Outback Bowl play calling

MikeyLikesIowa

MikeyLikesIowa

Well-Known Member
Aside from the last drive of the first half, I was satisfied with what I saw. I just wanted to see what everyone else thought.

Also, did anyone else notice that we went the whole game without using any timeouts?
 
The general theory about negating a great pursuing defensive lineman is to many times run right at them. I didnt like our slow blocking design against was it Simmons, etc where you pull a Off lineman across from these guys and expect the tackle or another Off lineman to get a reach block on these guys. They are too fast and too good. When we tried to move sideways to block the zone scheme their D line was pushing us back 1-2 yards in the backfield. We could benefit from better and more straight ahead power blocking to knock the snot out of the defense.

I would have to look at the first half running attack but I would like to see more straight ahead power isolation blocking with Sargent and more of Toren Young against stout run defenses. You might have to bring in the fullback more often to add a power blocker but that is ok because then you also run the playaction and throw it to the fullback to keep the defense guessing. We do this pretty well at times.

And I know it is not KF but more counter jet sweep action with ISM etc and make a concerted effort to hand them the ball to try and get some decent counter runs would help.
 
Did we pass on a first down for the first three quarters, or was it always off-tackle to the left and right?
 
MikeyLikesIowa said:
Aside from the last drive of the first half, I was satisfied with what I saw. I just wanted to see what everyone else thought.

Also, did anyone else notice that we went the whole game without using any timeouts?
Click to expand...
When your o-line is as overmatched as ours was, there ain't much you can do and I thought they made the most of it. There weren't too many situations where I thought to myself they needed to do something different because (a) we couldn't run and (b) we couldn't throw it much more than 10 yards down field most of the time because every time Nate dropped back, Simmons was ready to paste him. Not a lot left in the playbook when that shit happens.
 
uihawk82 said:
The general theory about negating a great pursuing defensive lineman is to many times run right at them. I didnt like our slow blocking design against was it Simmons, etc where you pull a Off lineman across from these guys and expect the tackle or another Off lineman to get a reach block on these guys. They are too fast and too good. When we tried to move sideways to block the zone scheme their D line was pushing us back 1-2 yards in the backfield. We could benefit from better and more straight ahead power blocking to knock the snot out of the defense.

I would have to look at the first half running attack but I would like to see more straight ahead power isolation blocking with Sargent and more of Toren Young against stout run defenses. You might have to bring in the fullback more often to add a power blocker but that is ok because then you also run the playaction and throw it to the fullback to keep the defense guessing. We do this pretty well at times.

And I know it is not KF but more counter jet sweep action with ISM etc and make a concerted effort to hand them the ball to try and get some decent counter runs would help.
Click to expand...

Jesus man that book doesn't exist in the Ferentz football library. You know the one that still uses a card catalog and has that little "Date Due" sticker pasted to the inside cover.

The few books that are on the shelves have inches of dust on them and the librarian has been asleep with her head on the desk since the Reagan administration with her upper plate sitting next to her fermented glass of prune juice and she
looks like your deceased Aunt Gertrude.
 
Idk, I'm not going to analyze it in detail, but when I see the other teams lb's not putting in their mouth guards until the play clock gets down around 15 seconds, I would feel the need to hurry up. If you don't have your guard in, bye bye teeth.
Keep them guessing.
 
okeefe4prez said:
When your o-line is as overmatched as ours was, there ain't much you can do and I thought they made the most of it. There weren't too many situations where I thought to myself they needed to do something different because (a) we couldn't run and (b) we couldn't throw it much more than 10 yards down field most of the time because every time Nate dropped back, Simmons was ready to paste him. Not a lot left in the playbook when that shit happens.
Click to expand...
Yup.
 
okeefe4prez said:
When your o-line is as overmatched as ours was, there ain't much you can do and I thought they made the most of it. There weren't too many situations where I thought to myself they needed to do something different because (a) we couldn't run and (b) we couldn't throw it much more than 10 yards down field most of the time because every time Nate dropped back, Simmons was ready to paste him. Not a lot left in the playbook when that shit happens.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. During the game I was questioning why they kept running into a wall, but in hindsight I feel that they ran the ball just enough to give the receivers an extra step at times.
 
SpiderRico said:
The 75 yd pass to Easley was a 1st down play action pass...
Click to expand...
That play was entirely set up by the abysmal 1st quarter as well. A constraint play that breaks our tendencies and MSU bit hard.

While the run game never got going, they did adjust, as there were only 6 called runs in the second half, along with 2 sacks and Nate's scramble.
 
SpiderRico said:
The 75 yd pass to Easley was a 1st down play action pass...
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was freaking out wanting them to take a shot early because their D was so intent on watching the run game. In hindsight, I think they timed their shot downfield really well and thank God Nate hit it right on the money.
 
