Re: The positive from the Montana game
Originally Posted by
silkamilkamonico
Our offense was so good I thought when Carson was healthy. He looked like a man among boys. Running the offense, great arm, rushing with the ball - our offense looked so bad I thought when he went down. I don't believe we scored a point the rest of the way after his ankle went down. What was our offensive production when he hurt his ankle?
So here's a question - is Carson the only thing we have going for our offense? Or was our scheme against Montana so Carson heavy that when he rolled his ankle we had absolutely nothing else? Is it hard to make adjustments throughout the game if you lose the strengths of one of your players?
CW got hurt on the last play of the 3rd quarter. We did not score a point in the 3rd quarter. So, O production after he was hurt was actually better than before he was hurt.
CW also over-threw two wide open WR in this game that would have been TD's and also was responsible for losing at least one fumble, and involved in another. He has a lot of work to do IMO.
As for the KO returns, well, MT did a horse shit job kicking off, as most KOs were at or inside (meaning toward the middle) of the field. KOs either need to go out of or deep into the endzone, or deep left or right if not in the endzone as described. A KO to deep middle that is not deep in the endzone should result in a very good return.
Bisonville: Making football coaches out of arm-chair-QB's and jock sniffers for years!
Today's CAS GASF = ZERO
RELUCTANT MEMBER of the TOHBTC
And, don’t believe everything you think—jussayin’.
Liberals of BV need not respond to my posts. I don’t need to get any more dumb.