PeoriaHWKI
Well-Known Member
The problem is we have a full back as a running back and I said it was going to catch up to us once we hit B1G play with stellar defenses who can just clog and that what happened.
No faith in backup RB's?
- Thread starter azhawkeyefan
- Start date
We tried 11 times all day with running backs. I didn't say they were the problem, I'm saying maybe after our starter got hurt we shouldn't have completely abandoned the run.
SpecialKHawk
Well-Known Member
Yes that is true. We typically have really good offensive tackles but super poor interior lineman. The reason for that is we typically recruit and play small interior lineman that have leverage and physicality issues which are exposed especially when going against quality defenses.
The great myth is that we have great offensive lines and a guru offensive line head coach. Facts do not support it.
EMik21
Well-Known Member
I don't think that we ever truly tried to establish the run with our formations that work. Where we the 2 tight end sets at? Where were the formations with the FB? If our FB's are that good, and our line, Bullock should be able to present the threat of the run, even with Weisman out.
We out-thought ourselves and came out in 3 WR sets with a single back and Weisman. I think we need to start games with the formations that got us here, like we did against every other team we have played. If we truly cannot run the ball out of our best formations after 3 drives, then adjust to the 3 WR and 1 RB formations out of the gun.
I thought the game plan was poor, as I bet the o-line would agree that we didn't intend to play Iowa football, or the Iowa football that we were trying to get back to on Saturday.
And the one time that I saw the heavy package, we had a one option route and that was deep to Cotton. If we are running that route with him, make it a deep square in, not a fly pattern. We needed yards there to get out of the shadow of our goal posts, not points necessarily.
We out-thought ourselves and came out in 3 WR sets with a single back and Weisman. I think we need to start games with the formations that got us here, like we did against every other team we have played. If we truly cannot run the ball out of our best formations after 3 drives, then adjust to the 3 WR and 1 RB formations out of the gun.
I thought the game plan was poor, as I bet the o-line would agree that we didn't intend to play Iowa football, or the Iowa football that we were trying to get back to on Saturday.
And the one time that I saw the heavy package, we had a one option route and that was deep to Cotton. If we are running that route with him, make it a deep square in, not a fly pattern. We needed yards there to get out of the shadow of our goal posts, not points necessarily.
We can't coach ourselves out of a paper bag at Iowa. There is no other way to say it. I feel bad for the players, they could do so much more with better pre-game planning, in game coaching, and the ability to modify game plans as necessary. Right now the players are kinda out there on a limb, and it would require extraordinary ability and execution on their part to overcome the current coaching levels that they are being given. Iowa football coaches ain't got it and are not going to get it, it's become rather obvious.
blubberhawk
Well-Known Member
Nothing I would enjoy more than a win in Lincoln...It ain't happening this year, with this Iowa team.
STILLBUSTER
Well-Known Member
This might seem blasphemous but at the risk of scorn and ridicule I will still toss it out there ...
Maybe try some runs and formations that aren't designed to run into the teeth of a superior DL and 8 man box?
--Average-speed Cotton on a slow-developing reverse? Uh, NO! Speedy Canzeri on a quick pitch or power sweep? Uh, getting warmer!
-- Twin TE's and tight gaps, conservative and safe but eliminates space. Split out CJF, Bullock in the slot and widen the OL splits a foot gives DANIELS a bit more room to run downhill with some steam.
Since your primary offensive identity is a power rushing attack, maybe try your other power back? (Ya know, the one who's quickly becoming the "Jake Rudock" of 2013?)
Just another high-talent, high-reward player, at a position that is about the safest skill position for inexperience to gain experience, who has to "pay his dues" behind less talented / less-suited, more experienced players. (
Just another "notch" in Kirt's legacy.)
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
Yep. No imagination. Just the same ol...same ol. This is exactly why many say it appears that KFz isn't trying... or perhaps a better way of saying it... isn't doing everything he can, to put a winner on the field.
hawkfarmer
Well-Known Member
I got destroyed when I started the why waste Daniels' redshirt and I was told that when Weisman got dinged he would need to have experience for the B1G slate. I agreed that would be great if he was actually going to get carries. Will he actually get carries? I have yet to see anything from KF that says he will unless they are up 20 at Purdue. Who knows, but this seems eerily familiar.
hawkfan2679
Well-Known Member
There wouldn't have been any destroying from me. We're on the same wavelength here...in fact here's something I posted on a different site within the last couple days.
I know we've got a long way to go, but we've seen this before...what happens if Weisman stays healthy the rest of the year? If we don't blow anyone out, do we see Daniels again this season? I'd hate to see Daniels get Coker'd like Marcus did 3 years ago...shirt burned in the Ball State game that year and then I think the next 5 or 6 games where he didn't even get on the field, even though he was (due to attrition) the backup RB. This year, when we've actually got decent depth (decent depth for other schools, phenomenal depth for the U of I!), I don't think it was necessary. I have my doubts whether a few carries against a team we are blowing out that may or may not even be playing their starters (I can't recall) suddenly makes him a viable entity at running back.
