The offense next season
QB: Eason's the starter and don't waste time fucking around with a bullshit competition. After two weeks of Spring ball, Eason needs to be named the starter so the guys on offense have someone they can rally around and gel with.
WR: Fuller and Baccellia need to be delegated to mostly slot receivers and should only see the field in 4-wide sets or when Black Beast is in-line. Black Beast should be the starter in the slot and should never come off the field, ever. On the outside it needs to be Osborne and Spiker. There is no fucking excuse as to why the highest rated receivers Petersen has ever signed won't be starters as RS Freshman. Simplify the offense and get them on the fucking field. I've seen enough of Ty Jones to know he doesn't have the necessary speed/quickness to ever be a complete receiver and therefore he should not be starting. Hopefully he can maximize his skill set as a rotational WR who can make big catches on 3rd and long and in the red zone.
RB: If it wasn't obvious enough with Salvon Ahmed running into tackles yesterday and being hit and miss all season long with his vision and physicality, Trey Lowe needs to play RB next season and he needs to be in the rotation if not the starter and it needs to start in the off season. If he's the third string slot receiver and standing on the side line every game something is wrong with Petersen. Lowe is a baller and his vision is outstanding. We need to feed that kid the ball. Barry Sanders 2.0
.McGrew and Pleasant are meh. I need those guys to actually do something in the weight room and put some muscle on before I see them as guys that can hold off Davis who looks elite on film and Newton who's going to really look the part next season after another year in the weight room.
TE: Bryant and Otton are studs. Not much after that. Kizer's one job is to block and I have not seen the physicality from him I expected when he was recruited. Draco Bynum needs to be added as a blocking TE. He has zero chance of ever playing D-line here with all these stud Poly D-lineman coming in. Don't know if he would be much better than Kizer though, but it's worth a shot.
OL: Hilbers to RT. Wattenberg to back up Center. Somebody with more girth to LG. I don't care who. Probably Bainivalu but not counting out Curne or Ale because you never know. Nobody expected Kirkland to start as a RS Freshman and do what he did this season.
We have talent on offense at every position. It's the coach's job to get the best talent on the field. If the best talent is not on the field it is 100% the coach's fault for not getting those guys developed and ready to play at a high level as soon as possible. You're damn straight you have some serious work to do with your shit offense Petersen. It's over-complicated and it's bullshit. You got NFL teams hiring or considering hiring college coaches to implement Mike Leach's air raid offense for fuck sake. Shit doesn't have to be complicated to be potent. You can run a high school offense in college and destroy teams if you have the talent which we do. Put your fucking ego aside and make some real changes and simplify the offense. If this offense isn't one of the best offenses in the country next season, there are no excuses available. Get it done.
Comments
-
Agree w most of what you said but why the fuck do people think McGrew can put on muscle? Look at his fucking frame it’s not gonna happen.
-
Baccelia is our best reciever. Spiker and white Spiker will play when Chin or Jones need a breather. You sound like doogman.
-
Who gives a fuck anout next year’sStrongArmCobra said:What I would like to see:
QB: Eason's the starter and don't waste time fucking around with a bullshit competition. After two weeks of Spring ball, Eason needs to be named the starter so the guys on offense have someone they can rally around and gel with.
WR: Fuller and Baccellia need to be delegated to mostly slot receivers and should only see the field in 4-wide sets or when Black Beast is in-line. Black Beast should be the starter in the slot and should never come off the field, ever. On the outside it needs to be Osborne and Spiker. There is no fucking excuse as to why the highest rated receivers Petersen has ever signed won't be starters as RS Freshman. Simplify the offense and get them on the fucking field. I've seen enough of Ty Jones to know he doesn't have the necessary speed/quickness to ever be a complete receiver and therefore he should not be starting. Hopefully he can maximize his skill set as a rotational WR who can make big catches on 3rd and long and in the red zone.
RB: If it wasn't obvious enough with Salvon Ahmed running into tackles yesterday and being hit and miss all season long with his vision and physicality, Trey Lowe needs to play RB next season and he needs to be in the rotation if not the starter and it needs to start in the off season. If he's the third string slot receiver and standing on the side line every game something is wrong with Petersen. Lowe is a baller and his vision is outstanding. We need to feed that kid the ball. Barry Sanders 2.0 .
