Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Your Bend


stirs

Recommended Posts

it's hard for me to pick. both are equally beautiful; the one complements the other.

 

frankly i think our defense will be ferocious this year and our offense will be high-scoring and efficient, so we just may get the best of both worlds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love both.

I love a physical, aggressive defense, and a physical offense.

I'd rather watch j. Stewart run over and through defenders, than any rb run for the sideline.

I love watching Steve Smith take out blockers while a teammate scores. I love watching steve smith fight for the ball.

I love watching great front sevens harass an opposing offensive line, rb, qb.

I love to see a rb stoodup behind the line if scrimmage.

I even love watching Gamble take out Culpepper, even though that play ended culoeppers career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've recently seen both ends of the spectrum with my college team.  A few years ago, we had the best defense in the nation, but an offense that couldn't score the 10 points needed to beat most of the teams on our schedule.  It was incredibly hard to watch.  

Last year, we put up a lot of points every week, we just gave up even more to the opposition.  Both are incredibly frustrating!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

balanced and dominant with both. 

 

I'm not choosing. you can't make me. if we have one one and not the other I'll complain about the other. i expect both to be great. it's not fun for me watxhing a team that is weak on any side of the ball.

 

qft

 

 

 

to the left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im not a fan of the gimmicky offense that relies on so many plays that are very short passes like the saints, which i estimate at least 20-25% of their pass plays are screens.  effective?  yes, entertaining to me? not really.  i rather see a balanced offense that is effective moving the ball with run and play action that pounds and wears out a defense.  of course a very vertical offense can be entertaining but aren't always consistent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
    • Well, we got our answer on Army today.
×
×
  • Create New...