BVHawk95 said:
That play was entirely set up by the abysmal 1st quarter as well. A constraint play that breaks our tendencies and MSU bit hard.

While the run game never got going, they did adjust, as there were only 6 called runs in the second half, along with 2 sacks and Nate's scramble.
Click to expand...
For the record, had that WR caught the TD that Gervase intercepted and we lost, I would be on here complaining that we didn't run a couple of Statue of Liberty plays and flea flickers in the second half. Reverses with a pass component are also something I like to complain about around bowl time in honor of the 2006 Alamo Bowl.
 
SpiderRico said:
The 75 yd pass to Easley was a 1st down play action pass...
Click to expand...
We have Fant to thank for that.

Logic:
No fant, so TJ gets extra attention, lots of it.
On the TD play, the corner was paying more attention to TJ than Easley.
Easley jets past him and outruns him to the endzone (good thing there wasn't 20 more yards, he might not have made it).

If A=B and B=C, then A=C.

So, yes, thank you Noah for that TD opportunity ;)
 
okeefe4prez said:
For the record, had that WR caught the TD that Gervase intercepted and we lost, I would be on here complaining that we didn't run a couple of Statue of Liberty plays and flea flickers in the second half. Reverses with a pass component are also something I like to complain about around bowl time in honor of the 2006 Alamo Bowl.
Click to expand...
Would've been a kick in the nads for sure, BUT that play wasn't entirely luck. The underneath DB (think it was Stone or Hankins) got just enough of a finger on the ball to alter it's flight and spin. You could see it was odd looking when it hit his hands and it hand to have messed up his concentration as well.

I'm just glad we're talking what ifs and not what was.
 
Hawk90 said:
Did we pass on a first down for the first three quarters, or was it always off-tackle to the left and right?
Click to expand...

The Stanley to Easley touchdown pass was on a first down. The next possession, Iowa had two completions on two plays and got a touchdown; we had a short field after the Miss St fumble. The next possession, Iowa's first play was an incomplete pass; we actually should have run the ball to run out the clock before halftime. The touchdown drive in the second half, the first play was a 12 yard completion to Smith. The field goal drive in the second half started with a 20 yard completion to Hockenson.

Yeah, we did try to run the ball but we gave that up when we couldn't get anything going consistently.
 
I thought Brian did his best adjustments of the season midgame as our run attack sputtered. I think Iowa wanted to run the ball but their D line was terrific. MSU gameplanned to take Hock out of the game which led to our success throwing to the receivers. The blocking by our wide outs opened up two of our touchdowns. Give credit to where credit is due, NOBODY has done that to MSU all year. The offense seemed a blend of Fry's "itch where it scratches", and Davis's swing passes to the outside. It kept drives alive. Maybe he got a little too aggressive before halftime, but I'm sure Kirk will deal with that. Don't think MSU had any respect for Iowa going into the game. Brian used that against them. Kirk and Brian are starting to look like the joke on the movie "The Cowboys" that John Wayne tells about the two bulls, where the younger bull says "let's run down and breed us a cow", and the old bull says "no let's walk down and breed them all". With Kirk becoming more and more emotional it feels like he might be walking away sooner than I thought, if Brian is his heir apparent, his learning curve will continue to accelerate. Just a gut feeling but I think Kirk walks away after next season.
 
HawksMN said:
Running game didn't adapt all game and was pathetic. Some good pas play calls. Overall C-.
Click to expand...
What adjustment do you make when your RBs are too slow to get to the outside and the interior of your line can't block their d-tackles? Looked to me like they tried zone but the MSU front 7 managed to penetrate that with ease and they tried man which resulted in our guys getting tossed 2 yards into the backfield on the snap. Jesus, some of you people are acting like our head coach and OC are offensive line gurus and can just wave a magic wand and make guys who are either young and still a bit lacking in strength or just aren't quite that good into freaking beasts just by drawing a couple of xs and os on a chalkboard.

You can give the coaches a C- for their recruiting or foresight of issues on o-line a few years ago because that is a long lead time position, but no freaking way can you give them a C- for play calling on Tuesday.
 
27 points with 3 passing TD's when your team can't run the ball. Literally couldn't run the ball, but you have them still biting on play action.

All setup by establishing tendencies, then on breaking them when it matters for points. Waiting for our defense to give us a short field, etc.

Against a defense like that, we're not going to get 8 min drives, eating up first downs. If you break tendencies to pick up a first down on our own 35 yard line, you'll have nothing in the playbook when your on their side of the field looking for points. Honestly, it would simply be CYA play calling by the OC and not giving the team the best chance to win. Glad BF doesn't call it that way.

I think obviously a lot of luck when into how well things went. But I'm sure BF has called similar games, and nothing went his way and everyone was asking wtf afterwards.

But amazing to see how you can score 27 points and get the win on a defense that seemingly has you otherwise outclassed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top