McGrew and Pleasant are meh. I need those guys to actually do something in the weight room and put some muscle on before I see them as guys that can hold off Davis who looks elite on film and Newton who's going to really look the part next season after another year in the weight room.
TE: Bryant and Otton are studs. Not much after that. Kizer's one job is to block and I have not seen the physicality from him I expected when he was recruited. Draco Bynum needs to be added as a blocking TE. He has zero chance of ever playing D-line here with all these stud Poly D-lineman coming in. Don't know if he would be much better than Kizer though, but it's worth a shot.
OL: Hilbers to RT. Wattenberg to back up Center. Somebody with more girth to LG. I don't care who. Probably Bainivalu but not counting out Curne or Ale because you never know. Nobody expected Kirkland to start as a RS Freshman and do what he did this season.
We have talent on offense at every position. It's the coach's job to get the best talent on the field. If the best talent is not on the field it is 100% the coach's fault for not getting those guys developed and ready to play at a high level as soon as possible. You're damn straight you have some serious work to do with your shit offense Petersen. It's over-complicated and it's bullshit. You got NFL teams hiring or considering hiring college coaches to implement Mike Leach's air raid offense for fuck sake. Shit doesn't have to be complicated to be potent. You can run a high school offense in college and destroy teams if you have the talent which we do. Put your fucking ego aside and make some real changes and simplify the offense. If this offense isn't one of the best offenses in the country next season, there are no excuses available. Get it done.
Offense? Too early for this shit. -
Upvoted for Spiker and White Spiker
-
You're a fucking idiot. If Baccellia is our most productive receiver next season like he was in the Rose Bowl, we have a fucking problem!Bread said:Baccelia is our best reciever. Spiker and white Spiker will play when Chin or Jones need a breather. You sound like doogman.
-
I only like small backs if they can catch footballs out of the backfield. Not saying they can’t get a few carries but need backs that can catch the damn ball and go. This will be Lowe. Would love to see Ahmed catching quick bubble screens and running go routes with Eason’s arm. Browning couldnt throw sideline to sideline.
Waiting to see who RB will be next year. I want to see what Dick Newton can bring.
I still have hope in Ty Jones. Haven’t given up on him. He can be good. He will be good.
Bachellia and Fuller need to play the same position. Only one of the field at the same time unless you’re going empty backfield. I do love Bachellia’s tunnel screens. Fuller is like our Danny Amendola but with bad hands. Fuller is the guy you check down to because he can get open but I wouldn’t ever have him be my first read unless I’m running a crossing route.
TEs need to be utlized in our NEW offense. Bryant needs to be WR1 all day, every day. -
Because he's short. Short people have less frame to fill out with muscle than tall people. Five pounds of muscle on a tall guy doesn't make a huge difference and might not even be that noticeable. Five pounds of muscle on a 5'7 guy makes a big difference. Word has been he doesn't work hard in the weight room. He needs to and then he'll put on muscle.GOAT said:Agree w most of what you said but why the fuck do people think McGrew can put on muscle? Look at his fucking frame it’s not gonna happen.
-
Great! So why did you read it and comment? Fuck off.Passion said:
Who gives a fuck anout next year’sStrongArmCobra said:What I would like to see:
QB: Eason's the starter and don't waste time fucking around with a bullshit competition. After two weeks of Spring ball, Eason needs to be named the starter so the guys on offense have someone they can rally around and gel with.
WR: Fuller and Baccellia need to be delegated to mostly slot receivers and should only see the field in 4-wide sets or when Black Beast is in-line. Black Beast should be the starter in the slot and should never come off the field, ever. On the outside it needs to be Osborne and Spiker. There is no fucking excuse as to why the highest rated receivers Petersen has ever signed won't be starters as RS Freshman. Simplify the offense and get them on the fucking field. I've seen enough of Ty Jones to know he doesn't have the necessary speed/quickness to ever be a complete receiver and therefore he should not be starting. Hopefully he can maximize his skill set as a rotational WR who can make big catches on 3rd and long and in the red zone.
RB: If it wasn't obvious enough with Salvon Ahmed running into tackles yesterday and being hit and miss all season long with his vision and physicality, Trey Lowe needs to play RB next season and he needs to be in the rotation if not the starter and it needs to start in the off season. If he's the third string slot receiver and standing on the side line every game something is wrong with Petersen. Lowe is a baller and his vision is outstanding. We need to feed that kid the ball. Barry Sanders 2.0 .
