HawkPrdatr40
Well-Known Member
We all would prefer both and also the many backs you mentioned. The reality is if Coker didn't leave he is the only back that would see the ball.
Is Iowa better off with Bullock over Coker?
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
We all would prefer both and also the many backs you mentioned. The reality is if Coker didn't leave he is the only back that would see the ball.
Stealthawk
Well-Known Member
Slightly off topic, but since we are talking about Bullock.......Is it just me or did anyone else think the go-ahead TD run by Bullock on Saturday was a near replay of the Wegher run that sealed the win vs GT in the Orange Bowl ?
HawkPhin
Well-Known Member
Quickness to los : that's why I wish Jewel Hampton could have stayed healthy. I really believe he could been of of the best rb in Iowa history, he was a one cut and gone type of guy. Canzeri is like that too. Hope he can make a full recovery. Would be a helluva combo between the two.
ChosenChildren
Well-Known Member
I think Weisman (sp?) #45 the fullback could be your change of pace back. Put him in to rest Bullock; give him some carries.
If we get back to the Rose Bowl soon, I hope you're right.
HawkeyeWalker
Well-Known Member
gotta ask why u would reply without seeing??? just sayin
WinOneThisCentury
Well-Known Member
Right...after he bounced around, picked the wrong hole, and made one of those running in sand cuts. You know the cuts I'm talking about...where he basically comes to a stop to change direction. It was painful to watch...did you watch that?
Marcus was average at best. He ran behind a pretty damn good OL last year...I've said before, Shonn Greene would have had 2000 yards last year.
KansasHawkeye
Well-Known Member
Simple answer to the OP, no. Would have been a nice one-two punch, though.
SeattleHawkeye
Well-Known Member
These two generally summarize my opinions. I thought Jewel was going to be a phenom in the IA backfield. He had a quickness and burst I don't think we've seen since, but he also had some size and wasn't afraid of contact or to mix things up. (Recall the block on the blitzing LB at AZ? He absolutely destroyed that guy in a 1:1 situation.) I thought his ceiling was extremely high.
After Coker's bowl game against Mizzou, I think we were all anticipating one of the best backs in IA history. Instead, we got WinOneThisCentury's comments above, which IMO is painfully accurate. A quicker back getting Coker's carries last season could have had a 1,500-1,750 yard season. I don't want to diminish Coker's season or what he accomplished being in the program for 2 years, but somewhere in the off-season between Mizzou and the '11 season, he lost some quickness and burst, and seemingly never regained it.
Bullock was a smoother, more fluid runner than I realized, and I like what he accomplished Saturday. I don't think he looks like he's moving particularly fast, but he's covering ground and churning yards. I think he missed a handful of cuts in the first half, but when it was crunch time, he stepped up, and he looked solid and comfortable most of the day. Hopefully he continues to run hard, rack up yards, and improve. (And stays healthy.)
Last edited:
storminspank
Justin VanLaere
Honestly, I didn't think Bullock looked that quick. The counter he had a burst, but other than that he looked pretty avg to me. Appreciate his effort and how he got stronger as the game went on. There were times during the game where both me and my buddy made comments on how Coker prob would have made that play different. I'd take Marcus if there was a choice to be made.
franstheman
Well-Known Member
Didn't look quik? you gotta be kiddin me, Justin! Open your eyes good man!
I was watching a replay just tonight and thought that exact thing. Only difference is who made the big block to seal the edge. I think it was Bulaga or Calloway on a pull in the Orange Bowl. Saturday it was Fiedorowicz making the seam.
RocknRollface
Well-Known Member
Coker was a full back.
He racked up a ton of yards against an extremely easy schedule. He was inefecitve against a decent defense.
He racked up a ton of yards against an extremely easy schedule. He was inefecitve against a decent defense.
I think it is too difficult to say whether a quicker back would have had more yards than Coker last year. For one, although there were some plays where a quicker and faster back would have got more yards there were also plays where a smaller back would have been tackled where Coker got more yards after contact. Coker's start to the year didn't help him either. The first few games he was not in sync at all with the offense.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Harmon was, technically, "WB". And he was put there because he could improvise better than JC Love-Jordan, and the Hawks were set at RB. Once Eddie Phillips was gone, and Owen Gill could make the full-time move to FB with Norm Granger graduating, the scene was set.
Bullock will be fine, and he DOES give a dimension Coker seemed to lack. But I also think Coker DID have home run potential, he just was too banged up and so he lost that "edge" for the long pulling-away TD. He certainly showed plenty of speed against Missouri.
Bullock seems to have that extra burst. Can't ever get mad at that!
Last edited:
kmajhawk
Well-Known Member
Damon had a solid debut in his first game as starter, and I'm eager to see what he can do this year (and crossing my fingers he stays healthy and out of trouble.) However, if he was still with the team, I would take Coker in an unnecessary Kirk Ferentz time-out, based on his play and experience last year. We miss his durability, ability to hit the hole and wear defenders down, and also his pass-blocking. My guess is Damon would benefit from a year of learning and building up his strength and conditioning.
Like most positions, Iowa doesn't get the 5* perfect players often. Shonn Greene was an exception to the rule. He had the power of a full Back and still had the speed and vision.
Coker was a FB playing as a RB, a step faster and he would have been great.
Bullock doesn't yet have a large enough body of work to judge, but appears to have the speed and tools to make it. He can improve on some vision, blocking, decision making, strength and bulk, but those CAN be improved...speed, not so much. I am excited to see how he does going forward.
Coker was a FB playing as a RB, a step faster and he would have been great.
Bullock doesn't yet have a large enough body of work to judge, but appears to have the speed and tools to make it. He can improve on some vision, blocking, decision making, strength and bulk, but those CAN be improved...speed, not so much. I am excited to see how he does going forward.
storminspank
Justin VanLaere
Sorry, just calling it as I see it. Unless NIU was super fast on D, he wasn't that quick to the hole and I didn't see a lot of burst.
HawkeyeWalker
Well-Known Member
apples and oranges
need a couple more games to compare the. two
coker was a great hawk who got screwd over by his university...wish he was still here..he had enormous potential to improve with 2 years left....I'm still bitter cause the guy was everything you want in a career hawkeye
...and yes, to have then both would be great...
need a couple more games to compare the. two
coker was a great hawk who got screwd over by his university...wish he was still here..he had enormous potential to improve with 2 years left....I'm still bitter cause the guy was everything you want in a career hawkeye
...and yes, to have then both would be great...
