Right, but if you can't get open or come down with the ball, you aren't going to get it thrown to you.
Look no further than Easly and the tight ends, they got used, but because they got open or came down with the ball.
Four-Star Indy WR David Bell Discusses Two-Day Iowa Visit
- Thread starter RobHowe
- Start date
Look no further than Easly and the tight ends, they got used, but because they got open or came down with the ball.
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
you're right. but this is the chicken or the egg situation Iowa is in re: WR's. Do we not get high level WR's that can get open and catch the ball, so they block. Or, because we use WR's to block, we can't get ones that can get open and catch. My position is that you have to FEATURE the WR position to gain talent. i have lost faith that kirk will ever allow this. so.....
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
i'm not sure if we're disagreeing or agreeing. i think we're agreeing, here. my point is that you need WR's who can catch and get open. then you teach them how to block. to a large degree, we don't do that. we take WR's that want to play and Iowa is the biggest offer they get cuz they'll play even if they don't get thrown to a lot.
but let me ask: what is the effective difference between a WR that is the best blocker on the team and can lock up a corner on a run play to create a lane for a rb and a WR who has no clue how to block and doesn't want to learn, but is fast, can get open and catch the ball who you send on a fly route on a running play and force the corner to vacate the space that becomes the running lane?
It's that "willingness" to do it. As the article says many high ranked recruits don't have that heart and desire. The article even says why they should.
We take ones who can block and try to turn them into receivers and not receivers and teach them to block, I agree. It's finding the ones who understand, that for one thing, wouldn't it be fun for a little pay back on a DB who's been having hands all over you all the time. Second as the article says, the better the blocking, the better the run game. Which means more one on one.
We take ones who can block and try to turn them into receivers and not receivers and teach them to block, I agree. It's finding the ones who understand, that for one thing, wouldn't it be fun for a little pay back on a DB who's been having hands all over you all the time. Second as the article says, the better the blocking, the better the run game. Which means more one on one.
Still in it.. All BIG teams on it. How many kids have Purdue and OSU on their top 5? Let alone a 4 star skill position player? I'd be shocked if he went to Purdue. Utterly shocked. I don't see their coach sticking around long at all before he runs off to greener pastures. Heck he already tried to. I'd be surprised if he stayed in state at all there. His top 5 is as unique of a top 5 list as you'll ever see for a stud like he is.
I feel like he'd like to come to Iowa but he just doesn't want to be used like Tevaun Smith was. He wants to have more of a substantial role. At OSU he'd be on the larger stage and all that but maybe he's unsure of how he'd stand out and how soon he could play. Iowa would be his better shot at earlier PT and a staring role so we'll see how good of salesman our coaches are...
I feel like he'd like to come to Iowa but he just doesn't want to be used like Tevaun Smith was. He wants to have more of a substantial role. At OSU he'd be on the larger stage and all that but maybe he's unsure of how he'd stand out and how soon he could play. Iowa would be his better shot at earlier PT and a staring role so we'll see how good of salesman our coaches are...
Adam
Well-Known Member
My answer to your question is ideally you would like to have both kinds of players. Big WR's that block and make possession receptions and then speed and route WR's that can stretch and put fear in a defense.
I don't know how these kids will perform this season or beyond, but I feel we are as close to the roster comp that you want with WR's as we have ever been. We definitely have all 3 of the type WR's. Slot guys to work the middle. Big WR's to block and make possession receptions and then a couple in line burners. This group of guys just need to put it together. It's not as if we are plain missing the athletes, we actually have them. We just need for the kids to produce.
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
adam, i think we're agreeing, we just keep building off the other's response. a fault i see is that we use our slot/possession WR's as one of the two every down WR's. to me, that has been a miss. slot/possession guys can't stretch the field, aren't typically the biggest physically. in other words, they're easier to defend. we don't use WR's that "threaten" the defense.
Adam
Well-Known Member
Ya I'm not arguing at all lol. As for using slot guys I believe they can put fear into a defense. If they run tight routes and have a feel for zone openings and are agile enough to beat LB's then they certainly can dismantle a defense, but alas we are talking about Iowa. The simple truth is we just don't throw the ball enough. We run and run and run until we think that a pass might catch the defense off guard or when we are behind the chains and everyone knows the pass is coming.
We did break that tendency a little last year. My hope is that with a more experienced QB that they will trust Stanley a little more to open it up more. Similar to the Stanzi era where they let the young man air the ball out. We will just have to wait and see if that materializes or not.
