HawkPrdatr40
Well-Known Member
I’m going out on an limb and saying KOK had a lot more to do with that game than BF did.
I’m going out on an limb and saying KOK had a lot more to do with that game than BF did.
Northside Hawk
Well-Known Member
Toren was playing in his hometown against a school that lightly recruited him.
He was probably looking forward to that game for two years.
Northside Hawk
Well-Known Member
We are sorely missing our departed tight ends in the red zone. That's why so many drives have bogged down just short of the goal line.
Brian has designed this offense, once inside the red zone, to feature the tight ends. Since we essentially don't have any he has put several effective plays in mothballs. For example, when was the last time you saw that play near the goal line where the tight end delays then comes all the way across the field. That play was money for Noah and TJ for two years.
That red zone play that Vandeberg ran so we'll, where three receivers line up wide in a triangle formation, the two block for the other. Where has that been?
How about a tight end up the seam?
Where have our fake field goals been? They work three times in two years, then one comes up short and suddenly they're in mothballs. Sounds like Kirk's fingerprints on that one.
Brian has designed this offense, once inside the red zone, to feature the tight ends. Since we essentially don't have any he has put several effective plays in mothballs. For example, when was the last time you saw that play near the goal line where the tight end delays then comes all the way across the field. That play was money for Noah and TJ for two years.
That red zone play that Vandeberg ran so we'll, where three receivers line up wide in a triangle formation, the two block for the other. Where has that been?
How about a tight end up the seam?
Where have our fake field goals been? They work three times in two years, then one comes up short and suddenly they're in mothballs. Sounds like Kirk's fingerprints on that one.
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
In all fairness, the game was a lot closer than I thought it would be. I sincerely was expecting Wisconsin to win by at least two TDs.
It's easy to point to any number of factors as to why we lost, but there were several positives as well. Other than L. Paulsen and Kallenberger, I thought the o-line put together a pretty solid effort. Regardless, though, it's maddening to see Paulsen and Kallenberger get dominated at the point of attack and knocked on their asses. The unit is only as good as its weakest link. Stanley once again had interior blitzers in his face over and over, particularly in the first half. For the most part, the WRs played solid as well. Tracy really stepped up. Our kicking and punting deserves praise too.
The play calling was overly conservative, but it's a double-edged sword. It's obvious that the staff was putting a premium on sustained drives and ball-control, but, if you are going to emphasize that, you better convert 3rd downs and not get behind the chains, and the offense failed in both cases.
The defense was just okay. The safeties did not play particularly well with poor tackling and bad angles, and, as with the PSU game, even when we knew that Wisconsin was going to run to keep the clock moving, we miserably failed to stop it. For the life of me, I don't understand the staff's insistence on playing Reiff in those situations. He was being moved around like a piece of furniture, allowing other blockers to get to the second level. Insert your stoutest tackles in those situations, and, like I posted after the PSU game, why not bring in Jones at ILB? He's not very reliable in space, but he's a missile filling gaps and taking on blockers. It's worth the gamble in those situations. Doyle was overmatched those last two drives.
It's easy to point to any number of factors as to why we lost, but there were several positives as well. Other than L. Paulsen and Kallenberger, I thought the o-line put together a pretty solid effort. Regardless, though, it's maddening to see Paulsen and Kallenberger get dominated at the point of attack and knocked on their asses. The unit is only as good as its weakest link. Stanley once again had interior blitzers in his face over and over, particularly in the first half. For the most part, the WRs played solid as well. Tracy really stepped up. Our kicking and punting deserves praise too.
The play calling was overly conservative, but it's a double-edged sword. It's obvious that the staff was putting a premium on sustained drives and ball-control, but, if you are going to emphasize that, you better convert 3rd downs and not get behind the chains, and the offense failed in both cases.
The defense was just okay. The safeties did not play particularly well with poor tackling and bad angles, and, as with the PSU game, even when we knew that Wisconsin was going to run to keep the clock moving, we miserably failed to stop it. For the life of me, I don't understand the staff's insistence on playing Reiff in those situations. He was being moved around like a piece of furniture, allowing other blockers to get to the second level. Insert your stoutest tackles in those situations, and, like I posted after the PSU game, why not bring in Jones at ILB? He's not very reliable in space, but he's a missile filling gaps and taking on blockers. It's worth the gamble in those situations. Doyle was overmatched those last two drives.
Last edited:
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
trj
Well-Known Member
Gotcha. I think it would have been 4th and 2, so yeah that makes sense.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
There's your union card at work. More talented guy sits...while tenure guy plays. Don't tell me it's a fallacy
iloveyoularrystation
Well-Known Member
Nate Stanley, who is an incredible young man, and a great hawk, is not a big moment, or big game qb. He played horrible in the first 3 quarters. For the third time this year, if we had competent qb play, not good or great, competent qb play, in the first 3 quarters, we win the game despite all those things above in the poll. You can't have your qb play this badly in big games, and expect to win. The plays were there, he didn't make them. The oline has struggled this season, the other teams blitzed a lot, and yet the plays were there to make. He hesitated and didn't make throws in the first half that were there especially after that turnovers the d got, that he didn't take because he was too afraid to throw it, and double clutched. He didn't play well enough for us to win. Period. If you look at every game we've lost in the last two years. We win them all with competent qb play.
