Chuck Long Sees Promise from the Hawkeyes
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
tubahawk
Well-Known Member
When watching the game on TV I recall a WR bubble screen on 3rd and short. I believe Chuck also defended that call on TV, saying something to the effect "I know many fans won't like that call but I think it was a good play call."
I have a lot of respect for Chuck Long, he has forgotten more about football than I'll ever know, but I'm not sure I agree with his analysis on either one of those 3rd down play calls.
I have a lot of respect for Chuck Long, he has forgotten more about football than I'll ever know, but I'm not sure I agree with his analysis on either one of those 3rd down play calls.
FreedComanche
Banned
And I think Jon would agree with that. I think what we are trying to say is it's more probable to get one yard if you run a back that's averaged 5 yards per attempt. I also understand the other point where one could say, "they are gonna load the box, don't run it". Ok, then I think the pass play is a good call and have said it was. But if 3rd down and 1 pass is incomplete, run the high probability of success run play for the one yard. I mean we out weighed their d-line by quite a bit.
OLWPAORWWM
Banned
I understand that. However, there are plenty of legitimate and logical arguments to be made against Coach Ferentz' performance. However, you can't pick both sides of the same coin. You can't complain that he plays it safe and never takes risks, and then go berserk when he takes a calculated risk and demand he attempts the safe play.
I'm not coming down on either side of the argument here, I'm just an impartial observer commenting on the absurdity.
tubahawk
Well-Known Member
I thought the same thing. As upset as I am about that play call (or maybe more accurately that the play was unsuccessful) I also have to admit I am happy to see we didn't always "play the percentages." I think that will pay dividends later in the season because other teams know we aren't going to be as predictable.
I mean we ran a flea flicker for goodness sakes. When was the last time Iowa ever did that?
FreedComanche
Banned
It's great to be aggressive and go down field. I was actually saying that out loud when Iowa was doing that on Saturday. That was a huge improvement from last year. I loved it!!! But when you need one yard and it's third down, one could make the argument that throwing down field is dumb, not aggressive. Especially when Iowa was running the ball well. Sighs....................I think I've exhausted myself on this on play. LOL...............said about all I can say about it. On to the next game for me.
DoubleDown
Well-Known Member
You make solid points, but all of the absurdity is birthed from the same womb: frustration at losing so often AND the seeming incapacity of KF to do anything to put an end to it.
OLWPAORWWM
Banned
In hindsight, sure. Suppose they rush into a 9 man box, lose a yard, and give up a huge punt return. Then, attempting a run would have been the dumb play.
HawkeyeHypnosis
Well-Known Member
tubahawk
Well-Known Member
Hmm... Don't remember that one. Of course I am trying not to remember a lot of the 2012 season.
hawkeyegamefilm
Well-Known Member
I didn't like the way they handled that situation either, but probably not quite for the same reasons. I'm ok with throwing the bomb on 3rd and 1, as long as you're willing to go for it on 4th and 1 from your own 40. Iowa clearly isn't going to be that aggressive despite what the numbers tell you. Generically(without accounting for difference between teams) in the NFL rushing attempts on 4th and 1 are successful about ~70% of the time; that's a big fact to have in hand. I would guess the NCAA would be similar. Iowa had been pushing NIU around pretty good in the trenches and should have been able to grind out a yard on a short yardage situation around 80% of the time. Instead Iowa played it conventionally and let NIU off the hook.
HawkeyeHypnosis
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;gY6wk_qDdP8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=gY6wk_qDdP8[/video]
HawkPrdatr40
Well-Known Member
After reading and listening to Chuck Long the past week. I now know why he isn't in coaching anymore. 
1. The 3rd Down call IMO was a bad call, it was only a good call if your intentions were we will go for it on 4th.
2. The TE comment is OFF THE CHARTS CRAZY!!
3. His love affection for Greg Davis is going to going to get very old, very soon.
1. The 3rd Down call IMO was a bad call, it was only a good call if your intentions were we will go for it on 4th.
2. The TE comment is OFF THE CHARTS CRAZY!!
3. His love affection for Greg Davis is going to going to get very old, very soon.
Agree, you call the deep pass on 2nd and 1, not 3rd and 1.
Worst call was the out pattern that got INT.
WayzataHawkeye
Well-Known Member
Great point. We have all 'seen that movie' a few times the last few years. Had that happened Saturday we would have all heard the predictable reaction to the predictability of GD & KF.
Does anyone remember when Tressel through deep on 4th and 1 against Purdue in the 4th quarter in 2002? He was a 'genius' that day and the only difference is that the play worked. If that play misses they would have never seen the BCS Title game.
WayzataHawkeye
Well-Known Member
Not looking for help of any kind from you now or ever.
I really like Jon Miller but he is not in the same league with Chuck Long which is why Jon recruited Chuck to provide some 'expert' analysis.
FreedComanche
Banned
Ok, sorry for my response to you earlier. I read it again and it was rude.