McGrew and Pleasant are meh. I need those guys to actually do something in the weight room and put some muscle on before I see them as guys that can hold off Davis who looks elite on film and Newton who's going to really look the part next season after another year in the weight room.
TE: Bryant and Otton are studs. Not much after that. Kizer's one job is to block and I have not seen the physicality from him I expected when he was recruited. Draco Bynum needs to be added as a blocking TE. He has zero chance of ever playing D-line here with all these stud Poly D-lineman coming in. Don't know if he would be much better than Kizer though, but it's worth a shot.
OL: Hilbers to RT. Wattenberg to back up Center. Somebody with more girth to LG. I don't care who. Probably Bainivalu but not counting out Curne or Ale because you never know. Nobody expected Kirkland to start as a RS Freshman and do what he did this season.
We have talent on offense at every position. It's the coach's job to get the best talent on the field. If the best talent is not on the field it is 100% the coach's fault for not getting those guys developed and ready to play at a high level as soon as possible. You're damn straight you have some serious work to do with your shit offense Petersen. It's over-complicated and it's bullshit. You got NFL teams hiring or considering hiring college coaches to implement Mike Leach's air raid offense for fuck sake. Shit doesn't have to be complicated to be potent. You can run a high school offense in college and destroy teams if you have the talent which we do. Put your fucking ego aside and make some real changes and simplify the offense. If this offense isn't one of the best offenses in the country next season, there are no excuses available. Get it done.
Offense? Too early for this shit. -
wait whatStrongArmCobra said:
Because he's short. Short people have less frame to fill out with muscle than tall people. Five pounds of muscle on a tall guy doesn't make a huge difference and might not even be that noticeable. Five pounds of muscle on a 5'7 guy makes a big difference. Word has been he doesn't work hard in the weight room. He needs to and then he'll put on muscle.GOAT said:Agree w most of what you said but why the fuck do people think McGrew can put on muscle? Look at his fucking frame it’s not gonna happen.
The point of muscle is to get heavier, not to look heavier. 10 lbs on a bigger guy that doesn't show is better than 5 lbs on a small guy that makes him look yoked.
WTF -
I don't even know how to respond to this. Your IQ must be so low.Pitchfork51 said:
wait whatStrongArmCobra said:
Because he's short. Short people have less frame to fill out with muscle than tall people. Five pounds of muscle on a tall guy doesn't make a huge difference and might not even be that noticeable. Five pounds of muscle on a 5'7 guy makes a big difference. Word has been he doesn't work hard in the weight room. He needs to and then he'll put on muscle.GOAT said:Agree w most of what you said but why the fuck do people think McGrew can put on muscle? Look at his fucking frame it’s not gonna happen.
The point of muscle is to get heavier, not to look heavier. 10 lbs on a bigger guy that doesn't show is better than 5 lbs on a small guy that makes him look yoked.
WTF
Why are you distorting the weight between different sized players you retard? I used 5 lbs for both examples. Yes, 5 lbs of muscle on a 5'7 kid has a greater impact on his body, his strength, his balance, the force he can produce, and how he performs on a football field than 5 lbs of muscle on a 6'8 kid. -
It’s odd that you’re slobbering over Newton but aren’t giving McGrew his due. He’s the only RB we have now who’s shown an ability to run between the tackles and actually make reads. He obviously should put on weight, but even if he doesn’t he’s already proven himself as an above average P12 running back at worse.
-
Slightly above average Pac-12 running back doesn't cut it anymore. Does he have the physical potential to run the ball on Bama or Clemson? Can he physically hold up with more carries over an entire season? Physical talent matters. Newton has more of it than McGrew.GreenRiverGatorz said:It’s odd that you’re slobbering over Newton but aren’t giving McGrew his due. He’s the only RB we have now who’s shown an ability to run between the tackles and actually make reads. He obviously should put on weight, but even if he doesn’t he’s already proven himself as an above average P12 running back at worse.
-
The oprea singer is the biggest cock tease. You think he’s about to make a huge play but then he trips all over himself, gets arm tackled, or gets tripped.
-
I was told he should be our best receiver next season. All 5'9 165 pounds of him.backthepack said:The oprea singer is the biggest cock tease. You think he’s about to make a huge play but then he trips all over himself, gets arm tackled, or gets tripped.
