Chuck Long

[WinOneThisCentury]

Loved him as a player, as an announcer, not so much. I think he's over compensating for being in ring of glory...with what he thinks are objective comments. Cotton is held and molested on the slant and he states it was good defense on NIUs part. On the 3rd and one, he loves the call by Greg Davis, then never questions why Iowa wouldn't go for it on 4th and one with such a large size advantage on the offensive line. He was the offensive coordinator on a NC team right?...that's all you got?

On one hand he tries to be objective, on the other hand, he refuses to question why a team with a size advantage is consistently throwing on 3rd and short. Never once, "hey, this is two down territory here".

At this juncture, not a fan...maybe he will grow on me.

 

[hwk23]

I like Chuck Long as an announcer. It's not a big deal to me if I don't always agree with his comments although most of the time I do.

I'm not sure why everybody thinks it's a good play to go for it on 4th down in our own territory with the lead. We made a mistake on 3rd down so no point in compounding the error. I would prefer to run on 3rd down and keep running it into the endzone. Incidentally, those are the run plays that often break for big plays.

 

[Hawknick]

He was wrong Cotton got muged on that play long before the ball got ther. It should have been called.

 

[WinOneThisCentury]

I like Chuck Long as an announcer. It's not a big deal to me if I don't always agree with his comments although most of the time I do.

I'm not sure why everybody thinks it's a good play to go for it on 4th down in our own territory with the lead. We made a mistake on 3rd down so no point in compounding the error. I would prefer to run on 3rd down and keep running it into the endzone. Incidentally, those are the run plays that often break for big plays.

The point was, if you go for the bomb on third and one and risk killing your drive, you shouldn't make that decision unless you have made up your mind you will also risk going for it on fourth and one. If you have the confidence to take the chance on 3rd and one, you have to have the confidence to run it on fourth and one. That's the conventional wisdom with the third down decision we made. Instead, we chickened out and someone like Chuck Long (NC offensive coordinator) should have called Iowa out for it.

I'd like him to be less politically correct and speak his mind regardless if it may come out as homerish.

 

[deanvogs]

The point was, if you go for the bomb on third and one and risk killing your drive, you shouldn't make that decision unless you have made up your mind you will also risk going for it on fourth and one. If you have the confidence to take the chance on 3rd and one, you have to have the confidence to run it on fourth and one. That's the conventional wisdom with the third down decision we made. Instead, we chickened out and someone like Chuck Long (NC offensive coordinator) should have called Iowa out for it.

I'd like him to be less politically correct and speak his mind regardless if it may come out as homerish.

Or you think to yourself it is a perfect time to go for the kill. Don't convert, and you pin them deep. No harm, no foul in that you didn't give them a short field for a good chance to score.

As I have said I personally would have run it. Punishing a D by running it down their throat can be every bit as demoralizing at going over the top for a big play.

 

[PJHawk]

...for it on 4th down in our own territory with the lead. We made a mistake on 3rd down so no point in compounding the error. I would prefer to run on 3rd down and keep running it into the endzone. Incidentally, those are the run plays that often break for big plays.

The whole sentiment of this ^ post smacks of cowardice brand of football.

 

[WinOneThisCentury]

Or you think to yourself it is a perfect time to go for the kill. Don't convert, and you pin them deep. No harm, no foul in that you didn't give them a short field for a good chance to score.

As I have said I personally would have run it. Punishing a D by running it down their throat can be every bit as demoralizing at going over the top for a big play.

I think when you look at what was happening at the time of that play, the deep ball was just too much risk. We hadn't converted two other third and shorts in the second half...one due to the procedure penalty and the other to Shumpert not turning his head or Rudock throwing too soon...not sure which. We needed a first down to allow our offensive line to get in a groove again and keep Lynch off the field. It just wasn't the time for that play...how about getting the first down and then working something deep on first down. In the scheme of what had already taken place, it was just too risky and we just gave the ball back to Lynch. Your offensive line can't wear anyone down if we aren't running plays...that was the issue with the second half. I would have run the ball in every one of those third and shorts and I would have kept pounding the ball into their 7-8 man front...and using play action off that. NIU adjusted to 7-8 man fronts in the second half, but the inside zone running game was still there. We were much stronger in the middle than they were.

 

[deanvogs]

I think when you look at what was happening at the time of that play, the deep ball was just too much risk. We hadn't converted two other third and shorts in the second half...one due to the procedure penalty and the other to Shumpert not turning his head or Rudock throwing too soon...not sure which. We needed a first down to allow our offensive line to get in a groove again and keep Lynch off the field. It just wasn't the time for that play...how about getting the first down and then working something deep on first down. In the scheme of what had already taken place, it was just too risky and we just gave the ball back to Lynch. Your offensive line can't wear anyone down if we aren't running plays...that was the issue with the second half. I would have run the ball in every one of those third and shorts and I would have kept pounding the ball into their 7-8 man front...and using play action off that. NIU adjusted to 7-8 man fronts in the second half, but the inside zone running game was still there. We were much stronger in the middle than they were.

