Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="kingottoiii, post: 187357"] -We did not blitz a lot last year (2010). So saying we blitzed more this year (2011) doesn't mean we blitzed a lot. Dumb argument. We were able to get away with it more times last year (2010) because of better coverage. I still don't think we blitzed enough in 2010 either. -Last year (2011) on 3rd down we rarely blitzed. When you rush 3 DLmen every time and don't show or bring any LBs or DBs that isn't a blitz. I am not blind. -Our numbers had to have been skewed by WV and RU were we blitzed nearly every play this year (2011). The year before (2010) RU ran wildcat every play and we went bend but don't break. WV we played a lot of zone coverage and tried to make Smith beat us by making reads. On top of that in 2010 we had three games were we got pounded on the ground and rarely had a 3rd and long situation to even attempt a blitz (UL, UConn, and BC). Plus three games where we didn't need to blitz and didn't even try to (Akron, Colgate, Maine). The UW we were scared to blitz their QB. I will say we did a good job attacking by blitzing USF in 2010. However this year (2011) we didn't blitz USF as much, which was weird based on the success we had in 2010. There are games where we attack attack attack. In those the D plays great. Then there are games where we sit back all game and never get off the field. IMO we need more of the attacking games and less of the sitting back games. Also IMO the first half of 2009 we attacked more often then we have since. After that we saw a lot more of the sitting back, with a few select games here and there with attacking. It seems like we only unleash the D in big games, and try and keep things tight for the others. Which is why IMO the D is either really good or really bad. We have had very few average games on D. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?