Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

Come on people...it's a crying shame what has happened to this guy this year. He explodes and does positive things nearly every time he touches the ball. I'm not saying any more. If it is not painfully obvious that he is needed for 4 quarters on this team then I don't know what is. He has been brutally misused this year. That is all I am going to say. He gained all of 85 of his yards tonight when Miami knew we were going to run the ball. Sickening.

I was starting to wonder when the obligatory cowboyjoe/Chris Bullock thread was going to come out.

Hard to argue with you on this night though, Bullock was spectacular in the 2nd half. I still think he has some trouble holding on to the football, but when he's going good he really punishes teams in the late part of games.

Honestly, I blame the O-Line for Bullock not getting more plays. If they could run block better, Bullock could get more carries running between the tackles. Those plays just aren't effective for the most part, unfortunately, especially early in games.

A breakout game against a team that doesn't play defense is not a gross misuse. I agree we abandoned the run way to early this year, but we have been playing to our strength. (Freddy Barnes)

Bullock's tendency to put the ball on the turf makes it tough cuz he can be a punishing back. He had a very good game tonight and it was great seeing him get into the end zone.

GO BG

just out of curiousity when is the last fumble he had? I remember he had fumble troubles his sophomore year but he hasn't really touched the ball enough in the last two years to see if he got over that. I HATE to say this, but I have to agree with cowboyjoe if we used Bullock as our main back this year we would have more rushing yards. Our O-line just can't open holes for Geter. Bullock can run people over. Then again...I will be the first to admit I know nothing about football strategy really and fully support Clawson so far so I'm sure he is making the right decision.

I found cowboyjoe's argument to be lost amongst the inconsistencies of his prose.

cowboyjoe wrote:I'm not saying any more.

cowboyjoe wrote:That is all I am going to say.

Joe, in all actuality, you proceeded to say more after both of these statements.

As for Bullock, I think Geter's ability to make plays in the open field and the fact that his skill set is generally well-suited for the offense have been factors in Bullock's role on the team. He also has been known to put the ball on the ground from time to time, but I'm guessing the logic is that we may as well go with the back that has the best chance to make plays when he is hanging on to the ball.

I'm a Chris Bullock fan. I've stated this. But I've also stated why I think he is not getting playing time. Last night he ran the ball nicely ahead, downhill. If you want to know why he doesn't come in until later in the game to wear down the other team's D look no further than the play where he had to stretch it out to the sideline and could not turn the corner.

Dayons_Den wrote:look no further than the play where he had to stretch it out to the sideline and could not turn the corner.

True, but when he got stuffed, he *did* cut it back and fall in bounds to keep the clock moving. There's one lesson learned.

Bullock's success last night (and in other games) is a result of the coaches using him in the right situations. They see this guy in practice all week long and we have to trust that they are making the best decisions to help the team win. To think otherwise is just lunacy.

Redwingtom wrote: To think otherwise is just lunacy.

That right there is Joe's specialty.

Redwingtom wrote:Bullock's success last night (and in other games) is a result of the coaches using him in the right situations. They see this guy in practice all week long and we have to trust that they are making the best decisions to help the team win. To think otherwise is just lunacy.

Exactly...one of the biggest mistakes you can make in sports in to assume that a guy who does well in specific situations tailored to his skills will duplicate those results if he plays full time.

I'm looking at you, Marcus Thames...

drumstix2388 wrote: I HATE to say this, but I have to agree with cowboyjoe ... Then again...I will be the first to admit I know nothing about football strategy really and fully support Clawson.

Then you don't agree with CBJ. He can't admit he knows nothing about football strategy and he doesn't support Clawson

--MH

In Coach Clawson's press conference after the game last night, he said that Chris Bullock only recently performed well in practice, so that may be one reason he hasn't been playing that much. Let's hope he continues to practice well and contribute like he did last night in the next two games.

And to Cowboy...please don't think that any of us do not like Chris. I think we all see that the guy has a world of talent and has the potential to be a monster back. And we all would like nothing more than that to be the case for these last two, three or four games!

Mayo67 wrote:In Coach Clawson's press conference after the game last night, he said that Chris Bullock only recently performed well in practice, so that may be one reason he hasn't been playing that much. Let's hope he continues to practice well and contribute like he did last night in the next two games.

You beat me to it...I too, listened to Clawson's postgame comments... If YOU were a coach, and a kid didn't practice well (for whatever reason), how much PT would you give him? As a former HS coach, I can tell you that I didn't play kids in games who didn't "put out" much effort in practice...even had to deal with an irate mom who came to see me before practice one day, complaining that her SOPH. son wasn't getting PT... when I asked her WHY her FR.son WAS getting all the PT, she simply said, "the older son takes after my husband"!