Like I said, I personally wouldn't have made that call, so I'm not disputing your logic. I'm just saying that this kind of aggressive play calling could put teams away, instead of letting them hang around and hang around. It isn't like the game is lost if you don't complete that pass.....but you sure might get the kill shot if you complete it.

 

[hwk23]

The whole sentiment of this ^ post smacks of cowardice brand of football.

Please, passing the ball on 3rd and 1 is for cowards. It doesn't matter what the defense is expecting when you have the better team.

 

[Eda]

I think when you look at what was happening at the time of that play, the deep ball was just too much risk. We hadn't converted two other third and shorts in the second half...one due to the procedure penalty and the other to Shumpert not turning his head or Rudock throwing too soon...not sure which. We needed a first down to allow our offensive line to get in a groove again and keep Lynch off the field. It just wasn't the time for that play...how about getting the first down and then working something deep on first down. In the scheme of what had already taken place, it was just too risky and we just gave the ball back to Lynch. Your offensive line can't wear anyone down if we aren't running plays...that was the issue with the second half. I would have run the ball in every one of those third and shorts and I would have kept pounding the ball into their 7-8 man front...and using play action off that. NIU adjusted to 7-8 man fronts in the second half, but the inside zone running game was still there. We were much stronger in the middle than they were.

I don't disagree with you often, but this time I do. On 3rd and 1 NIU put 10 guys in the box. You're not guaranteed a first down on that play. I also don't think you need to go for it on 4th down. There's still a lot of time left in the game. We still had the lead. Didn't we pin them deep with the punt? I liked the pass call.

 

[WinOneThisCentury]

The difference in the first half was that we ran plays against their defense and completely wore them down. In the second half, we were 1 for 6 on third down...or something like that. In my opinion, we were 1 of 6 because we got away from what we were doing in the first half. I don't think they had 10 in the box on that play...but I'm sure they had 8. I would understand if we were having issues with penetration and weren't controlling the line of scrimmage, but that wasn't the case. I think when a first down is critical, that third down and one becomes two down territory. You have to have confidence in your OL and their execution to get one yard in that situation. I think they earned that opportunity.

 

[FBletterman]

Loved him as a player, as an announcer, not so much. I think he's over compensating for being in ring of glory...with what he thinks are objective comments. Cotton is held and molested on the slant and he states it was good defense on NIUs part. On the 3rd and one, he loves the call by Greg Davis, then never questions why Iowa wouldn't go for it on 4th and one with such a large size advantage on the offensive line. He was the offensive coordinator on a NC team right?...that's all you got?

On one hand he tries to be objective, on the other hand, he refuses to question why a team with a size advantage is consistently throwing on 3rd and short. Never once, "hey, this is two down territory here".

At this juncture, not a fan...maybe he will grow on me.

I think Chuck started slowly but really picked up his game in the second half. By the end he really seemed to get comfortable.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

Chuck is new to the booth. I'm not going to berate the job he did. I'm just one guy. Disagreeing with his view of the game at times is no different then disagreeing with the refs. They have to try and walk the fine line of homerism and to what degree they want to say what. There's no way guys in that spot can make everyone happy. Be consistent and honest is all I want. Call a spade a spade. The lack of a flag on PI that's not a good take by him not sure why he thinks that way after seeing the replays of that. Him saying he liked the 3rd and 1 call is ok I guess. He was an aggressive play caller I believe too. But he not thinking or suggesting that they should go for it on 4th after that is tricky. I think they should have and most seem to think they should have. Although there are some that were ok with punting it deep there. It wasn't too late in the game at that point. But from an analysts shoes on game day it's pretty tough for a fellow play caller to go criticizing another especially at his old school unless it's just a drop dead no brainer. This was prolly a 75%-25% deal. As much as I'd like to say they should have went for it even I wouldn't say it was a no brainer.

 

[Eda]

The difference in the first half was that we ran plays against their defense and completely wore them down. In the second half, we were 1 for 6 on third down...or something like that. In my opinion, we were 1 of 6 because we got away from what we were doing in the first half. I don't think they had 10 in the box on that play...but I'm sure they had 8. I would understand if we were having issues with penetration and weren't controlling the line of scrimmage, but that wasn't the case. I think when a first down is critical, that third down and one becomes two down territory. You have to have confidence in your OL and their execution to get one yard in that situation. I think they earned that opportunity.

Watch it again. They had er'ybody in the box with just Powell and a CB split out. Likely what led to Powell smoking him and the safety. That and Powell is way fast.