PonyFans.com

i tried but i can't resist. Whats up with the back to back Hail Mary's on 2nd and 3rd down with our backs to the goalline in a tie game with plenty of time left? I can see trying one, if we had second and short or something, but two of them when we really needed 10 yards and a first down?

"In (I forget how many) years I can't tell you how many 89, 95, 90 yard touchdown passes we've had..." sayeth JJ

A little better throw on either of those and we have 6 more points.

I guess BLM has now passed the chapter test on interceptions

Zero 2 weeks in a row

From my very basic knowledge of the run n shoot, a lot of it is improvisional based on the player's
reads of the defense. BLM, and possibly a few receivers need to read chapters 6, 7, and 8 on
situational awareness before class/practice on Monday.

I agree I thought on the first bomb especially we could have hit it. You got to take your chances in this offense. SMU doesn't win last week without the bomb. Sometimes you win sometimes you lose.

Navy coouldn't keep up with our speed guys so it was a no brainer to go deep-if BLM is accurate there would have been quite a few long tds for us. A couple of times all he had to do was lob the ball down the field and they would have gone for long gains or tds. I'd love to see Smith have a shot out there-

I wish we could see more posts and less straight down the field. The Post is actually easier toss to make.

I an confused with the play calling. Why go back to back with that play. It is not a high percentage rate of completion plus our QB is not very accurate to begin with. We are now pinned deep in our own territory, Navy gets good field position and scores.
"Chuck and Duck" offense is exciting but overall I think it is a crappy style of offense. You do not eat up time on the clock and you wear your usually thin defense down. I hope this fad offense dies soon.

PONY UP!!!!!
Here kitty, kitty. THUMP!!!!!

lwjr wrote:I an confused with the play calling. Why go back to back with that play. It is not a high percentage rate of completion plus our QB is not very accurate to begin with. We are now pinned deep in our own territory, Navy gets good field position and scores.
"Chuck and Duck" offense is exciting but overall I think it is a crappy style of offense. You do not eat up time on the clock and you wear your usually thin defense down. I hope this fad offense dies soon.

PONY UP!!!!!
Here kitty, kitty. THUMP!!!!!

I am sorry to inform you the offensive scheme is not the "Chuck and Duck" as that is a baseball term
the rightful term for this offense is the "Throw and Hope".

on those back to back bombs, the first one was for the pass the second one the wr was just trying to get pass interference from what i could see...

fivemon wrote:on those back to back bombs, the first one was for the pass the second one the wr was just trying to get pass interference from what i could see...

I thought the same thing

ozfan wrote:

lwjr wrote:I an confused with the play calling. Why go back to back with that play. It is not a high percentage rate of completion plus our QB is not very accurate to begin with. We are now pinned deep in our own territory, Navy gets good field position and scores.
"Chuck and Duck" offense is exciting but overall I think it is a crappy style of offense. You do not eat up time on the clock and you wear your usually thin defense down. I hope this fad offense dies soon.

PONY UP!!!!!
Here kitty, kitty. THUMP!!!!!

I am sorry to inform you the offensive scheme is not the "Chuck and Duck" as that is a baseball term
the rightful term for this offense is the "Throw and Hope".

Whatever it is, I am sick of it. A novelty offense at best.