-
Yeah, bench the best WR on the team for fuckers that are unproven
-
"Unproven" doesn't mean shit. Everybody is unproven until the coaches give them the opportunity to prove themselves. Every starter we've ever had was at one time "unproven" and many didn't "deserve" to be starters over more veteran players. That "unproven" shit is some Boise State bullshit. Petersen didn't get elite talent at Boise State so he's stuck in his stupid ways on offense of only wanting to play the most experienced guys he feels more comfortable with. We're not getting Ford and this is one of the reasons why. Elite teams put the best talent on the field. Elite teams have impact true Freshman players making plays for them right away. Coaches that win big bowl games say, this 4 or 5 star Freshman WR might not be as polished as this undersized 3-star Senior WR, but starting the younger more talented player is better for the team in the long run because the younger, more talented player will develop faster, will play with more confidence as a starter than as a back up, has a higher ceiling to make plays the undersized, veteran WR can't, and by the end of the season when we're playing in our big bowl game, the younger more talented WR will have developed into a better player than the undersized, veteran WR.WeakarmCobra said:Yeah, bench the best WR on the team for fuckers that are unproven
Am I saying Baccellia should be benched and never play. No, he should be in the rotation as a slot WR behind Hunter Bryant who mostly gets on the field in 4 wide receiver sets. -
The offense next season is going to suck because Chris Petersen is our head coach.
-
Sad but this might be true. He needs to change.ZoneUW said:The offense next season is going to suck because Chris Petersen is our head coach.
-
Because when people talk about players bulking up it's so they weigh more so they can hit harder and be harder to push.StrongArmCobra said:
I don't even know how to respond to this. Your IQ must be so low.Pitchfork51 said:
wait whatStrongArmCobra said:
Because he's short. Short people have less frame to fill out with muscle than tall people. Five pounds of muscle on a tall guy doesn't make a huge difference and might not even be that noticeable. Five pounds of muscle on a 5'7 guy makes a big difference. Word has been he doesn't work hard in the weight room. He needs to and then he'll put on muscle.GOAT said:Agree w most of what you said but why the fuck do people think McGrew can put on muscle? Look at his fucking frame it’s not gonna happen.
The point of muscle is to get heavier, not to look heavier. 10 lbs on a bigger guy that doesn't show is better than 5 lbs on a small guy that makes him look yoked.
WTF
Why are you distorting the weight between different sized players you retard? I used 5 lbs for both examples. Yes, 5 lbs of muscle on a 5'7 kid has a greater impact on his body, his strength, his balance, the force he can produce, and how he performs on a football field than 5 lbs of muscle on a 6'8 kid.
So no matter the size it doesn't matter.
If you mean you want him to get stronger fine.
-
Short people have an easier time filling out their frame with muscle than tall people. That is my point and that is a fact. Why you are trying to argue about some random shit regarding a UW player that has nothing to do with your team is beyond me.Pitchfork51 said:
Because when people talk about players bulking up it's so they weigh more so they can hit harder and be harder to push.StrongArmCobra said:
I don't even know how to respond to this. Your IQ must be so low.Pitchfork51 said:
wait whatStrongArmCobra said:
Because he's short. Short people have less frame to fill out with muscle than tall people. Five pounds of muscle on a tall guy doesn't make a huge difference and might not even be that noticeable. Five pounds of muscle on a 5'7 guy makes a big difference. Word has been he doesn't work hard in the weight room. He needs to and then he'll put on muscle.GOAT said:Agree w most of what you said but why the fuck do people think McGrew can put on muscle? Look at his fucking frame it’s not gonna happen.
The point of muscle is to get heavier, not to look heavier. 10 lbs on a bigger guy that doesn't show is better than 5 lbs on a small guy that makes him look yoked.
WTF
Why are you distorting the weight between different sized players you retard? I used 5 lbs for both examples. Yes, 5 lbs of muscle on a 5'7 kid has a greater impact on his body, his strength, his balance, the force he can produce, and how he performs on a football field than 5 lbs of muscle on a 6'8 kid.
So no matter the size it doesn't matter.
