Dudes, I am going to say this: Tip o' the cap to Greg Davis

hawkfan340

hawkfan340

Well-Known Member
Ran the ball on 60 of 83 plays. Balance, schmalance. Scratch where it itches. That was all the offense game plan we needed. If the defense and special teams wouldn't have collapsed down the stretch, we would have considered this a thing of beauty.

So, good job GD, yes?
 
hawkfan340 said:
Ran the ball on 60 of 83 plays. Balance, schmalance. Scratch where it itches. That was all the offense game plan we needed. If the defense and special teams wouldn't have collapsed down the stretch, we would have considered this a thing of beauty.

So, good job GD, yes?
Click to expand...

Absolutely! He called a good game tonight.

FreedComanche
 
Yes. But give about 10-15 if those carries to other backs...not cause they are better, but because we will need these guys to develop if we are going to be this run heavy. 34 carries is about 10-15 too many.
 
He did call a pretty good game. I do wish he'd realize that the wide side of the field is open for business though.

Phil Parker, though...Sweet Jeezis...it's a good thing Pa Rhodes didn't realize that we have only one functional defensive back until the middle of the 4th Q
 
hawkfan340 said:
Ran the ball on 60 of 83 plays. Balance, schmalance. Scratch where it itches. That was all the offense game plan we needed. If the defense and special teams wouldn't have collapsed down the stretch, we would have considered this a thing of beauty.

So, good job GD, yes?
Click to expand...

+1
 
I keep thinking that it became a sort of scrimmage. Run for the sake of running to get better at it.

Problem in the passing game really needs more work than the run game.
 
"Dance with who brung ya." I loved the run on 3rd and 5. In 4 down territory. Not that I would bet we would have gone for it but it was the right call.
 
HawkeyeWalker said:
Yes. But give about 10-15 if those carries to other backs...not cause they are better, but because we will need these guys to develop if we are going to be this run heavy. 34 carries is about 10-15 too many.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. Weisman was really putting on a clinic there against 8 or 9 guys in the box but he looked pretty tired at the end. I'm not sure he can do that every game. A big advantage to getting all of those carries should be that the defense should be pretty worn down in the 4th qtr. I think that's why Bullock was getting 5+ yards pretty easy at the end.
 
ThunderHawk said:
He did call a pretty good game. I do wish he'd realize that the wide side of the field is open for business though.

Phil Parker, though...Sweet Jeezis...it's a good thing Pa Rhodes didn't realize that we have only one functional defensive back until the middle of the 4th Q
Click to expand...

I don't know, but it felt like about 45 of those 60 runs were to the left. I'm sure GD thought he could basically win with 4/5 players: Scherff, Donnal, Cox/Plewa, and Weisman. He just went left, regardless of where the wide side was.
 
hawkfan340 said:
I don't know, but it felt like about 45 of those 60 runs were to the left. I'm sure GD thought he could basically win with 4/5 players: Scherff, Donnal, Cox/Plewa, and Weisman. He just went left, regardless of where the wide side was.
Click to expand...

Yep, wonder how well that strategy will work in conference play.
 
hawkfan340 said:
I don't know, but it felt like about 45 of those 60 runs were to the left. I'm sure GD thought he could basically win with 4/5 players: Scherff, Donnal, Cox/Plewa, and Weisman. He just went left, regardless of where the wide side was.
Click to expand...

If you repeatedly run to the left, you're going to be consistently running to the short side of the field.

;)
 
Loved the display of power football last night, but I would like to see Weisman not having to carry it 35 times. It'd be nice to see a healthy dose of Daniels and Canzeri next week to give him some rest.
 
ThunderHawk said:
If you repeatedly run to the left, you're going to be consistently running to the short side of the field.

;)
Click to expand...

What's your problem with running to the short side of the field with our current crew of backs? It ain't like any of them are fast enough to bounce it far enough where the sideline becomes another defender.
 
ThunderHawk said:
He did call a pretty good game. I do wish he'd realize that the wide side of the field is open for business though.

Phil Parker, though...Sweet Jeezis...it's a good thing Pa Rhodes didn't realize that we have only one functional defensive back until the middle of the 4th Q
Click to expand...

Why worry about the wide side of the field when the offensive line is moving the LOS 5 yards into the defensive backfield on every snap?
 
I thought he did a terrible job of calling ISU's plays. I just assume it was him calling the plays and then feeding the information to Iowa's DC. I mean, Messingham couldn't have been that bad, right?
 
Stewo said:
I thought he did a terrible job of calling ISU's plays. I just assume it was him calling the plays and then feeding the information to Iowa's DC. I mean, Messingham couldn't have been that bad, right?
Click to expand...

it's hard to run your offense or defense, when you can't control the LOS. ISU's problem is in the trenches - i don't think the play calling would have changed anything.
 
imported_ankle23 said:
it's hard to run your offense or defense, when you can't control the LOS. ISU's problem is in the trenches - i don't think the play calling would have changed anything.
Click to expand...

ISU's OL was serviceable yesterday. The problem is when you know Iowa's weakness is it's DB's and you continue to throw east and west instead of picking on the young DB's. Just like they did in desperation in the 4th yesterday. Messingham is horrid when it comes to play calling.
 
Stewo said:
ISU's OL was serviceable yesterday. The problem is when you know Iowa's weakness is it's DB's and you continue to throw east and west instead of picking on the young DB's. Just like they did in desperation in the 4th yesterday. Messingham is horrid when it comes to play calling.
Click to expand...


Was Tom Herman really that much better?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top