![]() |
Re: Are the young bloods on d really better?
Our defense normally makes a bad QB look stellar...
Last night was a different story. They look competitive and the offense controlled the clock |
Re: Are the young bloods on d really better?
All through the game I kept asking myself if we were playing good or if the Bears and Cutler were just that bad. But I kept noticing the hustle by players, chasing down plays, fighting to shed blocks and just winning one on one match ups. That has been missing so much on our defense this year.
I fully agree if we play with that same effort and heart at home versus Atlanta they don't stand a chance. But with how inconsistent we are week to week it is shaky confidence. I really want it to continue though. |
Re: Are the young bloods on d really better?
The young bloods are at least showing signs of fire.
|
Re: Are the young bloods on d really better?
It was a good game for them to start and get some playing time vs an ailing O.
That Fredrick guy was a good one. I love the idea... look if you don't do your job we will put someone else in your spot. |
Re: Are the young bloods on d really better?
We could just play two-high with him and warren leaving kenny to play a hybrid role next year.
|
Re: Are the young bloods on d really better?
Kasim edebali has the hustle that junior doesnt have
|
Re: Are the young bloods on d really better?
Quote:
Loved the idea of trying out Humber as OLB. Trying something finally, at least. Our secondary had 3 starters who weren't even on the team 3 weeks or so ago? |
Re: Are the young bloods on d really better?
Quote:
|
Re: Are the young bloods on d really better?
Quote:
Didn't the vikes sign him off our practice squad? |
Re: Are the young bloods on d really better?
Quote:
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:26 AM. |
Copyright 1997 - 2020 - BlackandGold.com