Perception vs. Reality. Iowa's rushing offense in the B1G

B

biasedHAWKEYE

Well-Known Member
Through four games...

Weisman: 54 carries for 264 yards. 0 TD. 4.9 YPC.
Bullock: 42 carries for 161 yards. 1 TD. 3.8 YPC.
Rudock: 18 carries for 76 yards. 1 TD. 4.2 YPC.
Daniels: 7 carries for 22 yards.
Canzeri: 3 carries for 13 yards.

Total: 124 carries for 536 yards. 2 TD, including Rudock's scrambles...

Surprises
1. Rudock has a better YPC average than Bullock.
2. Iowa's RB's have combined for 1 rushing TD in conference. Rudock has thrown for 7 TD's and has run for another during that time...
3. Weisman is only averaging 13 carries per game.
 
I like Weisman. There is a place for him. But he is a limited back and Iowa's offense has a glass ceiling with him as their lead back. He's not a good fit for the zone scheme, which Iowa prefers to run, and he is not a threat to break a long run. Again, I think there is a place for him and he and Bullock can change pace here. But he is a part of the solution, not THE solution.
 
JonDMiller said:
I like Weisman. There is a place for him. But he is a limited back and Iowa's offense has a glass ceiling with him as their lead back. He's not a good fit for the zone scheme, which Iowa prefers to run, and he is not a threat to break a long run. Again, I think there is a place for him and he and Bullock can change pace here. But he is a part of the solution, not THE solution.
Click to expand...

I agree. I y like Weisman. He gets a lot of tough yards. However, if Iowa had a really good running back, some of those 10 yard runs would be 30 yard runs and maybe even a TD. Iowa's RB's just don't have the ability to break the big run. That really hurts this offense (and any offense).
 
JonDMiller said:
I like Weisman. There is a place for him. But he is a limited back and Iowa's offense has a glass ceiling with him as their lead back. He's not a good fit for the zone scheme, which Iowa prefers to run, and he is not a threat to break a long run. Again, I think there is a place for him and he and Bullock can change pace here. But he is a part of the solution, not THE solution.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, though Weisman provides a physicality that seems to disappear when Bullock is in the game. I think Bullock is an excellent third down back, since he is a threat out of the backfield, and his blitz pick-up is very good. But I wouldn't want him to be a 20 carry back for Iowa either.

Maybe the solution is to gradually increase Daniel's work. He definitely passes the eye test for what a starting B1G back should look like.
 
Bullock really hasn't shown anything all year but in typical fashion, KF has found comfort with him. Wouldn't want to risk changing things up.

Has to be much more upside in Daniels but he only got 3 carries today - Bullock 17. Hmmmm wonder if Daniels had 17 carries instead?
 
hwks1 said:
Bullock really hasn't shown anything all year but in typical fashion, KF has found comfort with him. Wouldn't want to risk changing things up.

Has to be much more upside in Daniels but he only got 3 carries today - Bullock 17. Hmmmm wonder if Daniels had 17 carries instead?
Click to expand...

Your exactly the type of poster JD referenced in another thread.
 
That's the thing Jon, while I agree that Weisman isn't an ideal fit, he's lightyears better at running the football than Bullock is. If Weisman isn't a good fit for a zone blocking scheme, what do you call someone who refuses to cut back and looks to bounce everything to the outside?
 
hwks1 said:
Bullock really hasn't shown anything all year but in typical fashion, KF has found comfort with him. Wouldn't want to risk changing things up.

Has to be much more upside in Daniels but he only got 3 carries today - Bullock 17. Hmmmm wonder if Daniels had 17 carries instead?
Click to expand...

I don't think he took another carry after he missed a huge cut back lane, rookie mistake. With a close game you don't risk that, you go with the players that have earned the confidence.
 
Clark said:
That's the thing Jon, while I agree that Weisman isn't an ideal fit, he's lightyears better at running the football than Bullock is. If Weisman isn't a good fit for a zone blocking scheme, what do you call someone who refuses to cut back and looks to bounce everything to the outside?
Click to expand...

Bullock has seemed to improved some in this regard and does seem to be running harder the last couple games. Reps have helped. The combo of the two, sprinkled with a few reps with Daniels will be the key.
 
