I didn't mind the play calling.

C

CAARHawk

Banned
I know everyone is still complaining about the play-calling. I didn't mind it. My feeling is more that execution and personnel were the problems in the first half.

After that, I didn't like the rollout out and up in the red zone - not enough space for that play. I really liked the QB draw.

Which PARTICULAR plays did you not like or like during the game?
 




HawkPrdatr40 said:
I didn't like the 2 calls on 3rd and 4th down with score tied at 10-10..
Click to expand...

If I remember right the 3rd down play was CJB trying to throw a slant. That was on Beathard, as a run play was called, but he decided to throw a slant at a receiver who was going down field to block. The 4th down play was an out that if completed would have had a chance to score/gain first down. That was more on CJB than on the actual plays called.
 


CAARHawk said:
I know everyone is still complaining about the play-calling. I didn't mind it. My feeling is more that execution and personnel were the problems in the first half.

After that, I didn't like the rollout out and up in the red zone - not enough space for that play. I really liked the QB draw.

Which PARTICULAR plays did you not like or like during the game?
Click to expand...

Loved the first QB draw call. Up to that point the offense looked really pathetic, and CJ was really struggling (sack, pick 6). I feel like that loosened him up a bit.
 




Iowa actually executed the bubble screen for good yardage. I believe it was Parker or Powell that cut it back for a good gain.
 


Going for it on 4th down inside the 10 was a bit perplexing. (and no I 'wouldn't have thought it was great, if it worked). When you have a chance to take the lead in a low-scoring tie game, you jump on it.

Apart from that, the mix of plays was better, though the run game often slides into those predictable patterns. I do think C.J. gives us a bigger (or at least more diverse) playbook. The bye week could be a great chance to expand it
 
Last edited:


IAHAWK1982 said:
If I remember right the 3rd down play was CJB trying to throw a slant. That was on Beathard, as a run play was called, but he decided to throw a slant at a receiver who was going down field to block. The 4th down play was an out that if completed would have had a chance to score/gain first down. That was more on CJB than on the actual plays called.
Click to expand...


I just didn't like the play calls on the 3rd and 4th down is all, OP asked us what particular plays did you not like and those 2 were mine. :)
 


We all don't like the same series!

I don't like first down. HawkPred40 doesn't like 2nd and 3rd. HAWKDRUMMER didn't like 4th.
 
Last edited:




It was clear there was some kind of sight check thing on that 3rd down play. Pretty sure CJ didn't just go off ****** after the ball was snapped.
 


I think the coaches did a good job of not throwing CJ to the wolves. If he keeps the job they will open it up more as he gets some experience. One thing is they are going to have to throw more on 1st down until teams back off a little
 


I think things look a whole lot better with them seemingly willing to take more shots of 15-20+ yards. I'm not entirely sure if that's a matter of the play calling having changed, or if it's more a case of CJB simply being more willing to look down field than Rudock. I'm going to guess that it's the latter.

I don't mind the short passes, sometimes, depending on what's available down field. I've seen Iowa effectively run those quick outs to a fast receiver like Powell, who can catch and immediately turn it out down field for an easy 10-15 yard gain. Dumping it off to a tight end who is basically at the line of scrimmage and doesn't have the speed to make people miss or get to the outside, doesn't usually seem to result in a very productive gain. So with the short passes, I guess for me it's a matter of WHO you are throwing to.
 


HawkPrdatr40 said:
I didn't like the 2 calls on 3rd and 4th down with score tied at 10-10..
Click to expand...

I agree and KF had to know he was going on 4th down.

It was 3rd and 5 or 6 when that pass play went awry. But why then go for it on 4th down. KF had to know he was going for it.

So IF you know you are going for it on 4th down then why not run power on 3rd and 5/6 to try to get 4th and short where you can call anything.
 


I didn't like the lack of play-action yesterday when the running game was doing well and PU seemed to be selling out more and more as the game went on. As for individual plays. I hated the pick 6... :DSeriously though...if you're going to go for it on 4th down and 5 you probably should have gone ahead and ran it on 3rd and 5 to make it more manageable. That being said, I do like us being more aggressive on 4th downs...even if it's only because we still don't trust our kickers yet.
 


uihawk82 said:
I agree and KF had to know he was going on 4th down.

It was 3rd and 5 or 6 when that pass play went awry. But why then go for it on 4th down. KF had to know he was going for it.

So IF you know you are going for it on 4th down then why not run power on 3rd and 5/6 to try to get 4th and short where you can call anything.
Click to expand...

Agree 82.. Iowa was really starting to pound the ball on the ground at this point in the game, almost at will. It just didn't make sense that on 3rd down knowing your going for it on 4th that you wouldn't run on that down..
 


HawkPrdatr40 said:
Agree 82.. Iowa was really starting to pound the ball on the ground at this point in the game, almost at will. It just didn't make sense that on 3rd down knowing your going for it on 4th that you wouldn't run on that down..
Click to expand...

Agreed, if you know you're going for it on 4th, then that should definitely affect your play calls on 2nd & 3rd down. Get yourself to 4th and short. I rarely see Weisman unable to pick up a tough yard or two in that situation.
 


1977Hawkeye said:
I think things look a whole lot better with them seemingly willing to take more shots of 15-20+ yards. I'm not entirely sure if that's a matter of the play calling having changed, or if it's more a case of CJB simply being more willing to look down field than Rudock. I'm going to guess that it's the latter.

I don't mind the short passes, sometimes, depending on what's available down field. I've seen Iowa effectively run those quick outs to a fast receiver like Powell, who can catch and immediately turn it out down field for an easy 10-15 yard gain. Dumping it off to a tight end who is basically at the line of scrimmage and doesn't have the speed to make people miss or get to the outside, doesn't usually seem to result in a very productive gain. So with the short passes, I guess for me it's a matter of WHO you are throwing to.
Click to expand...


I am am not a huge fan of the flat or drag patterns by the TE's. Having to make that guy cut up field from running straight at the sideline is just hard. Much more favorable to wheels, seams, or settling down just past the sticks where you just have to shield and catch.
 


mixed emotions.......It is Purdue so you are allowed to get away with certain things, that you are normally not allowed to. it is pretty apparent that GD dug in deep and went with stuff on page 75 of the playbook. I dunno, we will see moving forward.
 


CAARHawk said:
I am am not a huge fan of the flat or drag patterns by the TE's. Having to make that guy cut up field from running straight at the sideline is just hard. Much more favorable to wheels, seams, or settling down just past the sticks where you just have to shield and catch.
Click to expand...

ehh, having a guy turn the corner on a flare or a drag route is not asking a lot. if the waggle/bootleg is executed the way it should be it will allow for a lot of yardage up the field for the TE/slot receiver.

[video=youtube;kC7nAlpByhM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC7nAlpByhM[/video]
 


You must log in or register to reply here.


Latest posts

Share this page






Top