired early in 2014. He sucks and our offense is shit.NeGgaPlEaSe said:Wow there's a lot of hidden sucking SmithFS off in this thread. Absolutely no excuse for not running when it's a glaring weakness. And for all those worried about dinging up the running backs, fuck off. Because having your QB (white) leading the team in rushing (among starters) makes more sense.
I just don't care about scrimmages against Montana. -
I'm gonna break this down Revenge of the Nerds style. College football is not your faggy dungeons and dragons RPG that you play in your mom's basement. You do not level up your player"s stats and abilities by using them repeatedly against early weak opponents.
-
Washington ran the ball well for one drive - the second field goal drive. After halftime they tried for a bit and got stuffed. Gaskin had 51 yards on 15 carries.RoadDawg55 said:
We ran the ball well in every game but one. We didn't run well against Alabama because they were dominant up front. Nobody could run on them.uzi said:
I'm saying if we prioritized the run in all games, we'd be better at the run in big games.bananasnblondes said:
So you're saying that if we had let Gaskin and Coleman run wild against Portland State, we would have run all over Bama and USC?uzi said:
And look how that worked for us when it came time to play good defenses (USC, Bama).UWhuskytskeet said:
They were even shittier at running the ball in the first three games of last year. LIPOuzi said:
Because, as anybody that understands sports will tell you... you are good at what you practice.RoadDawg55 said:It's Montana. Why give them a lot of carries?
If this was a game against a real team, I would maybe think otherwise. It's not though.
If we can't run on Montana or Rutgers, how the fuck are we going to run on Oregon, Stanford, or any other Pac-12 team?
And it isn't just about Gaskin or Coleman, it is also about our OL doing run blocking against somebody other than our scout team or our own D.
I don't see other good teams trying to save their RBs from getting dinged up, it is a pussy excuse.
Pete himself has said we need to prioritize the run more... you think you know better than him?
Something is wrong with our run game, and it needs to be fixed, or we will be back to 3rd place in the Pac12 North.
We ran fairly well against USC, especially in the first half. We abandoned it way too early.
They should have tried a bit longer, but let's not act like it was working well because the facts show otherwise.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/boxscore?gameId=400869157
-
Having Jake lead the team in rushing kinda destroys that theorybananasnblondes said:I'm gonna break this down Revenge of the Nerds style. College football is not your faggy dungeons and dragons RPG that you play in your mom's basement. You do not level up your player"s stats and abilities by using them repeatedly against early weak opponents.
-
Those weren't designed rushing plays, but still.NeGgaPlEaSe said:
Having Jake lead the team in rushing kinda destroys that theorybananasnblondes said:I'm gonna break this down Revenge of the Nerds style. College football is not your faggy dungeons and dragons RPG that you play in your mom's basement. You do not level up your player"s stats and abilities by using them repeatedly against early weak opponents.
What you should be asking is why our fucking receivers can't get open against griz db's. -
Exactly my point. Jake running for his life, because Smith is not making him get rid of the ball quickly. Why are they passing so much anyway? Seems to me the tight ends were open all game long. Does smith have a problem with quick passes over the middle to tight ends? Why is he always trying to throw deep to receivers Like Chico?dflea said:
Those weren't designed rushing plays, but still.NeGgaPlEaSe said:
Having Jake lead the team in rushing kinda destroys that theorybananasnblondes said:I'm gonna break this down Revenge of the Nerds style. College football is not your faggy dungeons and dragons RPG that you play in your mom's basement. You do not level up your player"s stats and abilities by using them repeatedly against early weak opponents.
What you should be asking is why our fucking receivers can't get open against griz db's. -
@Babushka sucks.NeGgaPlEaSe said:
Exactly my point. Jake running for his life, because Smith is not making him get rid of the ball quickly. Why are they passing so much anyway? Seems to me the tight ends were open all game long. Does smith have a problem with quick passes over the middle to tight ends? Why is he always trying to throw deep to receivers Like Chico?dflea said:
Those weren't designed rushing plays, but still.NeGgaPlEaSe said:
Having Jake lead the team in rushing kinda destroys that theorybananasnblondes said:I'm gonna break this down Revenge of the Nerds style. College football is not your faggy dungeons and dragons RPG that you play in your mom's basement. You do not level up your player"s stats and abilities by using them repeatedly against early weak opponents.
What you should be asking is why our fucking receivers can't get open against griz db's.
Welcome to three years ago. -
Should I start Gaskin on my fantasy team?
-
Somehow, Alabama and Wisconsin both managed to run on their respective scrimmage opponents yesterday. Looks like their coaches aren't aware of the fact that you are supposed to save your guys from getting dinged up -- save them for the real season.
-
Finkle is Einhorn?Baseman said:3 to 1. One and three. Gaskin to the Coleman.
-
What is the point of running 80% of the plays against a team like Montana? Petersen, you, me, everybody knows we won't be able to do this against the best defenses and be competitive. Our team is just not built like an Alabama or Wisconsin. Our running game will be good enough when it matters, and we will rely on a balanced offense.uzi said:Somehow, Alabama and Wisconsin both managed to run on their respective scrimmage opponents yesterday. Looks like their coaches aren't aware of the fact that you are supposed to save your guys from getting dinged up -- save them for the real season.
So what's the point? Show you can bully a weak team and arrive with an unprepared passing game when you need it? Because from what I see there is still work to do in the passing game.
-
Running is simple. Line up in a power set, run down hill, control the clock, don't expose your qb. The bigger team wins. Last time I checked, the offensive line loves to run block. If you're telling me UW should be running trick plays to an all American tackle, then I give upThe_Undertaker said:
What is the point of running 80% of the plays against a team like Montana? Petersen, you, me, everybody knows we won't be able to do this against the best defenses and be competitive. Our team is just not built like an Alabama or Wisconsin. Our running game will be good enough when it matters, and we will rely on a balanced offense.uzi said:Somehow, Alabama and Wisconsin both managed to run on their respective scrimmage opponents yesterday. Looks like their coaches aren't aware of the fact that you are supposed to save your guys from getting dinged up -- save them for the real season.
So what's the point? Show you can bully a weak team and arrive with an unprepared passing game when you need it? Because from what I see there is still work to do in the passing game.
