Greg Davis calling the reverse pitch with DMX

U

uihawk82

Well-Known Member
My first thought sitting it the stands was simply "What the hell, why would you have a guy on their first college carry have to pitch it inside your own 20".

Davis called a really good game overall and the players really executed but this was a weird call. At least make it a handoff instead of a pitch. But especially you need to have DMX and Wadley run some straight ahead blasts and zone runs to get their yards and get some contact.

I am glad we are showing some jet sweep and reverse action and carries to keep the defenses honest on the backside and safety pursuit.

DMX and Wadley looked good especially with Daniels still nicked up.
 
I thought the same thing. Why have Mitchell do a pitch his first play of the season. But, that was the only call I could question yesterday. It was baffling.
 
uihawk82 said:
My first thought sitting it the stands was simply "What the hell, why would you have a guy on their first college carry have to pitch it inside your own 20".

Davis called a really good game overall and the players really executed but this was a weird call. At least make it a handoff instead of a pitch. But especially you need to have DMX and Wadley run some straight ahead blasts and zone runs to get their yards and get some contact.

I am glad we are showing some jet sweep and reverse action and carries to keep the defenses honest on the backside and safety pursuit.

DMX and Wadley looked good especially with Daniels still nicked up.
Click to expand...

During the course of each game the coaches are going to make some bad calls. That's being human and I can live with that. What drives some Hawkeye fans crazy is when a coach does the wrong thing and doesn't learn from it ("cough" fakes "cough"). Taking some risks is what we've all been clamoring for so I won't fault the coaches for doing that. But I'm putting ALL the Hawkeye coaches on notice, if you return to being stubbornly predictable the fans will make noise. Now Phil, about our rivals 3rd and long/4th and long plays . . .
 
It was that or another fake punt.


Not really a big deal playing against North Texas. I'm sure they ran it in practice 25 times and were confident that it work.

Announcer said it looked like CJB got the ball to Mitchell late so toss was late. Maybe. It could be Mitchell in the excitement of a game was moving quicker than practice. Who knows. I like the play.

Not thrilled about on Iowa 20 yard line. But another indication that the Ferentz mold has been broken so it will mean another thing for Big Ten opponents to spend time in practice covering. N.Tex perfect time to be aggressive in own territory.
 
wrong place on the field, wrong time for a guy who hasn't touched the ball this season.

The only good thing, was that is was against a weak opponent.

What concerns me more, is the number of quick out lateral passes CJ threw. I hope we're not slipping back to old habits, that thing is a loser more often than not...especially against the tougher defenses ahead.
 
I actually thought it made sense to use DM on that play. Obviously it wasn't executed well and the outcome was unfortunate, but just like all of us were surprised at the call, North Texas also was surprised that Iowa would use a new player for that type of call. Gives the play a higher probability of success if executed properly.

It's the same reason why Iowa ran the clock down to 1 second at the end of the first half against ISU. The fake FG was planned all along, but if you don't pull the clock down to make it look like you will kick a FG, you can't sell the fake.

Strategy. Iowa found some.
 
Looks like we were all thinking same thing when it happened.Hopefully coaching staff learns from it.On the radio Eddie said it didn't look like it was Mitchell's fault.
 
INTIMIDATORHawk said:
I actually thought it made sense to use DM on that play. Obviously it wasn't executed well and the outcome was unfortunate, but just like all of us were surprised at the call, North Texas also was surprised that Iowa would use a new player for that type of call. Gives the play a higher probability of success if executed properly.

It's the same reason why Iowa ran the clock down to 1 second at the end of the first half against ISU. The fake FG was planned all along, but if you don't pull the clock down to make it look like you will kick a FG, you can't sell the fake.

Strategy. Iowa found some.
Click to expand...

Rewatch and listen to the announcers. Iowa has had problems executing and defending against fakes. With Koehn, a FG would've been fine there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
alexzelada said:
Rewatch and listen to the announcers. Iowa has had problems executing and responding to fakes. With Koehn, a FG would've been fine there.
Click to expand...

Yeah I've heard Ed Podolak describe the fake FG against ISU several times. He never mentioned anything about Iowa having trouble executing the fake.

It's funny. Most Hawk fans have been upset for YEARS that Iowa isn't aggressive enough on offense. Now the Hawks are taking more risks, but when things don't work out (because sometimes that happens), some of you are critical of the decisions.

It's pathetic, really.
 
It reminded me of the McCall deal. Let him chomp at the bit for 3 games thinking he's finally going to play after injury. Then finally put him in after we block a punt and he's staring at the goal line. Do they not understand the nerves kids feel when getting their first touches? Why put added pressure on the situation?
 
INTIMIDATORHawk said:
Yeah I've heard Ed Podolak describe the fake FG against ISU several times. He never mentioned anything about Iowa having trouble executing the fake.

