Coleman Is A Man Child

[OrangePA]

He is a very imposing WR- a big guy.

 

[C Bomb]

He is a very imposing WR- a big guy.

F' em. Think how much better he'd have been with Cuse and Rob Moore as his position coach.

 

[upperdeck]

really nice body for a pro rcvr.. has no skills other than running by or over people. could be a moss type just go deep and get it 1-2 times a game

 

[orangenauburn]

Brandon Coleman 37 563 15.2 43 (TD)
9

 

[orangenauburn]

really average numbers for a #1 receiver of that size and speed

 

[Faegan]

Sometimes you're too objective for my partisan football ways!

 

[Chip]

That guy has NFL written all over him. Sooner than later.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[cuseguy]

He is a very imposing WR- a big guy.

It's against policy here to say something positive about an opponent, especially Rutgers.

 

[Cadillac]

Physically, the second coming of James Hardy.

He'll catch a lot of TDs on a basement B1G team as well. Ba-zing.

 

[orangejunkie]

Not the first big receiver they have had. How about Sanu, he was a beast who is playing in the NFL now. I'm still waiting for SU to land that kind of receiver.

 

[RMH44]

He is a very imposing WR- a big guy.

He's their best player on the offensive side of the ball. Too bad they don't have the QB to get him the ball more often.

BTW, how about that big, fast, physical DL you rave about? They average 255 across the front! I know, I know, they dominated us on both sides of the ball along the line of scrimmage. :bang:

 

[OrangePA]

He's their best player on the offensive side of the ball. Too bad they don't have the QB to get him the ball more often.

BTW, how about that big, fast, physical DL you rave about? They average 255 across the front! I know, I know, they dominated us on both sides of the ball along the line of scrimmage. :bang:

Actually I didn't specifically characterize the DL.

I was referring to the entire roster, including guys like Coleman and the TE- don't recall the name.

EDIT - The TE Jefferson is 6' 5" and 250 pounds; the WR, No. 81 - Harrison is 6' 3" and 230 pounds; the WR No. 5 - Wright is 6' 4" and 220 pounds. They just have a lot of big, fast athletic guys.

But since you brought up the DL lets review again - we were forced into three sacks, 62 yards rushing, four fumbles with two lost, two INTs and a blocked FG.

Yeah, we dominated the Rutgers DL.

We never touched Nova - we had no INTs. We didn't have a fumble recovery and allowed Rutgers to basically sit on the 23-7 lead it had with 14 minutes to go in the 4th quarter - Rutgers had the ball for over ten minutes in the 4th quarter.

I suspect that you weren't there that day.

Watch the video again- maybe you'll stop pounding your head- that might help you.

 

[orangenauburn]

Actually I didn't specifically characterize the DL.

I was referring to the entire roster including guys like Coleman and the TE- don't recall the name.

But since you brought up the DL lets review again - we were forced into three sacks, 62 yards rushing, four fumbles with two lost, two INTs and a blocked FG.

Yeah, we dominated the Rutgers DL.

Watch the video again- you'll figure it out.

Greene dominates games

He is their Dwight Freeney

LB's cover a lot of weakness on their DL

 

[rrlbees]

Actually I didn't specifically characterize the DL.

I was referring to the entire roster including guys like Coleman and the TE- don't recall the name.

But since you brought up the DL lets review again - we were forced into three sacks, 62 yards rushing, four fumbles with two lost, two INTs and a blocked FG.

Yeah, we dominated the Rutgers DL.

Watch the video again- you'll figure it out.

Since you brought this back up. You never did reply to a single fact I presented to you in the other thread.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[OrangePA]

Since you brought this back up. You never did reply to a single fact I presented to you in the other thread.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

I don't recall.

Give me the facts again.

 

[IHeartSUFball]

Not the first big receiver they have had. How about Sanu, he was a beast who is playing in the NFL now. I'm still waiting for SU to land that kind of receiver.

he goes by the name Quinta Funderbuke!!!!! WOOOOOOO

 

[OrangePA]

It's against policy here to say something positive about an opponent, especially Rutgers.

I know.

Many on this board go bonkers when I say something positive about Rutgers - I find it very interesting.

 

[orangepassion]

Not the first big receiver they have had. How about Sanu, he was a beast who is playing in the NFL now. I'm still waiting for SU to land that kind of receiver.

Mike Williams

 

[rrlbees]

I know.

Many on this board go bonkers when I say something positive about Rutgers - I find it very interesting.

Not when you say something positive but when you refute facts with opinion.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[OrangePA]

Not when you say something positive but when you refute facts with opinion.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Facts?

Lets hear them!

 

[Noexcuse]

Facts?

Lets hear them!

Well, here's one. Rutgers lost their golden opportunity to play in a BCS Bowl. All that dominating talent too. What a shame.

 

[GoSU96]

He is a very imposing WR- a big guy.

A whole lot of less with more with the Rutgers offense. The type of offense they play is by design. Yep if you were choosing sides by the look test you would pick Rutgers skill guys over SU's 10 out of 10.

But who had the better offense? And at the end of the day who are better football players? Better design, better coaching, better production, Syracuse.

BTW SU has a much better OL.

Rutgers designed it whole game plan, offense and defense integrated together, around it's LB unit, which are beasts, and winning the TO battle. When the TO thing doesn't happen, they have no counter. They have been self limiting all year, and the second half of the year opponents adjusted.

 

[GoSU96]

I know.

Many on this board go bonkers when I say something positive about Rutgers - I find it very interesting.

Every team has some good players. It's nothing all that special.

 

[upperdeck]

i agree rutgers is more phyiscal on many parts of the D side of the ball. better athletes.. even the WR are way more physical.. but guys like coleman all they do is run slants and go's and hope they outrun people, they drop too many passes and they dont adjust to coverage or run routes very well.. most of what they do wont work on the pros unless they learn to do the other things.

 

[OrangePA]

A whole lot of less with more with the Rutgers offense. The type of offense they play is by design. Yep if you were choosing sides by the look test you would pick Rutgers skill guys over SU's 10 out of 10.

But who had the better offense? And at the end of the day who are better football players? Better design, better coaching, better production, Syracuse.

BTW SU has a much better OL.

Rutgers designed it whole game plan, offense and defense integrated together, around it's LB unit, which are beasts, and winning the TO battle. When the TO thing doesn't happen, they have no counter. They have been self limiting all year, and the second half of the year opponents adjusted.

I can't really argue with you.

I admit that I don't know the Xs and the Os all that well - I do not see a lot of the subtleties that some on this board claim to see.

But, it is obvious to me that the Rutgers coaches - on the offense - play things very close to the vest. So, yes, I agree - they have been "self-limiting" this year - that has the ring of truth for me.

With respect to the Syracuse game this year, that was a point I repeatedly made - that Rutgers allowed us to stay closer - by score at least - by taking no chances on the offensive side of the ball.

Player for player - when you see these guys up close - and you see their size, their speed, the way they hit - they have superior athletes. And they had control of the game early into the second half.

And that was very obvious to me during the game at Piscataway this fall.