**Edit - Just to be clear...I'm not calling for Daniels to start or to suddenly become the #1A option with Weisman (or even the #2 behind Weisman). I would just hope there is further justification for burning the redshirt than several carries against a FCS opponent and thoroughly overmatched WMU team. If we are going to rotate backs, we should rotate backs.
DBAHawkFan
Well-Known Member
I would imagine the reasoning is/was....
We got away from running game. Felt we had to pass to keep is in game. Daniels isn't as strong at pass blocking, so no need to bring him in when we're gonna throw ball 46 times
We got away from running game. Felt we had to pass to keep is in game. Daniels isn't as strong at pass blocking, so no need to bring him in when we're gonna throw ball 46 times
STILLBUSTER
Well-Known Member
That would be sound reasoning, however, it glosses over the o.p.'s point -- Why so quick to abandon the run? After the pass had gained the lead, why not try a little more to reestablish the run?
Still, I grow tired of the petty reasoning that consistently results in the more talented, more athletic player, who is better suited to your style / identity sitting idle behind a player that has nothing more than seniority, because of some minute skill deficit.
Is Bullock better trained and more experienced to pick up a blitz? Yep. Is Bullock more physically capable? Don't know. I do know this -- Iowa is a power rushing team, Daniels is a power rusher, Bullock continues to dance sideways / get stuffed between the tackles. What do you want your RB's, on this team, to be better at to yield the results you seek?
It's classic Kirt ... square pegs (Bullock or Canzeri) in round holes (between the tackles) and experience always trumps talent and ability. Bullock can't run against this team, therefore, no other back can be successful, therefore, no "reason" to even offer the opportunity. It's "truth" by omission.
DBAHawkFan
Well-Known Member
Not saying I don't agree with you, or that I'd be happy with the guess-answer I provided. It's just the only explanation I can think of that would have some logic.
MSU didn't run the ball that great either, and when they found something that worked, it wasn't with their 1st string or even 2nd string RB, it was a guy who wasn't even listed on the depth chart.
If we guys that can play, play them. Canzeri saw more action as a true freshman than he's seeing now. Daniels apparently is good enough to burn a redshirt, yet has yet to see the field since mop up duty against WMU.
Only way we can know if these kids can play or not is to get them into the game. The all time worst burn of a redshirt IMO was Drew Tate. He was second string his freshman year behind Chandler, and he came in for a few snaps in mop up duty. Why? I get it that he probably learned some valuable lessons by being able to travel with the team, and taking snaps with the 1st and 2nd teams....but he's a guy I would have loved to start four years for us.
MSU didn't run the ball that great either, and when they found something that worked, it wasn't with their 1st string or even 2nd string RB, it was a guy who wasn't even listed on the depth chart.
If we guys that can play, play them. Canzeri saw more action as a true freshman than he's seeing now. Daniels apparently is good enough to burn a redshirt, yet has yet to see the field since mop up duty against WMU.
Only way we can know if these kids can play or not is to get them into the game. The all time worst burn of a redshirt IMO was Drew Tate. He was second string his freshman year behind Chandler, and he came in for a few snaps in mop up duty. Why? I get it that he probably learned some valuable lessons by being able to travel with the team, and taking snaps with the 1st and 2nd teams....but he's a guy I would have loved to start four years for us.
Most of what you say is simply untrue.
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
Hold on there, Special...you keep talking like that and people are going to start accusing you of believing it IS a big deal that Ross Pierschbacher jumped to Alabama. And, as we all now, that just isn't true.
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
Well, the first 4 games we played could have helped to correct that, if it were true. But we really don't know that since he hasn't played much.
SpecialKHawk
Well-Known Member
I agree very much on Daniels and did not want to see him play and burn his redshirt because we all knew he would never play when it matters which makes no sense. No one is calling for him to start but to not see the field is mind boggling and I do not care if he fumbles now and then while getting used to D-1 football.
What is just as maddening is the use of Canzeri. Last year when both Bullock and Weismann were hurt and he was ready to play it was decided to redshirt him. At the time I thought great because he will have three more years. Now seeing how little he is used and how stupidity he is used on the rare occasions he plays I am thinking why on earth did we not just play him last year?
Honestly you cannot make this stuff up. Either the head man is absolutely incompetent or this is a complete sabotage effort.
What is just as maddening is the use of Canzeri. Last year when both Bullock and Weismann were hurt and he was ready to play it was decided to redshirt him. At the time I thought great because he will have three more years. Now seeing how little he is used and how stupidity he is used on the rare occasions he plays I am thinking why on earth did we not just play him last year?
Honestly you cannot make this stuff up. Either the head man is absolutely incompetent or this is a complete sabotage effort.
