|
Post by Bouncer_Texxx on Mar 19, 2009 23:03:11 GMT -5
And if I or anyone had to snap them block Johnsen in the 4th quarter, the snaps would be just as bad. Murphy and Johnsen have 8 sacks between them in 2 games.. and Crabel should be here for the home opener. It could be a LONG year for opposing O-Linemen
|
|
|
Post by Caballo Diablo on Mar 20, 2009 12:54:25 GMT -5
[Sioux Falls had three losses last year I believe, after previously having two unbeaten seasons, so 47 out of 48 is not correct. As far as the end of the game, Rochester hasn't been down much over the past few seasons so they were in unfamiliar territory...and it showed. Their schedule gets a lot easier after this though. I thought it was a great game, a great defensive battle, and close up until the final few minutes. Sioux Falls defense was outstanding, they'd make any team look ordinary. If you want higher scores, AF2 will provide that since they don't play much defense. The AIFA and SIFL are very similar to the arena game as well, but without the nets, so they'll also be high scoring. The IFL and CIFL rules are just like the outdoor game and can have great defensive teams, so you will get some low scoring games (which I prefer...I'll take a hard hitting well fought game any day). 47 out of 48 is what the announcer said, I was mistaken that he would know. A stout defense won't help if your offense is inept. The QB locked in on one WR all night. Not having a play ready after a kickoff, especially near the end of the game when you need twp scores is the coaches fault. I have no problem with a defensive game, but it's tough to win if all 3 aspects of your team can't perform. (offense, defense, special teams) As you all know I am new to the "INDOOR" game, but all I kept reading was how special Rochester was and their owner berating fans on the MB and screaming how great he and his team was. Maybe I just expected too much from them, maybe they just weren't prepared with cohesion of the new players, maybe they've got the wrong QB under center. Which can't be the case because Raidermac has told us several times he the greatest talent evaluator to ever be associated with the game of football, including the NFL. From what everyone has been saying they are much better than they showed lastnight. Maybe so, only time will tell but they looked awful mediocre lastnight. You say they played great D on one hand but in the same breath that the "INDOOR" game is a lower scoring one. So how does giving up 31 points constitute a great night of D from supposedly one of the greatest franchises ever?
|
|
|
Post by Caballo Diablo on Mar 20, 2009 13:07:04 GMT -5
And if I or anyone had to snap them block Johnsen in the 4th quarter, the snaps would be just as bad. Murphy and Johnsen have 8 sacks between them in 2 games.. and Crabel should be here for the home opener. It could be a LONG year for opposing O-Linemen If you or I was snapping yeah, but once again Raidermac has told us he the greatest talent evaluator ever. It doesn't matter the name of the guy that lines up against a great player they are still expected to do their job. Guys had to line up against the likes of Lawrence Taylor, DeMarcus ware, etc with no excuses just because they were very good. Those two snaps definitely cost the raiders the oportunity to even attempt a come back. The centers first job is to get the QB the ball, the second job is who is lined up against him. Getting the QB the ball and letting his guy get past at least gives the QB a chance for a quick dump off or scramble. I keep hearing how the IFL is the best talent on a 50 yard field, Raidermac trys to tell us his players are better than anyone in the AFL and better than some NFLers. If he wants to throw out those types of statements he needs to back it up on the field each and every game. For game one, they didn't impress me. Game two might be a total different story, like Y'all keep saying, their schedule only gets weaker from here.
|
|
|
Post by Doom on Mar 20, 2009 13:19:38 GMT -5
I think quite a few people including myself expected the storm to go in and win, the center/qb exchange can be frustrating, ask us bandits fans after last week, eek, the 8 man game is completely different, and honestly it was un-characteristic of the storm to drop that many passes, if they didn't the game wouldn't have been that close.
|
|
|
Post by Bouncer_Texxx on Mar 20, 2009 14:35:51 GMT -5
let's also not forget, a short week and a long (by indoor league standards) road trip.
I agree with Doom... as weird as that is that the only people that reallt throught Rochester would win cheer for Rochester. You should have chosen the Bloomington/Sioux Falls game to get your feet wet. the level of play was much higher.
Take a gander at the Omaha @ Sioux Falls game next weekend... that should be a good game.
|
|
|
Post by stormreport on Mar 20, 2009 14:38:02 GMT -5
A lot of teams have come in from other leagues the last couple of years and talked about how good they are. While none were quite up to the challenge, IMO, Rochester was the least impressive of any of these teams.
Talent isn't always the most important aspect to this game. The Storm are not always the most athletic or most talented team on the field, but over the last several years they have almost always been the best coached and best prepared team.
The Storm are also playing with a ton of new guys this year. They are going to get a lot better as the season progresses.
|
|
|
Post by Bouncer_Texxx on Mar 20, 2009 14:39:40 GMT -5
agreed Stormreport..
The Storm are rarely the most talented, but always the best TEAM...
|
|
|
Post by Caballo Diablo on Mar 20, 2009 16:16:36 GMT -5
You should have chosen the Bloomington/Sioux Falls game to get your feet wet. the level of play was much higher. That's the type of game I expected.
|
|
|
Post by Banana Cat on Mar 20, 2009 17:24:18 GMT -5
[Sioux Falls had three losses last year I believe, after previously having two unbeaten seasons, so 47 out of 48 is not correct. As far as the end of the game, Rochester hasn't been down much over the past few seasons so they were in unfamiliar territory...and it showed. Their schedule gets a lot easier after this though. I thought it was a great game, a great defensive battle, and close up until the final few minutes. Sioux Falls defense was outstanding, they'd make any team look ordinary. If you want higher scores, AF2 will provide that since they don't play much defense. The AIFA and SIFL are very similar to the arena game as well, but without the nets, so they'll also be high scoring. The IFL and CIFL rules are just like the outdoor game and can have great defensive teams, so you will get some low scoring games (which I prefer...I'll take a hard hitting well fought game any day). 47 out of 48 is what the announcer said, I was mistaken that he would know. A stout defense won't help if your offense is inept. The QB locked in on one WR all night. Not having a play ready after a kickoff, especially near the end of the game when you need twp scores is the coaches fault. I have no problem with a defensive game, but it's tough to win if all 3 aspects of your team can't perform. (offense, defense, special teams) As you all know I am new to the "INDOOR" game, but all I kept reading was how special Rochester was and their owner berating fans on the MB and screaming how great he and his team was. Maybe I just expected too much from them, maybe they just weren't prepared with cohesion of the new players, maybe they've got the wrong QB under center. Which can't be the case because Raidermac has told us several times he the greatest talent evaluator to ever be associated with the game of football, including the NFL. From what everyone has been saying they are much better than they showed lastnight. Maybe so, only time will tell but they looked awful mediocre lastnight. You say they played great D on one hand but in the same breath that the "INDOOR" game is a lower scoring one. So how does giving up 31 points constitute a great night of D from supposedly one of the greatest franchises ever? If the announcer said it, then he was wrong. The Raiders played in a different league (the CIFL) the last few years, so they thought they were great because they ran over weaker competition. Things have changed, as they just found out the hard way. Don't expect the Raider owners to cut down on the smack though, it seems that's the way they are, but it's also easy to see what they truly are. I thought the Raiders defense played well, but their offense didn't help them out, thus the 31 points against.
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Mar 21, 2009 8:38:11 GMT -5
agreed Stormreport.. The Storm are rarely the most talented, but always the best TEAM... That was what made the Raiders so great in the CIFL with their past rosters - they had the talent, and were a great *team*. They weren't a team on Thursday.
|
|