GG Roughnecks, kept it close for a Zeta team
Probably best not to rely on the Pass Vs one of my teams again though
GG Roughnecks, kept it close for a Zeta team
Probably best not to rely on the Pass Vs one of my teams again though
Only decent team in Canada... imo.
Why was the game arranged anyway?
I was quite surprised to see that name crop up on the Yetis schedule.
Why was the game arranged anyway?
I was quite surprised to see that name crop up on the Yetis schedule.
Hampe
offline
offline
Yea I dunno.....I was wondering that as well 
.
Good game though. I guess this means that even if we were in Canada, we wouldn't have won the championship last season :'(
.Good game though. I guess this means that even if we were in Canada, we wouldn't have won the championship last season :'(
Would have made the Final though, piss poor league really.
Yetis are a very good team, been with them a long time, and they are solid all over the roster.
You actually did really well against them on defnse, usually a bit better than what we did today, have to look into that.
50% Pass completion for our QB is not the norm.
Yetis are a very good team, been with them a long time, and they are solid all over the roster.
You actually did really well against them on defnse, usually a bit better than what we did today, have to look into that.
50% Pass completion for our QB is not the norm.
coreyls18
offline
offline
our defense is actually pretty damn good this season. Pass defense has definately improved. And i saw the owner post on friendly page, so i said okay ill play So sent a friendly. Those 10 sacks really hurt us...we were able to move the ball easier than i thought on their defense and had alot of yards, but those damn sacks! lol.
So sent a friendly. Those 10 sacks really hurt us...we were able to move the ball easier than i thought on their defense and had alot of yards, but those damn sacks! lol.coreyls18
offline
offline
and i think we should have passed more than we did, was easy to pass on them, very hard to run though.
Well I knew that you wouldnt be able to run on our D.
So going a little more aggressive on defense seemed to be the way to go.
Probably should have had a 4th qtr defense as well, but it was only a friendly.
Originally posted by coreyls18
and i think we should have passed more than we did, was easy to pass on them, very hard to run though.
Missed that as I was replying to your other post.
Nah, more passing would have just lead to more sacks
What was it 25% of passing attempt resulted in a sack???
So going a little more aggressive on defense seemed to be the way to go.
Probably should have had a 4th qtr defense as well, but it was only a friendly.
Originally posted by coreyls18
and i think we should have passed more than we did, was easy to pass on them, very hard to run though.
Missed that as I was replying to your other post.
Nah, more passing would have just lead to more sacks
What was it 25% of passing attempt resulted in a sack???
Last edited Sep 25, 2008 09:21:47
coreyls18
offline
offline
yeah but it also wouldve led to more 15+yard receptions...
Last edited Sep 25, 2008 09:21:24
Oh yeah, with the right personnel 3-4 is truely destructive against the Run, and kinda gets pressure on the pass.
coreyls18
offline
offline
i was going to try it this season because of our new LBs, but the way its already going we are already beastly against the run. So left it alone....for now
Last edited Sep 25, 2008 09:24:27
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