It's funny. Most Hawk fans have been upset for YEARS that Iowa isn't aggressive enough on offense. Now the Hawks are taking more risks, but when things don't work out (because sometimes that happens), some of you are critical of the decisions.

It's pathetic, really.
Click to expand...


The first fake field goal had a decent chance at success. The second one had about a zero chance of success. I don't think Kirk (or apparently you ) understands the difference. Just an example.. if fans wanted us to go for it more on first downs, we would probably be pretty annoyed if he went for it on 4th and 20 from our own 10. Then people like you will say Kirk can't win because you don't understand that there is a difference between being risky and being dumb.
 
It was N Texas.!! Surprised everyone watching didn't it?! Did me. Poor execution yep. Perhaps wrong end of field to try it - probably. But, if we gained 20 yards - yippie! Iowa fans want exotics - they're getting them! Now, back to big ten competition.
 
hawkdrummer1 said:
What concerns me more, is the number of quick out lateral passes CJ threw. I hope we're not slipping back to old habits, that thing is a loser more often than not...especially against the tougher defenses ahead.
Click to expand...
Agree, I was concerned about that, also. Too many times before it gets jumped (like Jewell pick six). It was probably what NT was giving. Scratch where it itches but, yeah, the scratch eventually gets rid of the itch.
 
INTIMIDATORHawk said:
I actually thought it made sense to use DM on that play. Obviously it wasn't executed well and the outcome was unfortunate, but just like all of us were surprised at the call, North Texas also was surprised that Iowa would use a new player for that type of call. Gives the play a higher probability of success if executed properly.

It's the same reason why Iowa ran the clock down to 1 second at the end of the first half against ISU. The fake FG was planned all along, but if you don't pull the clock down to make it look like you will kick a FG, you can't sell the fake.

Strategy. Iowa found some.
Click to expand...

Agreed, it was against a nothing team which is why he was in at all anyway. This will at least give yet another thing for Wisconsin to prepare for against Iowa.
 
Wrong place on the field to call that play, wrong time in the game, wrong player (Mitchell) trying to execute it. One observation that I am making about the attempts at fakes and special plays is that the coaching staff is a bit bizarre on the timing of play calling in regard to the special plays. Call a fake field goal or punt when the yardage is 5 yards or less for success. You don't try a reverse with a young player getting his first playing time when a mistake puts the opponent with 25 yards of a score.

I like the new aggressive mentality of the coaching staff. But now they need to take some special situation strategy training.
 
INTIMIDATORHawk said:
Yeah I've heard Ed Podolak describe the fake FG against ISU several times. He never mentioned anything about Iowa having trouble executing the fake.

It's funny. Most Hawk fans have been upset for YEARS that Iowa isn't aggressive enough on offense. Now the Hawks are taking more risks, but when things don't work out (because sometimes that happens), some of you are critical of the decisions.

It's pathetic, really.
Click to expand...

It seems that the most vocal of fans are only happy when they are unhappy.

I say keep it up. The only play call I didn't like this year was the "hey everyone, Parker is going to get the ball on this play" the rest I have no problem with and actually am encouraged to see.
 
hawkdrummer1 said:
wrong place on the field, wrong time for a guy who hasn't touched the ball this season.

The only good thing, was that is was against a weak opponent.

What concerns me more, is the number of quick out lateral passes CJ threw. I hope we're not slipping back to old habits, that thing is a loser more often than not...especially against the tougher defenses ahead.
Click to expand...

CJ has the option to throw those quick lateral passes if the CBs are playing off the ball. The thought behind it is that it should be good for at least 6, making it more of a run play. I am good with it, it keeps the CBs up close which at work point will allow more down field throws if we can get our recievers behind them.
 
INTIMIDATORHawk said:
Yeah I've heard Ed Podolak describe the fake FG against ISU several times. He never mentioned anything about Iowa having trouble executing the fake.

It's funny. Most Hawk fans have been upset for YEARS that Iowa isn't aggressive enough on offense. Now the Hawks are taking more risks, but when things don't work out (because sometimes that happens), some of you are critical of the decisions.

It's pathetic, really.
Click to expand...

Pathetic, what a stupid reply by you. I am talking about one play and the exact circumstances of a running back who has never been in a scrimmage play being called on to do the pitch reverse.

Pathetic!!! I have been calling for counter plays and more deep passes from the offensive play callers for years. I have been very critical of our play callers running the same stuff into 8-9 man defenses for years.

Iowa State is an example of a weaker team that sells out on defense toward the first motion of the hawkeye offense and we have never tried to burn them regularly to make them back off. You need to run counters and fake them regularly to make the defense have to guess and keep them off balance.

I was very critical of KF for not going on 4th and 2 feet at Indiana in 2012 with a few minutes to go and within 3 pts with the season mostly in the tank.

KF has not been very good imagining and calculating risk-reward over the years.

I like CJ taking the shots downfield, heck when was the last time we had two TD passes over 4 yards in the same game?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top