TURBO IS REVVED UP

[woody]

@"AKT"

Actually you have not been proven correct. The proof will only come when we play a decent defensive team. The fact is that the line was better but so too was Cobb. When he got stuffed he still got positive yardage that he failed to get the first 10 games. If you read the topic you’ll see I was one of the many that disagreed with your view that Cobb was doing his job because frankly he wasn’t

beleive me i’ve read it all.

I guess you missed the part where Danny Mac almost quoted me word for word there too. :roll:

How about this too…viewtopic.php?f=5&t=60629&start=15#p1018275

Were actually not to far apart on our assesments but I really think that Cobb hasn’t changed a whole lot in his attempts. It seems he was quoted saying something like that in the article that heads this thread…“Turbo is reved up”.

Quite frankly arguing about this isn’t worth the time. The coaches and the GM run the team and we can talk all we want about who is doing what. I just enjoy it more when the coaches and GM and particularly Danny Mac. agree with me.

[AKT]

We'll have to agree to disagree Woody. I don't think Cobb will survive the season unless he puts 4 or 5 consecutive games together. He's got one good game one decent game and 9 horrible games this season. In both of the good games he ran aggressively and with purpose in the other 9 he hesitated and failed

[woody]

@"AKT"

We’ll have to agree to disagree Woody. I don’t think Cobb will survive the season unless he puts 4 or 5 consecutive games together. He’s got one good game one decent game and 9 horrible games this season. In both of the good games he ran aggressively and with purpose in the other 9 he hesitated and failed

OK…we will agree to disagree I’ll really disagree on the 9 horrible games. (I will maintain that he did what was asked of him…AND what he could with what bit of an opening he had) Now where is that “toasting beer emoticon”?

[rocky123]

I was quite pleased to see the "O" line opening holes for Cobb against BC's anemic run defense. Anemic though it
may be, I tend to agree with Bellfeuille in that it was a good start.

A much better test for Cobb, the "O" line and Gibson will be against Saskatchewan's run defense.

I'll withhold my comments until then.

[CatsFaninOttawa]

@"rocky123"

I was quite pleased to see the “O” line opening holes for Cobb against BC’s anemic run defense. Anemic though it may be, I tend to agree with Bellfeuille in that it was a good start.

:thup:

@"rocky123"

A much better test for Cobb, the “O” line and Gibson will be against Saskatchewan’s run defense.

:thup:

@"rocky123"

I’ll withhold my comments until then.

:thup:

I really wish all of the Cobb threads, both positive and negative, had just been titled “Running Game”. As pretty much everyone here has agreed, rather vehemently in fact, it’s not just Cobb, it’s not just the O-line, and it’s not just the play-calling.

I’m looking forward to tomorrow’s game, to see if all the pieces of this puzzle can stay together. (And where’s that “fingers crossed” emoticon? :Xm: )

[Pseudo]

Funnily enough, the team refuses to solve any of those issues.

A good start would be actually employing an offensive set that utilizes lead blocking and full backs. Why do we have 2 fullbacks if we never use them.

A good second step would be getting rid of Cobb.

[rocky123]

@"Pseudo"

Funnily enough, the team refuses to solve any of those issues.

A good start would be actually employing an offensive set that utilizes lead blocking and full backs. Why do we have 2 fullbacks if we never use them.

A good second step would be getting rid of Cobb.

I wouldn’t get rid of Cobb just yet. I’m sure that the BC game
was a confidence builder for him. Lets see what he can do against
Saskatchewan and then take one game at a time.

I think the BC game showed that they solved all of the fore mentioned
issues, but for only that one game. I think it prudent to wait and see.