Bullock

franstheman

franstheman

Well-Known Member
So my big question for the next game in 2 weeks is when Bullock comes back, how much is he mixed in? I love Weisman but don't forget Bullock was having a great season too! I think it's Weisman's show but we see Bullock mixed in to spell him and to provide a change of pace for 7-12 touches per game.
 
I love the idea of a change of pace back. At first I thought that Weisman would move back to FB when Bullock gets back but I think Kirk made a comment after the game that his days at FB are over. If we can mix it up properly and split the touches accordingly it could show a great deal of promise moving foward.
 
Bullock is the most versatile player on the team. He needs to get 12-15 touches. He can play in the slot so I think be needs to get some reps there so he and Weisman can get on the field together and create matchup problems. The 2 best players on the team play the same position, so the challenge is to get. them involved at the same time. Would be a big mistake to simply have them split reps.
 
NickM said:
Bullock is the most versatile player on the team. He needs to get 12-15 touches. He can play in the slot so I think be needs to get some reps there so he and Weisman can get on the field together and create matchup problems. The 2 best players on the team play the same position, so the challenge is to get. them involved at the same time. Would be a big mistake to simply have them split reps.
Click to expand...
They both need to be on the field,but Weisman has earned the starting job at TB. Yes put Bullok in the slot. The other backs can be the change of pace back.
 
Weisman better stay at RB, the dude's earned it!

would be great to have them both in the backfield together though, just to keep the other team guessing. but that would never happen, it would only make sense.
 
Weisman is going to have the TB job as long as he wants it and stays healthy. He's special and he's a big back with some quicks and just great vision. My guess is that Bullock gets some spot duty spelling Weisman for a series here and there...but then is inserted into the passing game as another poster suggested. He's got to be on the field as he is a very good player with great hands.
 
one more thing. many yesterday were saying "if only Weisman was faster, he'd have broken some of those long runs for scores" when they didn't realize that if it was one of our other backs they'd have been tackled much earlier as they don't break tackles like MW does.

very rarely can you have both power and speed. and for our current offense, i'll take the power back first. we need someone who can drop the hammer right now. lets not forget though that MW does certainly have some pretty good quickness to the hole.
 
I think there's room for a changeup back to Weisman, whether that be Bullock, Garmon or Canzeri. The one thing I haven't see Weisman do great so far is cut back against the stretch play, which is something the greats like Russell and Green were so good at doing. I think having a speedy slasher to spell Weisman would actually work really well, and would hopefully stop the offense from stagnating at certain points as defenses adjust.
 
Hawksel said:
I think there's room for a changeup back to Weisman, whether that be Bullock, Garmon or Canzeri. The one thing I haven't see Weisman do great so far is cut back against the stretch play, which is something the greats like Russell and Green were so good at doing. I think having a speedy slasher to spell Weisman would actually work really well, and would hopefully stop the offense from stagnating at certain points as defenses adjust.
Click to expand...

I agree but the coaches could be even more creative. Come out with Weisman and bullock, 2 WR and 1 TE. Lineup in a power I formation and the defense would have to respect the power. Shift Bullock tothe slot and then go to single back. You would think that would create some matchup problems for the defense in terms of personal.
 
urohawk said:
I agree but the coaches could be even more creative. Come out with Weisman and bullock, 2 WR and 1 TE. Lineup in a power I formation and the defense would have to respect the power. Shift Bullock tothe slot and then go to single back. You would think that would create some matchup problems for the defense in terms of personal.
Click to expand...

The problem is it would confuse Iowa's players more than the opponents D. :)
 
Agreed, this team's identity is it's running game and Weisman cannot do this all by himself, Coker wore down by the end of the season last year. To have both would only strengthen this team's ability to move the ball.
 
There were runs yesterday that would have been TD's with another RB in there instead of Weisman. I'm not dogging on him, because I love how he runs and I love what he brings to the table. He needs to continue to get 15-20 carries a game, but so does Bullock.

None of that matters however, until KF learns that you can substitute your RB's depending on situation and field position throughout a drive and not just by series.
 
kuhntz said:
There were runs yesterday that would have been TD's with another RB in there instead of Weisman. I'm not dogging on him, because I love how he runs and I love what he brings to the table. He needs to continue to get 15-20 carries a game, but so does Bullock.

None of that matters however, until KF learns that you can substitute your RB's depending on situation and field position throughout a drive and not just by series.
Click to expand...

You mean like when Iowa brought in Garmon during drives yesterday? Pretty sure we will start Bullock/Garmon between the 30's more often...
 
kuhntz said:
There were runs yesterday that would have been TD's with another RB in there instead of Weisman. I'm not dogging on him, because I love how he runs and I love what he brings to the table. He needs to continue to get 15-20 carries a game, but so does Bullock.

None of that matters however, until KF learns that you can substitute your RB's depending on situation and field position throughout a drive and not just by series.
Click to expand...

MW needs 30+ carries a game. You say those runs would be TDs with another back in there, but you are way off. The only reason MW made it to the next level downfield was breaking tackles and making guys miss at the first level. Bullock doesn't seem to have that ability, at least from what I have seen. I think Bullock should still get some touches, but MW should get the bulk of the carries.
 
stevoskin said:
MW needs 30+ carries a game. You say those runs would be TDs with another back in there, but you are way off. The only reason MW made it to the next level downfield was breaking tackles and making guys miss at the first level. Bullock doesn't seem to have that ability, at least from what I have seen. I think Bullock should still get some touches, but MW should get the bulk of the carries.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree about having MW tot the rock 30 + carries a game. Even the big backs wear down when being used that much, just look at Coker last year. Also on several of MW runs he didn't really get a hand on him til he was to the 2nd level. Bullock and Garmon aren't big backs, but they can run through arm tackles just like 99% of RB. Bullock need to get 15 touches a game.
 
It's going to be thunder ad lightning when he comes back. I still don't think Garmon is ready a main role. He is just too light and runs too upright. Put 20 lbs on him and bring him back next year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top