Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
The offense next season
Comments
-
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
