I didn't mind the play calling.
- Thread starter CAARHawk
- Start date
trj
Well-Known Member
we are on the same page here, wheel routes, seam routes, the shallow crossing routes were a staple of the GD offense at texas.....here it seems to be more of a gimmick or a 3rd and long situation.
with the DE(s) crashing the way they are, there is space between the LB(s) and safties where a drag route can work. if the waggle/bootleg works it will put a cover guy on the TE/slot receiver's hip if not a step or two behind allowing him space to turn the corner.
DBAHawkFan
Well-Known Member
I get tired of the constant subbing in and out as we look unorganized a few times a game and CJ needs all the time on the clock as he can get. The TE drag route has grown old. We get anywhere from 1-3 yards. We used to think it was CJFed that was so slow but it really is tough for TE to create separation 3 yards from LOS. Also there were a few jet sweep counters we ran with Weisman that went for 8-12 yards and if we had Parker or Canzeri running it instead, maybe we have a TD or a huge play. So it's just typical of KF football, play it safe. Do same thing over and over expecting diff results. Indiana always plays us tough. Will have to see one of their games to see if their QB is competent. Cause I believe if we play a team with decent offense, we are in trouble
jacknicholson
Well-Known Member
IAHAWK1982
Well-Known Member
I think the intent was to run, but CJB decided to check to a quick slant pass, but receiver wasn't on the same page. I would guess that is what has happened in practice and made KF reluctant to put CJ in games.
I counted the number of Purdue defenders "in the box" on at least 35% of our plays (I was in Ross-Aide) and the numbers ranged from 8-9, with even one 10. And, their first steps were toward the LOS. I just cannot see the logic of continuing to run the inside and more especially, the outside zone plays when we are so badly outnumbered. Have you not been disappointed by our run game? Have you not questioned Weisman's skills? The O-line's performance? Brian F. coaching? Maybe execution? Too many running backs factored in? Good grief! We had 14 total yards in the first quarter! I don't care who is playing QB...I just do not understand the play calling. And, no, I am not missing the fact that there were some very good calls by Davis...but still too many head scratchers. Thank goodness we wore Purdue down in the second half and had some success running the ball. Credit where credit is due.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
I didn't like the fact we hardly LOOKED at downfield/vertical passing game the first half. And exactly how many "play-action" passes did we throw? If the answer is anything higher than "two", I'll be shocked.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Exactly. And PA was almost non-existent.
biasedHAWKEYE
Well-Known Member
Especially because Iowa had been running the ball right before that so well. I think if they run twice, they get the first down.
In the first half, some of the passing plays...they didn't allow the team to get into a rhtyhm. Surprised Iowa didn't run a screen or a simple pass play or two to get the offense and CJ going.
Overall, no major gripes with the play-calling. I thought the play calls at Pitt, minus (once again) a very weird third down play call with the zone read plays, was alright as well.
