hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
And I think that is exactly what the staff is doing, phasing him into being a piece of the puzzle rather than depending on him to solve it.
Perception vs. Reality. Iowa's rushing offense in the B1G
- Thread starter biasedHAWKEYE
- Start date
And I think that is exactly what the staff is doing, phasing him into being a piece of the puzzle rather than depending on him to solve it.
HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
Since Weisman is good against non-conference competition but not so good against conference competition, why is Weisman even in? To allow other runners to be fresh for the conference season? No, I'm not joking.... Or is it a KF idiosyncrasy?
ibahawkeye
Well-Known Member
Got any stats to back up this claim.
I will agree that Weisman has better stats against non con but I wouldn't consider Bullocks any better than his in our conference games.
HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
Not what I said, dude.
ibahawkeye
Well-Known Member
What are you saying dude?
HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
Re read my second to previous post.
HawkeyeWalker
Well-Known Member
So who should get the majority of carries then? What's our Best option right now. Yeah, it's MW, with Bullock and Daniels getting the rest....Exactly how it is right now.
Eventually Daniels will be the man...we hope. He seems to have the raw skills but needs practice and reps, which he's getting. It's also pretty obvious he needs work on block pick ups and vision....
You make it sound like we have a bunch of studs and KF just won't play them, it's ok though because it fits your narrative.
HawkeyeWalker
Well-Known Member
Oh, I know your not joking. That's what make it so funny.
Who should be the primary back? waiting anxiously for your brilliant answer.
ibahawkeye
Well-Known Member
I think I get it.... You would like to wait for future stats in hopes they will back your statement rather than use the ones we currently have that don't back your statement.
This would be great plan if we had a runningback currently capable of replacing him as the go-to guy.
FYI
vs Minnesota: 24 carries 6.1 avg 147 yards Bullock: 11 carries 4.3 avg 47 yards
vs MSU: 7 carries 1.3 avg 9 yards Bullock: 4 carries 1.5 avg 6 yards
vs OSU: 10 carries 5.2 avg 52 yards Bullock: 10 carries 5.6 avg 56 yards
vs NW: 13 carries 4.3 avg 56 yards Bullock: 17 carries 3.1 avg 52 yards
Daniels is averaging about 3 yards a carry in his limited work during conference season
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
My guess is Bullock and Daniels get more carries, and when warranted/needed, Weisman gets increased carries. My point is that the staff seems to be setting up a game plan that isn't dependent on Weisman, per se.
HawkeyeDenis
Well-Known Member
Weisman is a good 3 yards an a cloud of dust college back. He is great changeup from Bullock and Daniels. For once Iowa has a surplus of running backs eight games into the season. And the passing game is getting better. Albeit by increments rather than leaps and bounds. There is a shot at a 6 win + season and I for one am going to enjoy it!
And my point is when people ask why the running game hasn't been as successful as it was earlier in the season, they need to look no further than Bullock getting more carries and Weisman getting fewer carries. And for those that seem to think Bullock gives us the homerun threat, his longest run of the season is 22 yards, 15 yards fewer than Weisman's longest run. His longest run of his career is 27 yards.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Then you missed my ORIGINAL point (when responding to Jon). Jon made the point that Weisman basically isn't "feature" back material, or some such thing. My point was that we are seeing that now, with the staff not putting all the eggs in the Weisman basket.
biasedHAWKEYE
Well-Known Member
I agree with that for the most part. My OP wasn't meant to bag on Weisman. If anything, I'm surprised that Weisman is getting less and less work when his YPC is significantly higher...
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
If we are all talking about the same play; what I saw was Daniels planting to make the cut back (inside and to his right) but an Iowa OL (I think Donnel #78) arrived right at the same time and Daniels ran into the Iowa OL. This stopped Daiels forward momentum and he was tackled for no gain or 1 yard gain. To me, that is just timing and I beleve Daniels saw the cutback lane. If either Daniels arrived a 1/4 step later or the OL a 1/4 step sooner, it looked to be a good play and a good run.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
I don't even think it's a matter of Weisman or Bullock (or whoever) being "better". The last 1000-yard rusher we had was 2011. We didn't "need" one in 2009, and ARob may have even done it with a "full" 2010, as might have Coker. 2012 was simply a "lost" season, but a healthy Weisman could easily have reached 1000 yards.
But 2012 also saw decimation on the OL within 3 minutes in the PSU game.
With a healthy OL, we CAN utilize more backs, and thus not be "dependent" on a single back from game to game.
I'm kind of puzzled with Jon's latest "talk" about Weisman. When the chips are down, I STILL want, at the very least, the POSSIBILITY of Weisman being in the game. Having Weisman, Bullock and Daniels available, plus Canzeri in an emergency, is pretty comforting. Having a good number of TEs helps even more. If we had one more WR who was KMM-level capable, plus Powell as a deep threat, we could be a 9-win team, at least from the standpoint of offense. Thus, it kind of puzzles me we don't try and utilize other fast WRs as occasional, keep-the-D-honest, deep ball threats.
"It's still about executing," Chip Kelly told Philly.com. "I think everybody kind of knows going into the game plan, you're not going to surprise people eight games into the season. We have to run the right depth on our routes. We have to catch the ball when it's thrown to us. We have to put the ball on people when people are open. We have to hit the hole when the hole is there. We have to create a hole if the hole is not there. That's just executing football."
I think that's what Weisman does exceptionally well. He has a talent for hitting the hole if it's there. If it's not there, that's on the OL (or maybe the playcalling). We have to figure out how to create the hole if it's not there.
I think that's what Weisman does exceptionally well. He has a talent for hitting the hole if it's there. If it's not there, that's on the OL (or maybe the playcalling). We have to figure out how to create the hole if it's not there.
Bigtenchamp
Well-Known Member
If Weisman just had a tad more quickness he would be a beast - he has good explosion through the hole but he just can't change direction.
Bullock sometimes shows vision and explosion then at other times can't see the hole and runs timid.
There are so many times that the oline opens up what should be a 20 yard plus lane and we get 8 yards.
Bullock sometimes shows vision and explosion then at other times can't see the hole and runs timid.
There are so many times that the oline opens up what should be a 20 yard plus lane and we get 8 yards.
