Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
The offense next season
Comments
-
McGrew sucks. That's my point.StrongArmCobra said:
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? -
Cool, ASU sucks and always will.Pitchfork51 said:
McGrew sucks. That's my point.StrongArmCobra said:
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? -
I wana die
-
Or runs out of bounds.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.
-
-
I believe peterman has made mention of looking at the film and making adjustments in the past. Let's see if he actually means it this time.
Otherwise it's 40 pass attempts a game with everyone's savior Eason.
He talks about balance with the offense. Did anyone witness balance in the RB?
I got an idea, let's use Gaskin with 12 minutes left to play in the game. Maybe we can squeak out a miracle down 25. -
This. He played pretty well against Ohio State, but some of those could have been big plays if he didn’t get tripped up and fall down after a weak tackle attempt.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.
-
I think Cook and Bynum are mediocre, but I agree that Spiker and Osbourne won’t do much next season.chuck said:
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
-
Cocktease player. Cocktease progrum.theknowledge said:
Or runs out of bounds.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.
-
This is a true statement.RoadDawg55 said:
I think Cook and Bynum are mediocre, but I agree that Spiker and Osbourne won’t do much next season.chuck said:
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
