I fully expect both of these underdogs to fold

donovan wrote:Nobody argues with playing hard, letting the bench play and play hard and score..regardless...I agree with Bowden and that conversation.....HOWEVER..that really does not address the system that factors in "style" as an incentive...and that is the issue.
Michigan hasn't been able to do that much lately.Eric wrote:I support running the offense with your second-teamers versus throwing in your second-teamers and having them run the ball on three straight plays. If that's the case, then there's no point because you aren't getting your backup QB or WRs any meaningful time in learning the offense. And it also sends the message to your O-line and RBs that you can take it easy because the goal isn't to score or even get first downs, just run the clock down.
RazorHawk wrote:Michigan hasn't been able to do that much lately.Eric wrote:I support running the offense with your second-teamers versus throwing in your second-teamers and having them run the ball on three straight plays. If that's the case, then there's no point because you aren't getting your backup QB or WRs any meaningful time in learning the offense. And it also sends the message to your O-line and RBs that you can take it easy because the goal isn't to score or even get first downs, just run the clock down.![]()
Sorry to beat Spence to this.
RazorHawk wrote:Michigan hasn't been able to do that much lately.Eric wrote:I support running the offense with your second-teamers versus throwing in your second-teamers and having them run the ball on three straight plays. If that's the case, then there's no point because you aren't getting your backup QB or WRs any meaningful time in learning the offense. And it also sends the message to your O-line and RBs that you can take it easy because the goal isn't to score or even get first downs, just run the clock down.![]()
Sorry to beat Spence to this.
Return to “General Discussion”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests