• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Defense

Pretty decent showing. The short field situations put our D in a tough spot but they still played a decent game.
 
A little different than last year in these situations.

What I liked is even if their hard work resulted in our offense going three and out or, gulp, turning it over, they tightened up their chin straps and went out there and did it again.

#unity
 
I don’t believe the defense had one defensive stop in the 1st half. Granted they were put in some bad spots but they needed to keep them out of the end zone. The bend part worked....the break not so much!
 
bigkid said:
I don’t believe the defense had one defensive stop in the 1st half. Granted they were put in some bad spots but they needed to keep them out of the end zone. The bend part worked....the break not so much!
Someone talked about how detrimental the targeting calls were and I agree because they would have been stops otherwise. To get stops and have big penalties happen is disheartening and yes, they were put into short field situations that were backbreakers and created weird momentum for Weber. They didn't quit though! And that's good.
 
I saw a program where a pro team was discussing the need to change tackling techniques because of the ever present targeting rules. Maybe Semore needs to teach his players how to tackle. If you watch closely there are a lot of up around the shoulder pads “riding” going on. All I’m saying is in the red zone in the1st half defensively we did not get it done.
 
I thought the goal line stand was decent. We'll win some of those in the future. Certainly, evolving tackling technique is important not only to the Grizzlies but for the survival of football in general
 
grizcycling said:
bigkid said:
I don’t believe the defense had one defensive stop in the 1st half. Granted they were put in some bad spots but they needed to keep them out of the end zone. The bend part worked....the break not so much!
Someone talked about how detrimental the targeting calls were and I agree because they would have been stops otherwise. To get stops and have big penalties happen is disheartening and yes, they were put into short field situations that were backbreakers and created weird momentum for Weber. They didn't quit though! And that's good.

Unfortunately I was helping coach my daughters soccer team to a third place finish this weekend and didn’t see the game. Can someone give me an update on the 2 targeting calls and Jensen’s head? What happened on those 3 plays?
 
AZDoc said:
grizcycling said:
bigkid said:
I don’t believe the defense had one defensive stop in the 1st half. Granted they were put in some bad spots but they needed to keep them out of the end zone. The bend part worked....the break not so much!
Someone talked about how detrimental the targeting calls were and I agree because they would have been stops otherwise. To get stops and have big penalties happen is disheartening and yes, they were put into short field situations that were backbreakers and created weird momentum for Weber. They didn't quit though! And that's good.

Unfortunately I was helping coach my daughters soccer team to a third place finish this weekend and didn’t see the game. Can someone give me an update on the 2 targeting calls and Jensen’s head? What happened on those 3 plays?
Both legit targeting calls....Jensen hit back of head on turf being tackled
 
A little plug for Dareon Nash. He seemed to play very well. He was in great position on multiple throws his way. For a team that is thin in the D secondary I am thankful for his play.

Buss a stud again!

Whole defense in the second half was not good but great!
 
hold-em said:
I agree. All is not lost. Just got to get back after it this week for NAU. GO GRIZ!!!


D just needs to remember how they played in the second half of this game and carry it into next week
 
Back
Top