Re-Watched the Purdue Game

N

NikeHawk21

Well-Known Member
A few thoughts

-54 and 57 were constantly shedding blocks and getting into the Purdue backfield. Nixon is really emerging and Golston has played very well the last three weeks.

-Hankins was not that bad. Honestly Purdue and Bell just had a few perfect throws and catches. Got beat over the top once but was mostly in the right spot, Moss’s pick was more good luck than a good play and he ended up getting beat for a long one. I’d stick with Hankins but nice to have the depth.

-Campbell seemed far and away better than Doyle. Wasn’t impressed with Doyle very much at all.

-Goodson had some great blitz pickups and in general just brings an energy to our offense. He needs more carries and more play time. He’s our best back.

-BF’s play calling still is subpar. He calls plays like we are a highly efficient passing offense and that’s simply not the case.

-Special teams had a huge effect on this game. Kicking, punting, and coverage were all very good.
 
I re-watched some of it and having to settle for four field goals stood out. That was basically four trips to the red zone and only 12 points. If those trips were TD's I don't think we would see the level of frustration expressed during and after the game. My biggest frustration is Stanley delivering the ball behind the receivers on the short routes. He had a good percentage passing , but some of those completions were losses or no gain.
 
eyekwah said:
I re-watched some of it and having to settle for four field goals stood out. That was basically four trips to the red zone and only 12 points. If those trips were TD's I don't think we would see the level of frustration expressed during and after the game. My biggest frustration is Stanley delivering the ball behind the receivers on the short routes. He had a good percentage passing , but some of those completions were losses or no gain.
Click to expand...
The other item was the false start call on 4th and 2. Had the refs made the correct call of offsides who knows how we view that game. Iowa would of had 1st and 10 inside of Purdue’s territory. They drive down and score points there the game is all but over.
 
NikeHawk21 said:
The other item was the false start call on 4th and 2. Had the refs made the correct call of offsides who knows how we view that game. Iowa would of had 1st and 10 inside of Purdue’s territory. They drive down and score points there the game is all but over.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is an important point. The replay didnt show any movement by the center. Maybe he raised his pinky finger, maybe he slightly tipped up the nose of the ball. But more often than not that call goes against the defense and the hawks would have at least made PU use their 3 timeouts much sooner.

PU might have scored but there wouldnt have been the nerve racking ending and if the hawks got another first down it is game over at 23-14 or whatever the score was
 
uihawk82 said:
Yes, this is an important point. The replay didnt show any movement by the center. Maybe he raised his pinky finger, maybe he slightly tipped up the nose of the ball. But more often than not that call goes against the defense and the hawks would have at least made PU use their 3 timeouts much sooner.

PU might have scored but there wouldnt have been the nerve racking ending and if the hawks got another first down it is game over at 23-14 or whatever the score was
Click to expand...

I wondered if he did something vocally that was obvious. Not sure what they let go.
 
uihawk82 said:
Yes, this is an important point. The replay didnt show any movement by the center. Maybe he raised his pinky finger, maybe he slightly tipped up the nose of the ball. But more often than not that call goes against the defense and the hawks would have at least made PU use their 3 timeouts much sooner.

PU might have scored but there wouldnt have been the nerve racking ending and if the hawks got another first down it is game over at 23-14 or whatever the score was
Click to expand...
westender said:
I wondered if he did something vocally that was obvious. Not sure what they let go.
Click to expand...
It was simply a missed call. Look at the reaction of the Purdue player. He knew it was an offsides penalty. Phantom call.
 
NikeHawk21 said:
It was simply a missed call. Look at the reaction of the Purdue player. He knew it was an offsides penalty. Phantom call.
Click to expand...

And that is what I hate is officials calling something that isnt there, officials sometimes assume something happened that really didnt, like when KF called the holding call on R Eubanks in 2009 that negated a long TD and maybe the win against NW to let the hawks go to 10-0. KF called that a perfect block with great leverage that put the NW linemen on the ground.
 
It'd be nice if there was a public debrief after that would explain why they got together and decided it was on the Center and not the DT. If it is simply we f'ed up I would accept that better than never any explanation.
 
NikeHawk21 said:
-BF’s play calling still is subpar. He calls plays like we are a highly efficient passing offense and that’s simply not the case.
Click to expand...

