Purdue information

Sigh, Purdue is not very good and we are. This should not be close. I get that upsets happen and any team can jump up and bite you, but let's not overhype the odds of that happening.

Iowa just needs to be focused and play its game. If so, we win handily.

And, I cannot wait for NW and Illinois week to hear the same dribble. Fitz has our number! BB outcoaches KF every time. I am nervous about this one. Its a trap game!!!!! Wash, rinse, repeat......

This is our last 6 games:

three lay-ups
one spirited game against a lesser opponent with a cocky coach who hates us at home
two rock fights in hostile stadiums.
 
I think Iowa rolls. You’ve got upperclassmen who’ve lost 2/3 against Purdue. Time to vent some frustration they’ve caused.
 
ssckelley said:
Yeah I don't see Purdue even trying to establish the run game against Iowa, just to throw us off once in a while. I'm expecting a few sacks and more interceptions, they don't have to worry about either QB taking off and running.

I sure hope Parker has a better plan against the WR screen. PSU was getting 6/7 yards every damn time they ran it as the corners struggled to get off the block. It wouldn't surprise me to see Purdue try and exploit that, their best athletes on offense are their wide receivers. That can make up for a lack of a running game.
Click to expand...
Tbh, I noticed that too, but the screens don't really worry me.

You never want to concede yardage outright but, ultimately, it's an 11 on 11 game - that necessitates trade offs. Trying to be strong everywhere at once is a road leading to being not strong anywhere.

I believe our D system is "vulnerable" to screens if you want to look at it from that perspective. But I'd also consider it from this perspective:

- 6 or 7 yards really don't mean anything in the grand scheme of a football game. Those types of screens aren't likely to turn into big (scoring) plays.

- Those types of screens work very well, in general, between the 20s but progressively less well once you are inside the 20. At some (close) distance to the goal line, those type of screens become a liability, in fact (that's why I was so surprised/disappointed by BF calling one deep in enemy territory earlier this year - I want to say it went for a pick 6?)

When teams figure out how to consistently actually SCORE against our defense, I'll start to worry.

Until that time, if teams feel like taking their chances moving the ball downfield 6 or 7 yards at a time between the 20s...eh, knock yourselves out. Maybe some teams can execute that to perfection, but it's still going to get real hairy as they move inside the 20. For most teams, someone's eventually going to bobble the pass, get stopped for a no gain, etc.

Personally, I invite Purdue to try it and see what happens:)
 
Luftgekuehlt67 said:
Tbh, I noticed that too, but the screens don't really worry me.

You never want to concede yardage outright but, ultimately, it's an 11 on 11 game - that necessitates trade offs. Trying to be strong everywhere at once is a road leading to being not strong anywhere.

I believe our D system is "vulnerable" to screens if you want to look at it from that perspective. But I'd also consider it from this perspective:

- 6 or 7 yards really don't mean anything in the grand scheme of a football game. Those types of screens aren't likely to turn into big (scoring) plays.

- Those types of screens work very well, in general, between the 20s but progressively less well once you are inside the 20. At some (close) distance to the goal line, those type of screens become a liability, in fact (that's why I was so surprised/disappointed by BF calling one deep in enemy territory earlier this year - I want to say it went for a pick 6?)

When teams figure out how to consistently actually SCORE against our defense, I'll start to worry.

Until that time, if teams feel like taking their chances moving the ball downfield 6 or 7 yards at a time between the 20s...eh, knock yourselves out. Maybe some teams can execute that to perfection, but it's still going to get real hairy as they move inside the 20. For most teams, someone's eventually going to bobble the pass, get stopped for a no gain, etc.

Personally, I invite Purdue to try it and see what happens:)
Click to expand...

But it basically places the running game when the handoff to the RB isn't working. Easier to run an offense on 2nd down when you only need 3 or 4 yards versus 8 or 9. Perhaps PSU was just better at blocking that play and Purdue can't. Every time they ran it the corner was getting blown up.
 
Man, I am going to have to sacrifice so much damn KFC chicken because of this thread. Please start a GoFundMe for my triple bypass after the season.
 
ssckelley said:
But it basically places the running game when the handoff to the RB isn't working. Easier to run an offense on 2nd down when you only need 3 or 4 yards versus 8 or 9. Perhaps PSU was just better at blocking that play and Purdue can't. Every time they ran it the corner was getting blown up.
Click to expand...
I'll have to go back and watch to see. Always room for improvement but, in my mind, WR screens are a relatively risky proposition. It's a relatively long throw to a receiver who is behind the line of scrimmage. There's a time and place for it (especially so in these "spread" offenses) but, in the grand scheme of defensive football, if that's the way the offense wants (or, even better, needs) to get their yards, as a DC I'd say "knock yourselves out".

I'd also factor in that PSU had a couple really good athletes out there. I remember a few occasions where I felt the WR made something out of nothing.

If Purdue comes out seeming like this is a key component to how they plan to move the ball on us, I really dont have any specific concerns about it. Probably a bit encouraged by it, if anything.
 
GesterHawk said:
Man, I am going to have to sacrifice so much damn KFC chicken because of this thread. Please start a GoFundMe for my triple bypass after the season.
Click to expand...

I think there was a fan that had a heart attack after the game, I read about it on another site (RIP).

So, yeah, maybe go for the baked versions? :)
 
In the second half, the hawks really had the defensive ends race out to get in on those wide receiver screens clear out at the edge of the field. I think the Dbacks were to take away the receiver going up the sideline so basically the old adage of turning the runner back into your teammates pursuit.

