Damon Bullock as Aaron Hernandez (minus the deplorable gun violence)

C

CP87

Well-Known Member
As it has become clear Bullock is splitting time between RB and WR (with a greater time spent with WR by the sounds of it), I started thinking about how New England used Aaron Hernandez the past few years. They would occasionally go 3 WR, 2 TE, and defenses would have to match up with nickel/dime personnel due to the receiving ability of Hernandez and Gronk. Then after a 1st down they sometimes moved Hernandez into the backfield and ran down the throat of the undersized defense (he had 9 carries for about 100 yards in 2010-2012 regular seasons). They used this more heavily in the 2011 postseason, when he had 8 carries for 70 yards (couldn't use this as much in the Super Bowl due to Gronk's injury).

Suppose Iowa lines up with 1 TE (CJF) and 4 WR. Maybe among those WR are Bullock and one of their faster TEs (e.g. Duzey, Kreiger Coble, Kittle, etc.). If the QB proves somewhat competent, defense will match with nickel personnel. All of a sudden Bullock moves into the backfield, Duzey lines up as an H, and we are running power football against an undersized front 7. If they don't match with nickel personnel, hopefully a pretty good receiver is matched up on a LB and the QB can take advantage.

Just a thought considering B. Ferentz was part of those NE teams, and Iowa seems pretty set with the no-huddle approach. And Bullock, while a completely different athlete than Hernandez, possesses unique versatility.

Looking forward to seeing Iowa's new wrinkles this year.
 
Really CP87, you can't put Bullock as RB and WR or some variation? You have to put Bullock as Aaron Hernandez? Lame
 
Hernandez's role was the specific one that came to mind, especially with the B. Ferentz link. I suppose I could have avoided the comparison based upon current events, but I thought it would be clear to all that I was referring to schematic usage, not character.
 
Different variation I thought of is having a 3 WR single-back set with Weisman in the backfield, then be able to move Bullock to the backfield and **** Weisman to fullback. Similar outcome as moving TE's around.
 
I sometimes think of Angela Merkel as Adolph Hitler (minus the deplorable genocide)

Purely from a schematic perspective, of course.



:cool:
 
MeatMan said:
better analogy: a poor man's Percy Harvin
Click to expand...

Yes, that works better positionally, and I thought of that comparison later. Minnesota did not use the no-huddle like NE, and then try to press their personnel advantage on 3 or 4 consecutive plays. That is kind of what I thought about when reading that Bullock was taking most of ths snaps at WR, but still practicing some at RB.

Harvin might also be a good comparison because like Iowa this year, no one has been afraid of the Viking's passing attack for the past few years, thus the running plays don't really catch the D off guard.
 
Awful. Dumb. Stupid. Terrible. Dense. Ignorant. Ridiculous. Unnecessary.

All things that describe your comparison. And no I didn't read your post. Just...dumb.
 
PackHawk said:
Awful. Dumb. Stupid. Terrible. Dense. Ignorant. Ridiculous. Unnecessary.

All things that describe your comparison. And no I didn't read your post. Just...dumb.
Click to expand...

The reason I still feel the Hernandez comparison is most apt is that like Bullock, much of his value is derived specifically from his versatility. Harvin is a different animal in that he is an electric player that just needs to get the ball in his hands in as many ways as possible. That would not really describe either Hernandez or Bullock. However, both of them can have value above and beyond their abilities at any one position due to their abilities to play multiple positions well.

I'll admit that part of the reason that Hernandez's name ended up in the subject was as an attention-getter, although as I have discussed, the football-usage comparison has merit and it was honestly the first thing that popped into my mind when I read about Bullock working mainly at WR, but still taking a few snaps at RB.. I probably should have gone with "Bullock's versatility" or "How to use Bullock" as a subject, and then detailed the football-comparison within the post. Speaking specifically about the choice of subject-heading, I would agree with the adjective "unnecessary" and I suppose you could throw out "crass." I wouldn't necessarily agree with the others, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.
 
Regardless of the comparisons of players the idea of using Bullock and Iowa's strength as a team in that way is spot on. Iowa's strength will be their Oline and TEs. With Weisman and Bullock they bring all kinds of versatility to where to line them up and types of plays to run. Along with hurrying up to the line it makes the D coordinators make a decision to play strait up or put in a nickel package.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top