If you mean you want him to get stronger fine. -
The emergence of a rb next year will make or break our offense. Theres a 99% chance Eason will be an upgrade at qb and I think Spiker and/or Osborne will add to the WR group. However, having a running game where we alternate 3 mediocre guys throughout the game will cause teams to focus on coverage because theres no real run threat. Luckily RB is a position where freshmen can make a huge impact. Id love to see Lowe or Davis be that guy. Shit, even Dick Newton looks jacked and could surprise everyone. Or maybe Salvon learns how to not run scared. Either way, I add onto want RB by commitee
-
I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm saying that a 6'2 running back that runs into you weighing 200 has just as much momentum as a 5'9 guy weighing 200.StrongArmCobra said:
Short people have an easier time filling out their frame with muscle than tall people. That is my point and that is a fact. Why you are trying to argue about some random shit regarding a UW player that has nothing to do with your team is beyond me.Pitchfork51 said:
Because when people talk about players bulking up it's so they weigh more so they can hit harder and be harder to push.StrongArmCobra said:
I don't even know how to respond to this. Your IQ must be so low.Pitchfork51 said:
wait whatStrongArmCobra said:
Because he's short. Short people have less frame to fill out with muscle than tall people. Five pounds of muscle on a tall guy doesn't make a huge difference and might not even be that noticeable. Five pounds of muscle on a 5'7 guy makes a big difference. Word has been he doesn't work hard in the weight room. He needs to and then he'll put on muscle.GOAT said:Agree w most of what you said but why the fuck do people think McGrew can put on muscle? Look at his fucking frame it’s not gonna happen.
The point of muscle is to get heavier, not to look heavier. 10 lbs on a bigger guy that doesn't show is better than 5 lbs on a small guy that makes him look yoked.
WTF
Why are you distorting the weight between different sized players you retard? I used 5 lbs for both examples. Yes, 5 lbs of muscle on a 5'7 kid has a greater impact on his body, his strength, his balance, the force he can produce, and how he performs on a football field than 5 lbs of muscle on a 6'8 kid.
So no matter the size it doesn't matter.
If you mean you want him to get stronger fine.
So if they both gain 5 lbs there is no difference. At all.
-
Yes there is you idiot, one has a lower center of gravity which equals better balance. The 5 pound weight gain has a bigger impact for the shorter RB than the taller one. Did you never take a fucking physics class? Jesus shut the fuck up.Pitchfork51 said:
I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm saying that a 6'2 running back that runs into you weighing 200 has just as much momentum as a 5'9 guy weighing 200.StrongArmCobra said:
Short people have an easier time filling out their frame with muscle than tall people. That is my point and that is a fact. Why you are trying to argue about some random shit regarding a UW player that has nothing to do with your team is beyond me.Pitchfork51 said:
Because when people talk about players bulking up it's so they weigh more so they can hit harder and be harder to push.StrongArmCobra said:
I don't even know how to respond to this. Your IQ must be so low.Pitchfork51 said:
wait whatStrongArmCobra said:
Because he's short. Short people have less frame to fill out with muscle than tall people. Five pounds of muscle on a tall guy doesn't make a huge difference and might not even be that noticeable. Five pounds of muscle on a 5'7 guy makes a big difference. Word has been he doesn't work hard in the weight room. He needs to and then he'll put on muscle.GOAT said:Agree w most of what you said but why the fuck do people think McGrew can put on muscle? Look at his fucking frame it’s not gonna happen.
The point of muscle is to get heavier, not to look heavier. 10 lbs on a bigger guy that doesn't show is better than 5 lbs on a small guy that makes him look yoked.
WTF
Why are you distorting the weight between different sized players you retard? I used 5 lbs for both examples. Yes, 5 lbs of muscle on a 5'7 kid has a greater impact on his body, his strength, his balance, the force he can produce, and how he performs on a football field than 5 lbs of muscle on a 6'8 kid.
So no matter the size it doesn't matter.
If you mean you want him to get stronger fine.
So if they both gain 5 lbs there is no difference. At all. -
Now you're talking about technique which has nothing to do with it.StrongArmCobra said:
Yes there is you idiot, one has a lower center of gravity which equals better balance. The 5 pound weight gain has a bigger impact for the shorter RB than the taller one. Did you never take a fucking physics class? Jesus shut the fuck up.Pitchfork51 said:
I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm saying that a 6'2 running back that runs into you weighing 200 has just as much momentum as a 5'9 guy weighing 200.StrongArmCobra said:
Short people have an easier time filling out their frame with muscle than tall people. That is my point and that is a fact. Why you are trying to argue about some random shit regarding a UW player that has nothing to do with your team is beyond me.Pitchfork51 said:
Because when people talk about players bulking up it's so they weigh more so they can hit harder and be harder to push.StrongArmCobra said:
I don't even know how to respond to this. Your IQ must be so low.Pitchfork51 said:
wait whatStrongArmCobra said:
Because he's short. Short people have less frame to fill out with muscle than tall people. Five pounds of muscle on a tall guy doesn't make a huge difference and might not even be that noticeable. Five pounds of muscle on a 5'7 guy makes a big difference. Word has been he doesn't work hard in the weight room. He needs to and then he'll put on muscle.GOAT said:Agree w most of what you said but why the fuck do people think McGrew can put on muscle? Look at his fucking frame it’s not gonna happen.
