Why does our RB screen game...

[canefan]

Don't be a cute little snarky fcking maggot. The fact that it's awkward and disjointed stops it from working a lot better. It almost always requires several broken tackles to be even remotely effective because the timing is off.

Sooooo...we do care if it works now?

You're so smart. You and broke teamed up and got me. Put that **** in your signature to memorialize it.

Our RB screen game is run perfectly because Walton broke 50 tackles on one and Gus broke one that he wouldn't have but for a holding penalty that brought it back anyway.

You guys are right. We're running it to perfection.

It wasn't a holding penalty, it was a flag for an illegal block low and from behind on Gauthier. Like the Clemson call against FSU, it was far enough from the play where Gus would have blown by the guy Gauthier blocked. A dumb unnecessary penalty.

It was a very obvious penalty pretty close to the play.

It wasn't a holding penalty like you said and the defender Gauthier illegally cuts is even with Gus and 3-4 yards away with no angle. He wasn't making that tackle. Gauthier didn't need to illegally cut him.

My problem with the screen game is it's usually called in obvious screen situations. 2nd and long after a penalty. Try one on first and ten sometimes.

 

[kryptonite]

Don't be a cute little snarky fcking maggot. The fact that it's awkward and disjointed stops it from working a lot better. It almost always requires several broken tackles to be even remotely effective because the timing is off.

Sooooo...we do care if it works now?

You're so smart. You and broke teamed up and got me. Put that **** in your signature to memorialize it.

Our RB screen game is run perfectly because Walton broke 50 tackles on one and Gus broke one that he wouldn't have but for a holding penalty that brought it back anyway.

You guys are right. We're running it to perfection.

Jeez, calm down. I didn't say they were perfect, I'm just trying to say that results are more important than prettiness.

Your lame attempt at a gotcha moment revealed your lack of understanding of the RB screen game. It's based on deception and timing. When either or both of those elements are off you're not maximizing the potential of the play.

For some reason, we're not running that play as sharply and crisply as a lot of other teams run it.

So while you're patting yourself on the back after Walton broke 50 tackles to make something out of nothing I'm wondering why the plays are breaking down and requiring a super human effort from the RB to be effective.

See, if you'd said that in the first place there would have been a discussion. Instead you made a thread about how the screen game didn't LOOK good EVEN WHEN IT WORKED. Go back and read what you wrote. So don't run up on me whining about having called you out. Either you made a thread about how plays look being more important than if they work, or you accidentally failed to add the part about how the awkward look had some bearing on actual performance. Either way, you're pretty thin-skinned for a guy who spends so much time giving others ****.

 

[RVACane]

Don't be an insipid **** and point to stats or try to emphasize how a hold on a screen was OK.

I'm talking about how the RB screen game looks, not about a RB making something out of nothing. It's a clunky awkward looking screen game that will get destroyed by decent teams. I'm looking for reasons it looks so ****** compared to other teams.

Definitely more important that it LOOK sweet than that it works.

Don't be a cute little snarky fcking maggot. The fact that it's awkward and disjointed stops it from working a lot better. It almost always requires several broken tackles to be even remotely effective because the timing is off.

Sooooo...we do care if it works now?

You're so smart. You and broke teamed up and got me. Put that **** in your signature to memorialize it.

Our RB screen game is run perfectly because Walton broke 50 tackles on one and Gus broke one that he wouldn't have but for a holding penalty that brought it back anyway.

You guys are right. We're running it to perfection.

I thought only that hockey player put **** in his signature. Funny how there are dudes that get so excited to catch a guy make a slip about a random topic and parade it like the coming of the messiah.

 

[The Franchise]

Definitely more important that it LOOK sweet than that it works.

Don't be a cute little snarky fcking maggot. The fact that it's awkward and disjointed stops it from working a lot better. It almost always requires several broken tackles to be even remotely effective because the timing is off.

Sooooo...we do care if it works now?

You're so smart. You and broke teamed up and got me. Put that **** in your signature to memorialize it.

Our RB screen game is run perfectly because Walton broke 50 tackles on one and Gus broke one that he wouldn't have but for a holding penalty that brought it back anyway.

You guys are right. We're running it to perfection.

I thought only that hockey player put **** in his signature. Funny how there are dudes that get so excited to catch a guy make a slip about a random topic and parade it like the coming of the messiah.

Josie Jagger is on a whole different level of obsession, but this guy kryptonite fancies himself some sort of "gotcha" guy. He thinks he pulled one off here when he's really just rambling like a boob on a tangent of semantics.

 

[The Franchise]

Sooooo...we do care if it works now?

You're so smart. You and broke teamed up and got me. Put that **** in your signature to memorialize it.

Our RB screen game is run perfectly because Walton broke 50 tackles on one and Gus broke one that he wouldn't have but for a holding penalty that brought it back anyway.

You guys are right. We're running it to perfection.

Jeez, calm down. I didn't say they were perfect, I'm just trying to say that results are more important than prettiness.

Your lame attempt at a gotcha moment revealed your lack of understanding of the RB screen game. It's based on deception and timing. When either or both of those elements are off you're not maximizing the potential of the play.

For some reason, we're not running that play as sharply and crisply as a lot of other teams run it.

So while you're patting yourself on the back after Walton broke 50 tackles to make something out of nothing I'm wondering why the plays are breaking down and requiring a super human effort from the RB to be effective.

See, if you'd said that in the first place there would have been a discussion. Instead you made a thread about how the screen game didn't LOOK good EVEN WHEN IT WORKED. Go back and read what you wrote. So don't run up on me whining about having called you out. Either you made a thread about how plays look being more important than if they work, or you accidentally failed to add the part about how the awkward look had some bearing on actual performance. Either way, you're pretty thin-skinned for a guy who spends so much time giving others ****.