And when the receiver turned back in the DEnd and a lnbkr were there waiting to tackle. I know VanValkenberg was in on a couple of those tackles for little gain.
 
ssckelley said:
I think there was a fan that had a heart attack after the game, I read about it on another site (RIP).

So, yeah, maybe go for the baked versions? :)
Click to expand...
1. RIP fan with no name.

2. Non-fried KFC is crap.
 

Attachments

  • 1634070533540.png
    1634070533540.png
    74 KB · Views: 3
  • 1634070533740.png
    1634070533740.png
    74 KB · Views: 3
Luftgekuehlt67 said:
I'll have to go back and watch to see. Always room for improvement but, in my mind, WR screens are a relatively risky proposition. It's a relatively long throw to a receiver who is behind the line of scrimmage. There's a time and place for it (especially so in these "spread" offenses) but, in the grand scheme of defensive football, if that's the way the offense wants (or, even better, needs) to get their yards, as a DC I'd say "knock yourselves out".

I'd also factor in that PSU had a couple really good athletes out there. I remember a few occasions where I felt the WR made something out of nothing.

If Purdue comes out seeming like this is a key component to how they plan to move the ball on us, I really dont have any specific concerns about it. Probably a bit encouraged by it, if anything.
Click to expand...

Again this is where I start worrying about Purdue's offense. Their best player is David Bell, Purdue wants the ball in his hands as he averages 16 yards per touch. Although it is a risk as Bell has been concussed already once this season.

Maybe it is a whole bunch of nothing. The play was driving me nuts in the PSU game.
 
Luftgekuehlt67 said:
I'll have to go back and watch to see. Always room for improvement but, in my mind, WR screens are a relatively risky proposition. It's a relatively long throw to a receiver who is behind the line of scrimmage. There's a time and place for it (especially so in these "spread" offenses) but, in the grand scheme of defensive football, if that's the way the offense wants (or, even better, needs) to get their yards, as a DC I'd say "knock yourselves out".

I'd also factor in that PSU had a couple really good athletes out there. I remember a few occasions where I felt the WR made something out of nothing.

If Purdue comes out seeming like this is a key component to how they plan to move the ball on us, I really dont have any specific concerns about it. Probably a bit encouraged by it, if anything.
Click to expand...

PSU was also running it as triple-option. The QB had a give read to the RB, and if he kept he attacked the perimeter with the WR way outside essentially being his pitch man. So it wasn't just a matter of defending the WR screen, there were 2 other things they had to defend against on the same play. It made it tough. But they adjusted and defended it better as the game went on.
 
ssckelley said:
Yeah I don't see Purdue even trying to establish the run game against Iowa, just to throw us off once in a while. I'm expecting a few sacks and more interceptions, they don't have to worry about either QB taking off and running.

I sure hope Parker has a better plan against the WR screen. PSU was getting 6/7 yards every damn time they ran it as the corners struggled to get off the block. It wouldn't surprise me to see Purdue try and exploit that, their best athletes on offense are their wide receivers. That can make up for a lack of a running game.
Click to expand...

Purdue's pass happy offense has been getting lot of yards between the 30s but without a running game they have been total crap in the red zone. They have 11 passing TDs and 2 rushing TDs. (The UConn game accounts for 6 passing TDs and 1 rushing TD.) They need a running game if they want to score in the red zone.
 
AreWeThereYet said:
Purdue's pass happy offense has been getting lot of yards between the 30s but without a running game they have been total crap in the red zone. They have 11 passing TDs and 2 rushing TDs. (The UConn game accounts for 6 passing TDs and 1 rushing TD.) They need a running game if they want to score in the red zone.
Click to expand...
Nice research.

That is a very, very bad trait to carry into a game against our D.
 
Luftgekuehlt67 said:
Nice research.

That is a very, very bad trait to carry into a game against our D.
Click to expand...

Their offensive line has been decent but not great at pass blocking and hasn't been very good at run blocking. They really haven't been getting much push up front. Their pickup of blitzing has also been somewhat suspect.

Then there is the quarterback situation. They are running two quarterbacks. Plummer won the starting quarterback job over O'Connell but wasn't getting it in the endzone so O'Connell has been pushed to the forefront the over the last three games. Supposedly Plummer is the safe bet but O'Connell is more aggressive. Either can run the offense, but neither has solved the red zone issues. O'Connell has managed to throw five interceptions over the last three games and is pretty much a sack target back there.

Plummer 82/118, 840yrd, 69.5%, 7.1 AVG, 7 TD, 0 INT, 149 RTS
O'Connell 66/100, 743yrd, 66%, 7.1 AVG, 4 TD, 5 INT, 132 RTS

They've both piled up the yardage but not so many TDs. (As I said 6 of those 11 passing touchdowns came against UConn.)

Sacks against is 14 for -101 yards. Which is almost identical to Iowa's numbers (14 for -103 yards) Neither of these guys is particularly mobile, but Plummer seems to have much better pocket presence of the two.

The other detail of interest in the passing game is Wright seems to be dropping quite a few passes.
 
Any offense in the Big can get momentum, Iowa comes out flat after the Penn State game and God forbid we have a rash of T/Os anything can happen. Good time for coach to show the game after the Mich/Iowa 1 against 2 game. I believe Iowa got upset by an unranked team. I didn't see that game coming. Purdue has played tough against good teams. Especially on D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top