The point of muscle is to get heavier, not to look heavier. 10 lbs on a bigger guy that doesn't show is better than 5 lbs on a small guy that makes him look yoked.
WTF
Why are you distorting the weight between different sized players you retard? I used 5 lbs for both examples. Yes, 5 lbs of muscle on a 5'7 kid has a greater impact on his body, his strength, his balance, the force he can produce, and how he performs on a football field than 5 lbs of muscle on a 6'8 kid.
So no matter the size it doesn't matter.
If you mean you want him to get stronger fine.
So if they both gain 5 lbs there is no difference. At all. -
Who needs physicality in a running back when we only give them the rock when down 25 against the other teams 3-deeps?StrongArmCobra said:
Slightly above average Pac-12 running back doesn't cut it anymore. Does he have the physical potential to run the ball on Bama or Clemson? Can he physically hold up with more carries over an entire season? Physical talent matters. Newton has more of it than McGrew.GreenRiverGatorz said:It’s odd that you’re slobbering over Newton but aren’t giving McGrew his due. He’s the only RB we have now who’s shown an ability to run between the tackles and actually make reads. He obviously should put on weight, but even if he doesn’t he’s already proven himself as an above average P12 running back at worse.
Hamdan needs to be demoted. -
Lower center of gravity is not technique you idiot, it's physics. Fuck you're dumb.Pitchfork51 said:
Now you're talking about technique which has nothing to do with it.StrongArmCobra said:
Yes there is you idiot, one has a lower center of gravity which equals better balance. The 5 pound weight gain has a bigger impact for the shorter RB than the taller one. Did you never take a fucking physics class? Jesus shut the fuck up.Pitchfork51 said:
I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm saying that a 6'2 running back that runs into you weighing 200 has just as much momentum as a 5'9 guy weighing 200.StrongArmCobra said:
Short people have an easier time filling out their frame with muscle than tall people. That is my point and that is a fact. Why you are trying to argue about some random shit regarding a UW player that has nothing to do with your team is beyond me.Pitchfork51 said:
Because when people talk about players bulking up it's so they weigh more so they can hit harder and be harder to push.StrongArmCobra said:
I don't even know how to respond to this. Your IQ must be so low.Pitchfork51 said:
wait whatStrongArmCobra said:
Because he's short. Short people have less frame to fill out with muscle than tall people. Five pounds of muscle on a tall guy doesn't make a huge difference and might not even be that noticeable. Five pounds of muscle on a 5'7 guy makes a big difference. Word has been he doesn't work hard in the weight room. He needs to and then he'll put on muscle.GOAT said:Agree w most of what you said but why the fuck do people think McGrew can put on muscle? Look at his fucking frame it’s not gonna happen.
The point of muscle is to get heavier, not to look heavier. 10 lbs on a bigger guy that doesn't show is better than 5 lbs on a small guy that makes him look yoked.
WTF
Why are you distorting the weight between different sized players you retard? I used 5 lbs for both examples. Yes, 5 lbs of muscle on a 5'7 kid has a greater impact on his body, his strength, his balance, the force he can produce, and how he performs on a football field than 5 lbs of muscle on a 6'8 kid.
So no matter the size it doesn't matter.
If you mean you want him to get stronger fine.