You should be smart enough not to overanalyze every word. You're looking for a gotcha moment or just trying to be a shytbag. Point was very clear to everyone not trying to be a snarky dyck.

The RB screen game looks like ****. Because it looks like **** it's not working as well as it could be working. You're the kind of guy who saw Walton's 80 yard TD run against App Store and assumes it was great blocking and a great call and terrific execution.

 

[westcoastcanes]

We really need to work in the tackle eligible-tackle screen soon. If we can get the opposing teams game planning for Darling rumbling and stumbling down field behind the rest of the o-linemans, imagine how it would open up things the quarterback passback screen game.

 

[kryptonite]

You're so smart. You and broke teamed up and got me. Put that **** in your signature to memorialize it.

Our RB screen game is run perfectly because Walton broke 50 tackles on one and Gus broke one that he wouldn't have but for a holding penalty that brought it back anyway.

You guys are right. We're running it to perfection.

Jeez, calm down. I didn't say they were perfect, I'm just trying to say that results are more important than prettiness.

Your lame attempt at a gotcha moment revealed your lack of understanding of the RB screen game. It's based on deception and timing. When either or both of those elements are off you're not maximizing the potential of the play.

For some reason, we're not running that play as sharply and crisply as a lot of other teams run it.

So while you're patting yourself on the back after Walton broke 50 tackles to make something out of nothing I'm wondering why the plays are breaking down and requiring a super human effort from the RB to be effective.

See, if you'd said that in the first place there would have been a discussion. Instead you made a thread about how the screen game didn't LOOK good EVEN WHEN IT WORKED. Go back and read what you wrote. So don't run up on me whining about having called you out. Either you made a thread about how plays look being more important than if they work, or you accidentally failed to add the part about how the awkward look had some bearing on actual performance. Either way, you're pretty thin-skinned for a guy who spends so much time giving others ****.

You should be smart enough not to overanalyze every word. You're looking for a gotcha moment or just trying to be a shytbag. Point was very clear to everyone not trying to be a snarky dyck.

The RB screen game looks like ****. Because it looks like **** it's not working as well as it could be working. You're the kind of guy who saw Walton's 80 yard TD run against App Store and assumes it was great blocking and a great call and terrific execution.

You really need to learn to take criticism a little better.

 

[Billy D Williams]

It's bad timing and the OL spacing is terrible. If one guy lets his guy go too soon then the QB has to release it before the other defenders and LB'ers are fooled. Plus you really have to be a threat to pass

 

[RVACane]

We really need to work in the tackle eligible-tackle screen soon. If we can get the opposing teams game planning for Darling rumbling and stumbling down field behind the rest of the o-linemans, imagine how it would open up things the quarterback passback screen game.

.

 

[The Franchise]

Jeez, calm down. I didn't say they were perfect, I'm just trying to say that results are more important than prettiness.

Your lame attempt at a gotcha moment revealed your lack of understanding of the RB screen game. It's based on deception and timing. When either or both of those elements are off you're not maximizing the potential of the play.

For some reason, we're not running that play as sharply and crisply as a lot of other teams run it.

So while you're patting yourself on the back after Walton broke 50 tackles to make something out of nothing I'm wondering why the plays are breaking down and requiring a super human effort from the RB to be effective.

See, if you'd said that in the first place there would have been a discussion. Instead you made a thread about how the screen game didn't LOOK good EVEN WHEN IT WORKED. Go back and read what you wrote. So don't run up on me whining about having called you out. Either you made a thread about how plays look being more important than if they work, or you accidentally failed to add the part about how the awkward look had some bearing on actual performance. Either way, you're pretty thin-skinned for a guy who spends so much time giving others ****.

You should be smart enough not to overanalyze every word. You're looking for a gotcha moment or just trying to be a shytbag. Point was very clear to everyone not trying to be a snarky dyck.

The RB screen game looks like ****. Because it looks like **** it's not working as well as it could be working. You're the kind of guy who saw Walton's 80 yard TD run against App Store and assumes it was great blocking and a great call and terrific execution.

You really need to learn to take criticism a little better.

You're right. I'm going to work on taking baseless criticism from anonymous **** stirring dopes on the internet. I'll check in with you in a couple weeks to see if I've gained your approval.

 

[kryptonite]

Your lame attempt at a gotcha moment revealed your lack of understanding of the RB screen game. It's based on deception and timing. When either or both of those elements are off you're not maximizing the potential of the play.

For some reason, we're not running that play as sharply and crisply as a lot of other teams run it.

So while you're patting yourself on the back after Walton broke 50 tackles to make something out of nothing I'm wondering why the plays are breaking down and requiring a super human effort from the RB to be effective.

See, if you'd said that in the first place there would have been a discussion. Instead you made a thread about how the screen game didn't LOOK good EVEN WHEN IT WORKED. Go back and read what you wrote. So don't run up on me whining about having called you out. Either you made a thread about how plays look being more important than if they work, or you accidentally failed to add the part about how the awkward look had some bearing on actual performance. Either way, you're pretty thin-skinned for a guy who spends so much time giving others ****.

You should be smart enough not to overanalyze every word. You're looking for a gotcha moment or just trying to be a shytbag. Point was very clear to everyone not trying to be a snarky dyck.

The RB screen game looks like ****. Because it looks like **** it's not working as well as it could be working. You're the kind of guy who saw Walton's 80 yard TD run against App Store and assumes it was great blocking and a great call and terrific execution.

You really need to learn to take criticism a little better.

You're right. I'm going to work on taking baseless criticism from anonymous **** stirring dopes on the internet. I'll check in with you in a couple weeks to see if I've gained your approval.

Glad to hear you're taking steps, but don't get your hopes up.

 

[Ibis Wingz]

It looks like 'Chise has another internet stalker.