Please dump the huury up QB sneak
- Thread starter StickUP
- Start date
JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
I agree with this. I'd rather take my chances with Weisman
EMik21
Well-Known Member
Did anybody notice the UNI player running off of the field as they were running a d-lineman on while the official was standing "over" the ball? It looked like Iowa wanted to "go" earlier but they basically let UNI get set?
I do agree though, give it Weisman for that 1 yard.
I do agree though, give it Weisman for that 1 yard.
ibahawkeye
Well-Known Member
Agreed with Chuck Long's analysis. Loved that we went for it on 4th and wish we would have went with the Hammer.
ibahawkeye
Well-Known Member
i agree the spot wasn't great but I think that's just another reason why I don't like the play. The sideline judges can't spot it well.
HawkIMalaise
Banned
Against Cedar Falls U. we should be able to impose our will behind Scherff with Stephen Hawking if necessary.
Of all the horrible things Chuck Long said, his take on that was the worst in my opinion. He said a qb sneak on 3rd down was ok because if you didn't get it you still had another shot. Couldn't you say the same thing about every other play?
In 08 against msu we ran the ball to Greene on 4th and 1 and got stuffed. Turning around and moving away from the line of scrimmage allows time for the defense to get penetration. Even with the Doak Walker winner I think the chances would have been better with a qb sneak. It's surprising to see how many people are against it considering how successful it has been.
I think people are confusing the success when Iowa runs the hurry up on 2nd or 3rd down. Even that is a bad call. If you pick up 9.5 yards on 1st down, don't rush a QB sneak to pick up the first down. Use the opportunity to pick up more than inches. The play just doesn't make sense.
On the 4th down play, there will never be a call that is 100%. But why run you skinny QB when you have very strong RBs. Also, in this case, you ran at UNIs best defensive player (DT).
Maybe I am confused, but I don't remember that many successful QB sneaks.
On the 4th down play, there will never be a call that is 100%. But why run you skinny QB when you have very strong RBs. Also, in this case, you ran at UNIs best defensive player (DT).
Maybe I am confused, but I don't remember that many successful QB sneaks.
I bet we are 18 for our last 20. Not counting the ones where we get a false start trying to hurry. It works almost every time. I do agree that running it on 2nd down is dumb though.
Hawknick
Banned
Maybe add a play with a direct snap to the fullback lined up closer to the los? Such as this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVXqs64FR2Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVXqs64FR2Y
tm3308
Well-Known Member
I also agreed with him when he said the hurry up sneak isn't a bad play to have up your sleeve, but it's not the play you run when it's do or die. It's a good idea to run on 2nd or 3rd and 1 from time to time.
You really agree with that? What's the difference which play you run when it's do or die? It's either a play you have faith in or it's not. A Weisman stuff on 4th and 1 is the exact same thing as a qb stuff. I would bet everything I had that Rudocks qb sneak has been a higher percentage play then Weismans 3rd or 4th and 1 percentage.
INTIMIDATORHawk
Well-Known Member
Podolak said on Soundoff yesterday that the advantage to using a big running back on 4th and 1 is that they have 3 steps in which to decide where to go with the ball to get the first down. Perhaps that means over the top.
If the defense is going to stuff you then it will stuff you no matter what the play call is or who is carrying the ball. 4th down conversions are an inexact science.
If the defense is going to stuff you then it will stuff you no matter what the play call is or who is carrying the ball. 4th down conversions are an inexact science.