I agree. At some point you have to give the running game a chance to win the game. That's the strength of this team. The play calling in the 2nd half put the onus on a QB taking his first snaps. The surprise factor is overrated.
DP5555
Well-Known Member
People will find things to complain about until the Hawks figure out how to win again. Even if what they are complaining about makes them look hypocritical. People have been complaining for years about KF being too conservative, yet there were several instances in this game where it was obvious the team was trying to take chances.
I agree that they should have gone for it on 4th down if they were going to take the shot on 3rd. I think it was a case where Kirk took the chance on third down, it didn't work, and he immediately went back to being conservative on 4th down.
That doesn't change the fact that it was quite evident the coaching this year is going to be geared towards being more aggressive. In fact, darn near everything that was complained about all offseason looked like it was addressed:
They took shots down the field. The play calling was much more aggressive than what Hawk fans are used to.
CJF caught an early TD pass and they tried hitting him down the seam on a 4 verts play (they still need to find ways to get the TE more involved but they did try)
The defensive line certainly looks better. They still need to develop more of a pass rush, but overall they looked significantly improved from a year ago.
The QB play was much improved and it was only Rudock's first collegiate game. He was in control of the offense, and there wasn't a single point in the game where I thought he looked overwhelmed. He rushed the QB sneak, and made a bad pass on his last play. Other than that he showed he's more than capable of leading this offense. Something we never really saw from JVB last year.
The LB play was as good as I've seen for awhile. Hitchens and Kirksey were all over the field making plays.
The only disappointment for me was the defensive backs giving up several huge plays. Which is exactly what this defense is not supposed to do. I guess the fake punt conversion was also a major disappointment.
Overall, the team looked like a much better team than what we saw last year. I think everyone agrees with that statement or they just weren't watching the same game as the rest of us. I'm just as frustrated as the next Hawk fan that they can't seem to find a way to convert the win in close games, but we also have to remember they are still a very young team with a brand new QB. There were several opportunities to seal the win against NIU. The reason they didn't is because several players didn't execute when they had a chance to make a difference (Bullock's drop, Shump's drop, Jake's int. and QB sneak penalty, and Weisman's fumble). If you take away any of those failures then this is likely a close win we're talking about, and all of these naysayers are discussing how much has changed instead of who the next coach or next QB should be.
It's a very fine line between mass hysteria, and total satisfaction. The Hawks needed that win in a BAD way, and I'm still ticked off they couldn't pull it off. However, I'm pretty damn excited to see this team grow throughout the season, and I'm not going to let a bunch of know-it-all armchair QB's ruin that for me. They still have a damn good chance of starting out 3-1. If they can do that then they'll have some momentum going into what will be a very tough B10 schedule.
I agree that they should have gone for it on 4th down if they were going to take the shot on 3rd. I think it was a case where Kirk took the chance on third down, it didn't work, and he immediately went back to being conservative on 4th down.
That doesn't change the fact that it was quite evident the coaching this year is going to be geared towards being more aggressive. In fact, darn near everything that was complained about all offseason looked like it was addressed:
They took shots down the field. The play calling was much more aggressive than what Hawk fans are used to.
CJF caught an early TD pass and they tried hitting him down the seam on a 4 verts play (they still need to find ways to get the TE more involved but they did try)
The defensive line certainly looks better. They still need to develop more of a pass rush, but overall they looked significantly improved from a year ago.
The QB play was much improved and it was only Rudock's first collegiate game. He was in control of the offense, and there wasn't a single point in the game where I thought he looked overwhelmed. He rushed the QB sneak, and made a bad pass on his last play. Other than that he showed he's more than capable of leading this offense. Something we never really saw from JVB last year.
The LB play was as good as I've seen for awhile. Hitchens and Kirksey were all over the field making plays.
The only disappointment for me was the defensive backs giving up several huge plays. Which is exactly what this defense is not supposed to do. I guess the fake punt conversion was also a major disappointment.
Overall, the team looked like a much better team than what we saw last year. I think everyone agrees with that statement or they just weren't watching the same game as the rest of us. I'm just as frustrated as the next Hawk fan that they can't seem to find a way to convert the win in close games, but we also have to remember they are still a very young team with a brand new QB. There were several opportunities to seal the win against NIU. The reason they didn't is because several players didn't execute when they had a chance to make a difference (Bullock's drop, Shump's drop, Jake's int. and QB sneak penalty, and Weisman's fumble). If you take away any of those failures then this is likely a close win we're talking about, and all of these naysayers are discussing how much has changed instead of who the next coach or next QB should be.
It's a very fine line between mass hysteria, and total satisfaction. The Hawks needed that win in a BAD way, and I'm still ticked off they couldn't pull it off. However, I'm pretty damn excited to see this team grow throughout the season, and I'm not going to let a bunch of know-it-all armchair QB's ruin that for me. They still have a damn good chance of starting out 3-1. If they can do that then they'll have some momentum going into what will be a very tough B10 schedule.
Last edited:
