Players saved staff from serious scrutiny

What SOME Iowa fans seem to NOT be grasping is that the Hawks absolutely HAVE TO help bring along their running game. If you don't give your running game live reps ... then it's never going to improve.

Also, I'm willing to bet that Coker is having ankle or leg issues that are impacting his mobility. I'm not seeing him drive his legs or cut as decisively as he had last year. As a result, the O is making a much more concerted effort to help him run North-South as quickly as possible ... and consequently, we're not using our bread-n-butter zone-blocking as much as we usually do. We're doing a lot more pulling and trapping than we ordinarily do.

Thus, while I wouldn't say that the blocking has been "bad" ... because our OL isn't doing their bread-n-butter as much ... the run blocking isn't to the level that we'd like to see either.

It will be a good thing as Bullock gets more experience and receives more reps. We'll probably be able to use more of our base-blocking schemes for him ... and we'll likely do a better job executing it too.
 
homerHAWKeye777 said:
The late in the season reasoning is linked to the weather. And, in particular, it is correlated to the fact that Stanzi was primarily a "touch" passer. He wasn't as capable as Vandenberg of delivering a ball on a rope. With Vandenberg at the helm, Iowa's passing game should probably be less hindered by the weather.

Do you disagree ... is this NOT logical thinking?

As for playing good defenses ... good defenses tend to slow/stop most opposing offenses. Thus, to not score much against PSU's or tOSU's D is more par for the course ... and not a knock on the O. Besides, if you recall how well Iowa's OL fared against Heyward ... it's not like they were playing poorly either.

As for getting the back-up RB more reps ... Bullock saw quality reps against Pitt ... although, he was primarily getting experience in pass-pro.
Click to expand...

Sure, there's decent logic in the first part of your post. But maybe I missed something...I don't know that any one was advocating an Air Coryell offense to be implemented. The less time the ball spends in the air the better...even if that means short passes as an extension of the running game. Don't need a big arm for those...

At what point do these factors become shortcomings of the offense as opposed to built-in excuses when the offense isn't performing?
 
Pakistanzi said:
I get what you're saying, but your stats don't support your argument. We were losing to Pittsburgh virtually the entire game, and had no choice but to chuck the ball in the 4th quarter. We threw what, 20 times in the 4th quarter? We were leading or tied with ISU virtually the entire game so the need to pass the ball a lot wasn't there.

I would be curious to see the 1st half vs. 2nd half breakdown of pass attempts against Pitt. My guess is that we easily attempted at least twice as many passes in the 2nd half, and that was largely out of necessity.
Click to expand...

We attempted 23 passes in the first half and 26 in the second. There were several other pass plays called in the first half but JVB was sacked. I have yet to see anyone in this thread acknowledge the fact that our "conservative" offense chucked the ball 23 times in the first two quarters.
 
silvanthalas said:
The quote was that Iowa was going to USE the hurry up. I and others say that we were not until we were forced to, which was evident by the fact that *gasp* it was not used until we were forced to.

So, let me know when you're done moving the goalposts.
Click to expand...
Right...moving goalposts. My argument is not waivering from what I was responding to in your first post. Eddy said we were practicing hurry up and were planning on using it in the game. You said and I quote "We.were.not.going.to.use. it." What do you base this quote on? Were you at practice? Did you work out the game plan with Kirk And KOK? Just wondering where you came up with this info. In the mean time I'll stick with Ed's info.
 
To me this is like taking Mr. Davis's best basketballl teams and putting them under the direction of Lickliter. Regardless of the talent, Lickliter would promote his agenda over the talent on the roster. IMO, same with KOK and KF..they are one in the same apparently, as the KOK apologists claim he has no say in play calling, it's all KF.

We have an excellent WR trio, a QB with a strong arm and high football IQ, an offensive line that is much better pass blocking from the gun than run blocking against stacked boxes and, appparently, only one RB who knows the plays. If this formula = a recipe for running the ball, then I question your football IQ.

I have nothing but respect for KF and am not calling for his job. I am tired of watching an offense, loaded with talent, sputter and underperform year after year while people hammer the defense for not pitcing a shutout every weekend. Coker is a nice back, but we need a change of pace guy who is more dynamic and better at running the zone play and catching the ball out of the backfield. You add that dimension to a pass to establish the run game and we become a very hard defend, which gives our D a larger cushion and keeps them off the field.
 
hawkfan2679 said:
Sure, there's decent logic in the first part of your post. But maybe I missed something...I don't know that any one was advocating an Air Coryell offense to be implemented. The less time the ball spends in the air the better...even if that means short passes as an extension of the running game. Don't need a big arm for those...

At what point do these factors become shortcomings of the offense as opposed to built-in excuses when the offense isn't performing?
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing that the O wasn't playing well.

The bigger question is to try to (in a more scientific fashion) break down WHY it sometimes doesn't play better.

Unfortunately too many fans let their emotions guide opinions a bit too much. Furthermore, it appears that the de facto reaction is simply to blame the coaches ... or, more specifically, KOK.

I would argue that by watching the last few games ... the biggest issues that we've had on O are:

- we need to get Vandenberg into a rhythm
- Coker isn't running like Coker ... he must be healing from an injury of some form or another. This factor has really significantly hit our running game.
- to play to Coker's strengths (or the ability that his current health allows him) ... we've changed up our blocking schemes. I'm willing to bet that part of McCall's success was not only due to him being more healthy (prior to his injury) ... but also because Iowa was using more of its bread-n-butter zone blocking.
- TE play has not been as consistent as would be ideal (a few dropped balls, some issues blocking, etc)
- FB play has not been ideal
- Dumb penalties ... we were particularly hit by those against Pitt (false-starts, holding penalties, etc)

As I see it, most of the above issues are correctable. Furthermore, I anticipate that the coaches will try to do even more to try to help Vandenberg get into a rhythm. I also think that the coaches will continue to try to bring along Bullock. The coaches have a great track-record when it comes to development on the OL and at TE ... so I anticipate that those guys will continue to make strides. Lastly, as Coker continues to "heal up" and regain his prior confidence ... I think that we'll see him become more and more effective for us.
 
olivecourt said:
We attempted 23 passes in the first half and 26 in the second. There were several other pass plays called in the first half but JVB was sacked. I have yet to see anyone in this thread acknowledge the fact that our "conservative" offense chucked the ball 23 times in the first two quarters.
Click to expand...

As we know, the biggest difference is two-fold ...

1. Vandenberg found more of a rhythm in the 2nd half ... and thus was more accurate and precise with his passes
2. We figured out Pitt's coverage scheme in the 2nd half and thus were better able to pick it apart.
 
our running mentality is never going away. JVB is really good for Iowa, but can you imagine what we could do with Andrew Luck? The stanford offense has few receivers and tons of tight ends. he is projected to be the top pick in next years draft, but yet he threw the ball only 31 times versus Arizona who struggled to cover Okie St receivers the weekend before.

My point is Vandenburg has attempted more passes than a first round pick in a similar pro-style offense.

If a team with a weapon like Luck in their arsenal can stay within themselves and stay true to the run, then Luck will be that much better. Then, so should Iowa, No?

Crazy side note, JVB and Luck are the same age......both redshirt Juniors.
 
Any good football team needs to be able to run the football effectively. I do not want Iowa to get away from the run but be able to mix up the run/pass plays to where it confuses the defense. When you see 8 men in the box switch to a quick pass play/play action and when the defense plays pass run the ball. When I can sit at home and know what plays Iowa is going to run I know damn well the other teams coaches are able to do the same. When the offense is having a hard time getting into a rhythm then go into a no huddle.
 
scourt said:
What do you base this quote on?
Click to expand...

I guess I have to repeat myself: the fact that we didn't use it until we were forced to by virtue of being down 3 touchdowns late in the game.

There were several drives where they didn't shoot ourselves in the foot with a penalty where they could have gone to the hurry up if they were actually serious about it.

They didn't go to the hurry up. They weren't serious about it. It isn't rocket science.
 
Even before there was a big difference between the team that took the field on week 3 versus week two. The defense was better organized, players were more sure of their assignments. In short they weren't perfect but they played better. In week two the defenisive shuffling didn't work. Penalties killed the offense and as a result kept the defense on the field.

I doubt any serious scrutiny would have occured even if the team had lost. And if there was serious scrutiny, so what? They have nothing to hide. (as far as we know) What would serious scrutiny find? That the team is young and inexperianced? They are going to make mistakes. There may be flashes of brilliance but they are just as likely to step in dog doo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top