Clark said:
That's the thing Jon, while I agree that Weisman isn't an ideal fit, he's lightyears better at running the football than Bullock is. If Weisman isn't a good fit for a zone blocking scheme, what do you call someone who refuses to cut back and looks to bounce everything to the outside?
Click to expand...

a good passing down back trying to be an every-down back. No one can doubt Bullocks' ability to pick up the blitz, to catch the ball out of the backfield, and provide some decent runs on draws...but you're right, he doesn't have great vision and while he is becoming more patient (and then making one cut), I don't think he isn't an every down back.

The problem is that neither is Canzeri (another athlete playing RB), and Weisman is somewhat limited as well as a powerback.

Daniels might be the closest thing to an every down back that Iowa has, and that is mostly speculation at this point.
 
imported_jsmith337 said:
I don't think he took another carry after he missed a huge cut back lane, rookie mistake. With a close game you don't risk that, you go with the players that have earned the confidence.
Click to expand...

Exactly. But this is the kind of reality some here just don't or won't accept. They would rather live in hyperbole world.
 
biasedHAWKEYE said:
a good passing down back trying to be an every-down back. No one can doubt Bullocks' ability to pick up the blitz, to catch the ball out of the backfield, and provide some decent runs on draws...but you're right, he doesn't have great vision and while he is becoming more patient (and then making one cut), I don't think he isn't an every down back.

The problem is that neither is Canzeri (another athlete playing RB), and Weisman is somewhat limited as well as a powerback.

Daniels might be the closest thing to an every down back that Iowa has, and that is mostly speculation at this point.
Click to expand...

Good take...well said.
 
Weisman and Bullock have the game experience. Daniels is the future. Although how many times have we anointed a running back that? Weisman and Bullock best understand the system and help out a young quarterback in Ruddock. I like less reliance on the rushing game, but we know KF's philosophy so we need to have capable backs. Shonn Greene was tHat type of back. Here's hoping he wI'll get more touches. That being said I respect the loyalty to Weisman. He has done what has been asked of him.
 
I am not certain the day of the "every down back" is not coming to a close. These guys take such a beating that I am convinced that the chance of injury or just wearing down during a game are too high. I think with Bullock and Weisman, at this point in the season, we have seen the sharing of the position by the two best options. I really like Daniels and as another poster mentioned, he is likely the future. But, in my view, which is admittedly limited, he is not ready for a major role at this point. I am really glad that KF has given him some prime time carries and hope that will continue. I love Canzeri, but he is just not in the plans for the future at the RB position, IMHO.
 
Someone mentioned Bullock catching passes out of the backfield.

I would like to see this more but unfortunately he really has been targeted that much.

In the first half Jake R tried to fit a pass into CJF about 20 yards downfield and Bullock was wide open by the east sideline with no one on him within 20 yards.

I think we have to check down and look at the running backs more for pass plays, Weisman caught two balls yesterday I think. He is also very capable as a receiver.
 
Weisman is the best back they have right now and he proves it every week by being the most productive so I don't know why people keep doubting him. Bullock has improved a lot as the season has progressed.
 
Clark said:
That's the thing Jon, while I agree that Weisman isn't an ideal fit, he's lightyears better at running the football than Bullock is. If Weisman isn't a good fit for a zone blocking scheme, what do you call someone who refuses to cut back and looks to bounce everything to the outside?
Click to expand...
in KFs system, you mean... There is a place for a hardnosed back but not as the lead running back, though. Not against B1G competition. What do you call a back that refuses to cut back and always wants to bounce everything to the outside? Melvin Gordon III, for example.
 
Last edited:
David79 said:
Weisman is the best back they have right now and he proves it every week by being the most productive so I don't know why people keep doubting him. Bullock has improved a lot as the season has progressed.
Click to expand...
Just watch his rushing totals dwindle week after week against B1G competition.
 
I'm a Weisman guy.

I don't think Bullock has really shown the ability to make big plays and he doesn't get the YAC like Weisman so what advantage does he bring? I don't have any thing against Bullock but I would prefer Daniels to get his workload.
 
imported_jsmith337 said:
I don't think he took another carry after he missed a huge cut back lane, rookie mistake. With a close game you don't risk that, you go with the players that have earned the confidence.
Click to expand...
Except the fact that they all miss cut back lanes. They all just put their head down and plow forward sometimes into their own blocker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top