No Win Situation ?

[P@ck66]

Bates was/is a hell of a motivator though...that's my point....

YOu can't teach that...

 

[pyledriver80]

True but these guys are pro's. If they can't find motivation on their own they should probably join Cletidus Hunt in the unemployment line.

 

[tromadz]

and Sanders isnt a ***** himself

 

[bozz_2006]

i think mccarthy intends on using the two TE setups quite a bit doesn't he? i think he said that. but my question is, what will their roles be in the new (old) west coast offense and the zone blocking? are they mostly going to be in on runs and do hold and release on play actions? with the line moving as a unit covering areas, not individuals, this strategy should work well for that type of play action off of 2 TE sets, right?

 

[tromadz]

i didnt see MM say that, i normally remember the things they say that excite me, and THAT would excite me!

I like our TEs(Franks and Lee) a lot. They werent used for much last year, except when needed cuz of WR injuries.

I know favres faith in Lee went up a LOT, and he always loves franks, especially near the goal line, babay!

 

[bozz_2006]

i hope we can at least get rid of that ******* U-71 formation. what the **** is that? barry might as well have worn a neon sign on top of his helmet that flashed "HEY, WE'RE GONNA RUN HERE"

 

[tromadz]

yeah, i remember the announcers said one time if it was u-71 with an I formation, it was a toss....and they were right.

if the announcers know it easilly, opposing defenses did too.

 

[bozz_2006]

my mom correctly called a few U-71 tosses last season, according to my dad, that is.

 

[SuperRat]

The thing is, even though the defenses knew it was coming they generally couldn't stop it, until last year I suppose. I did see them fake the toss in that formation and pass instead a couple times. I do like that it won't be used now though.

 

[route25]

Jags has already pretty much said the U-71 will be scrapped. When asked if Kevin Barry would be lining up at times in the TE position, Jags said "Not unless he can catch."

Madden pointed out last year in the Monday Night game against Carolina that when Barry came in to the game, Carolina would bring in a 5th defensive lineman. They could do that because Sherman always used it as a running formation. If the Packers had occasionally thrown out of the formation, it could have been pretty interesting.

 

[jdlax]

i hope we can at least get rid of that ******* U-71 formation. what the **** is that? barry might as well have worn a neon sign on top of his helmet that flashed "HEY, WE'RE GONNA RUN HERE"

Was it not one of the most beautiful things you had ever seen, though, when Barry would come into the game with the neon "HEY, WE'RE GONNA RUN HERE!" sign, the Packers run to that side, and still grind out 5-6 yards? It was only a few years ago, but it seems so long ago now.

 

[bozz_2006]

well, sherman is gone, so is U-71. that whole "we have 15 different plays, and i don't care if they know what's coming, because we will do it so well that they won't be able to stop it" coaching mentality is wholly inneffective.

 

[tromadz]

word.

lets hope the new boys have some formations and stuff that are better.

theyre supposedly "creative" so...lets hope thats true.

 

[DePack]

I'm not going to mention names, because he seems to have a hardon for me but did everyone just miss the fact that our favorite fan club leader (oops) just tried to take one of Favre's MVP's away from him? Fluke? What was that about? I'm sure he'll get all pissy and deny that's what he was saying but to diminish this accomplishment just shows how some of you really feel about Brett. Amazing.

 

[bozz_2006]

I'm not going to mention names, because he seems to have a hardon for me but did everyone just miss the fact that our favorite fan club leader (oops) just tried to take one of Favre's MVP's away from him? Fluke? What was that about? I'm sure he'll get all pissy and deny that's what he was saying but to diminish this accomplishment just shows how some of you really feel about Brett. Amazing.

what are you talking about?