We are a better passing team than running team, ironically, so maybe that's why. We only had 3.1 ypa rushing against Purdue. That's pretty bad and it was only about 2 ypa going into the 4th quarter. If we were averaging 5 or 6 ypa, like we should against a team like Purdue, the play calling would probably look different.
 
Thanks Nike.

I share the same "play calling" frustrations, but think of it more as a combination of frustrating play calling and play design. I know that sounds super armchair quarterback-ish... for me to say that about our "high level" coaching staff. But it's how I feel. Also, we can all agree it's difficult to categorize the difference between bad play calling and bad execution.

The most glaring example is 3rd Down and short (<5 yards) pass concepts that are short of the first down line. I think this happened 3 times. Two of which were similar looking pop pass concepts to Nico R, both blown up.

We've also had a complete lack of true "over the top" deep balls (meaning, over the middle). We're actually throwing perimeter go route / fade concepts, with some great success. But those seem to be pre-snap reads and Stanley drops it in the level 2, letting our guys (like B Smith) make a play on the ball. I wish we would implement more post/seam route concepts, with the goal of testing middle safety play. IMO, this would generally help to actually open up our run / play action foundation. Maybe the staff feels like this is a TE role within our offensive scheme. This year, we don't quite have the guys at TE to make that happen, so it's a missing piece of our offense. But they way teams are rolling into an 8 man run front, it feels like we could have great success getting our speedy slot guys involved in post/dig play action schemes. The success of sideline deep balls is great too though.
 
hwk23 said:
We are a better passing team than running team, ironically, so maybe that's why. We only had 3.1 ypa rushing against Purdue. That's pretty bad and it was only about 2 ypa going into the 4th quarter. If we were averaging 5 or 6 ypa, like we should against a team like Purdue, the play calling would probably look different.
Click to expand...
I talked about this after the Michigan game. Yes there will be times when the running game struggles and it will be tough sledding, but you simply have to stick with it. Keep pounding to wear the defense down and hopefully pop some big gainers later in the game. Then the play action passing can work off of it.

Again, Iowa is simply not an efficient enough passing offense to drop back and throw it 40 times a game.
 
NikeHawk21 said:
Special teams had a huge effect on this game. Kicking, punting, and coverage were all very good.
Click to expand...

That 63 yard punt late in the game saved the hawkeyes a good deal of trouble. The only knock on Sleep-Dalton is he will occasionally shank one.
 
Last edited:
Hawk4Fan said:
No it was crap play calling...never throwing to or past the sticks on 3rd down is just beyond STUPID and the constant throwing behind the LOS on 3rd and short is just beyond stupid...
Click to expand...


This, and take into account that most if not all of those passes went to Raigaini who is by no means the shiftiest player we have was even more dumbfounding. I can maybe seeing trying it once but over and over was just mindboggling
 
Re-watched the first three quarters last night. Just some thoughts...

Most of our run game attempts where we zone blocked were negative yardage.
Most of our run game attempts with gap, hat on hat were positive yardage.
The 2nd down plays were most often our biggest problem.
After early success with quick passes to the outside, Purdue adjusted and we apparently did not notice.
I have never seen so many pass plays where Iowa defenders were so close to a sack end up with completions. We pressured well but Purdue’s passing game was really impressive.
I think Stanley played very well overall; pass pro was better.
We have a bunch of really good receivers. And, Nate spreads the ball around very well.
When Nate throws a little behind his receivers when they come across the middle, he is protecting them from big hits...they need to make more athletic receptions. Watch the NFL.

Some nice changes on special teams. KO returns by P. were zero, except one where a blatant hold was ignored by an official who was right on the play. Punt returns by Iowa were not flashy, but solid. Sleep-Dalton apparently was told no more rugby kicks. Had his best game.

Too many field goals, but Duncan kicked ass.
We really need more imaginative plays when crucial downs, especially in the red zone, occur.

We won, got some confidence back after two really tough weeks. We have the easier part of our schedule ahead of us. I think we beat NW, give W a good run, beat MN at home in a knock down drag out, beat IL, and whip a poor NE team to end up 9-3, with a decent bowl and a chance for a 10 win season.
 
For me, the pass to ISM was an out route. Only three beers! I did cuss some at the play calling though! I would like to see ISM fly down the center of the field once or twice a game to take the top off the defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top