drago Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 That is the proof that the Schotty haters are just blind haters. Hater #1: "Schotty is a moron! We should have run up the gut 4 times! We are a running team! Impose our will! **** them! We'd have scored every time!" Hater #2: "Exactly! Schotty is a moron! Casey Hampton is a beast! We can't run up the middle! On the Steelers! Fire Schotty!" Hater #1: "Exactly! Fire Schotty!" Not sure if you were calling me a schotty hater or not but i'm pretty sure i'm in your camp on this. I don't think he's good...infact i think he's below average in the NFL...There are plenty of other games that have a lot more damning play calls going against schotty than a game where they scored 19 points in a half against a top five defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetbeggar Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 How many TO's did they have at this time, I can't remember? LOL I think I was doing a good job at putting that loss behind me until Cimini had to make news by asking Schotty about it this week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoicsentry Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 I like how he actually thought he could fool them with run up gut on 1st down. Look if you're going to do it, don't waste time trying to fool them. Seriously how did he think that would fool somebody. Then on 2nd down, when 1st down failed with run up gut, why would a play action pass fool them? Uhhh... because you ran it on first down and seemed dedicated to the run? All you're doing is wasting time and making it even easier to shut you down. If your logical reasoning was that you'd fool them on 1st down with something, and then that failed even though you thought they'd be fooled, why would you then try to expect them to overcompensate to stop what you thought was going to fool them the first time the next time by doing the opposite to fool them? They already showed even if they are fooled, like you thought they'd be, they still don't have to worry about it, so they can concentrate on the other thing...that you are going to fool them into. I mean it's so simplistic. If it is simplistic, why did it require the longest run-on sentence in the history of language to explain it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barcs Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Here's what I would have done: 1st: run 2nd: run 3rd: run 4th: ...run. Run Run Run Play action bootleg or Holmes corner shot. They really should have taken the timeout when they had the headset problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.