So if they both gain 5 lbs there is no difference. At all. -
Did you know that RBs with good technique can bend over and have balance?StrongArmCobra said:
Lower center of gravity is not technique you idiot, it's physics. Fuck you're dumb.Pitchfork51 said:
Now you're talking about technique which has nothing to do with it.StrongArmCobra said:
Yes there is you idiot, one has a lower center of gravity which equals better balance. The 5 pound weight gain has a bigger impact for the shorter RB than the taller one. Did you never take a fucking physics class? Jesus shut the fuck up.Pitchfork51 said:
I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm saying that a 6'2 running back that runs into you weighing 200 has just as much momentum as a 5'9 guy weighing 200.StrongArmCobra said:
Short people have an easier time filling out their frame with muscle than tall people. That is my point and that is a fact. Why you are trying to argue about some random shit regarding a UW player that has nothing to do with your team is beyond me.Pitchfork51 said:
Because when people talk about players bulking up it's so they weigh more so they can hit harder and be harder to push.StrongArmCobra said:
I don't even know how to respond to this. Your IQ must be so low.Pitchfork51 said:
wait whatStrongArmCobra said:
Because he's short. Short people have less frame to fill out with muscle than tall people. Five pounds of muscle on a tall guy doesn't make a huge difference and might not even be that noticeable. Five pounds of muscle on a 5'7 guy makes a big difference. Word has been he doesn't work hard in the weight room. He needs to and then he'll put on muscle.GOAT said:Agree w most of what you said but why the fuck do people think McGrew can put on muscle? Look at his fucking frame it’s not gonna happen.
The point of muscle is to get heavier, not to look heavier. 10 lbs on a bigger guy that doesn't show is better than 5 lbs on a small guy that makes him look yoked.
WTF
Why are you distorting the weight between different sized players you retard? I used 5 lbs for both examples. Yes, 5 lbs of muscle on a 5'7 kid has a greater impact on his body, his strength, his balance, the force he can produce, and how he performs on a football field than 5 lbs of muscle on a 6'8 kid.
So no matter the size it doesn't matter.
If you mean you want him to get stronger fine.
So if they both gain 5 lbs there is no difference. At all.
And that a super short guy will lose more athleticism by gaining the same amount of weight? -
Are we just resigned to bynum and cook being busts? If they are that is not okay
-
No and no because you're just talking out your ass at this point.Pitchfork51 said:
Did you know that RBs with good technique can bend over and have balance?StrongArmCobra said:
Lower center of gravity is not technique you idiot, it's physics. Fuck you're dumb.Pitchfork51 said:
Now you're talking about technique which has nothing to do with it.StrongArmCobra said:
Yes there is you idiot, one has a lower center of gravity which equals better balance. The 5 pound weight gain has a bigger impact for the shorter RB than the taller one. Did you never take a fucking physics class? Jesus shut the fuck up.Pitchfork51 said:
I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm saying that a 6'2 running back that runs into you weighing 200 has just as much momentum as a 5'9 guy weighing 200.StrongArmCobra said:
Short people have an easier time filling out their frame with muscle than tall people. That is my point and that is a fact. Why you are trying to argue about some random shit regarding a UW player that has nothing to do with your team is beyond me.Pitchfork51 said:
Because when people talk about players bulking up it's so they weigh more so they can hit harder and be harder to push.StrongArmCobra said:
I don't even know how to respond to this. Your IQ must be so low.Pitchfork51 said:
wait whatStrongArmCobra said:
Because he's short. Short people have less frame to fill out with muscle than tall people. Five pounds of muscle on a tall guy doesn't make a huge difference and might not even be that noticeable. Five pounds of muscle on a 5'7 guy makes a big difference. Word has been he doesn't work hard in the weight room. He needs to and then he'll put on muscle.GOAT said:Agree w most of what you said but why the fuck do people think McGrew can put on muscle? Look at his fucking frame it’s not gonna happen.
The point of muscle is to get heavier, not to look heavier. 10 lbs on a bigger guy that doesn't show is better than 5 lbs on a small guy that makes him look yoked.
WTF
Why are you distorting the weight between different sized players you retard? I used 5 lbs for both examples. Yes, 5 lbs of muscle on a 5'7 kid has a greater impact on his body, his strength, his balance, the force he can produce, and how he performs on a football field than 5 lbs of muscle on a 6'8 kid.
So no matter the size it doesn't matter.
If you mean you want him to get stronger fine.
So if they both gain 5 lbs there is no difference. At all.
And that a super short guy will lose more athleticism by gaining the same amount of weight? -
No. They're the forgotten guys and have been since they showed up and got quickly passed in the minds of HH and the media. There's no real reason for it. I don't think there are good reasons to assume Spiker or Osbourne are or will ever be ahead of them.dhdawg said:Are we just resigned to bynum and cook being busts? If they are that is not okay
