Sat next to Dolphin at dinner tonight

rschneider said:
Am I the only one who'd rather listen to Beth Mowins than Dolphin?
Click to expand...

Dolphin has a great voice, and I love that he is all Hawk. But he is brutal at calling the action live. When listening, I often have no idea what just occurred on the field. I don't know how many times I have heard something like, "And Daniels through a BIG whole on the right side, plowing ahead for a nice gain!", only to find out 20 seconds later that it is now 2nd and 8. What happened to that nice gain?

And FB is easy. Don't even bother trying to follow the game from his basketball calls.
 
ArvadaHawk said:
JB and AW need to be on the field at the same time as often as possible. Let TY be the relief pitcher. How would you defend against JB and AW on the field at the same time? You'd have to play it straight up and un-aggressively and that gives Iowa the advantage. I so hope we do this.
Click to expand...

Good idea in theory, but there are a lot of nuances.

For the most part, defenses are too sophisticated to fall for a lot of backfield misdirection unless it catches them completely by surprise and they have not scouted it. They follow the blocking, not the backs.

With this in mind, 2 elusive backs are really only a big plus if utilized in a handful of ways.
  1. True option football, where on any given play the defense dictates who keeps the ball. This requires a pretty big philosophical change. It could be put in as part of a small package, but it is not going to be the focal point of the offense.
  2. Situations where one back is in the backfield, and the other is threatening in space. Think Wadley in the slot with a package of fly sweep, quick hitch, bubble screen, while TY or JB are in the backfield.
    • The defense would have to commit a lot of attention to Wadley, but you are also taking your best player away from his best position (Wadley at RB). Do JB or TY create the same type of panic in a defense if they are in the slot with Wadley in the backfield? I'm not sure.
    • There are only so many ways that you can engineer space for Wadley out of the slot, leaving you with a pretty limited offensive package. Defenses would catch on pretty quick if this was used extensively.
    • He could certainly serve as a WR and run the normal route packages for that position, but is there enough time in practice to get him those reps along with his necessary RB reps? How will that effect his legs? Is he a better option running those routes than WR3 (likely Young, Falconer, Cooper, Smith-Marsette, or Smith)? Is he effective as a blocker from that position, and even if he is, is that how you want him burning game reps?
    • There is also the issue of fatigue, as Melrose mentioned above.
  3. If the backs are versatile enough to be effective blockers, 2 RBs in passing situations can be very effective.
    • One back can lead the draw for the other.
    • Both backs can protect and release, providing stout protection with easy outlets dangerous enough to threaten the D. This will slow the rush, and open things downfield.
    • If they are really effective blockers, it can prevent the D from leaving their base, which can allow the offense to manufacture favorable matchups out of the backfield or via motion.

So I agree, there are ways to get two playmaking RBs out there at the same time, but I doubt it will be a majority of snaps, nor do I think it should be. I think it will be most effective as a change of pace from Iowa's base, which hopefully will involve a diverse running game mixing zone concepts and power, and a passing game heavy on play action that threatens all parts of the field.
 
CP87 said:
Dolphin has a great voice, and I love that he is all Hawk. But he is brutal at calling the action live. When listening, I often have no idea what just occurred on the field. I don't know how many times I have heard something like, "And Daniels through a BIG whole on the right side, plowing ahead for a nice gain!", only to find out 20 seconds later that it is now 2nd and 8. What happened to that nice gain?

And FB is easy. Don't even bother trying to follow the game from his basketball calls.
Click to expand...
He graduated from Jim Zabel School of Broadcasting
 
CP87 said:
Good idea in theory, but there are a lot of nuances.

For the most part, defenses are too sophisticated to fall for a lot of backfield misdirection unless it catches them completely by surprise and they have not scouted it. They follow the blocking, not the backs.

With this in mind, 2 elusive backs are really only a big plus if utilized in a handful of ways.
  1. True option football, where on any given play the defense dictates who keeps the ball. This requires a pretty big philosophical change. It could be put in as part of a small package, but it is not going to be the focal point of the offense.
  2. Situations where one back is in the backfield, and the other is threatening in space. Think Wadley in the slot with a package of fly sweep, quick hitch, bubble screen, while TY or JB are in the backfield.
    • The defense would have to commit a lot of attention to Wadley, but you are also taking your best player away from his best position (Wadley at RB). Do JB or TY create the same type of panic in a defense if they are in the slot with Wadley in the backfield? I'm not sure.
    • There are only so many ways that you can engineer space for Wadley out of the slot, leaving you with a pretty limited offensive package. Defenses would catch on pretty quick if this was used extensively.
    • He could certainly serve as a WR and run the normal route packages for that position, but is there enough time in practice to get him those reps along with his necessary RB reps? How will that effect his legs? Is he a better option running those routes than WR3 (likely Young, Falconer, Cooper, Smith-Marsette, or Smith)? Is he effective as a blocker from that position, and even if he is, is that how you want him burning game reps?
    • There is also the issue of fatigue, as Melrose mentioned above.
  3. If the backs are versatile enough to be effective blockers, 2 RBs in passing situations can be very effective.
    • One back can lead the draw for the other.
    • Both backs can protect and release, providing stout protection with easy outlets dangerous enough to threaten the D. This will slow the rush, and open things downfield.
    • If they are really effective blockers, it can prevent the D from leaving their base, which can allow the offense to manufacture favorable matchups out of the backfield or via motion.

So I agree, there are ways to get two playmaking RBs out there at the same time, but I doubt it will be a majority of snaps, nor do I think it should be. I think it will be most effective as a change of pace from Iowa's base, which hopefully will involve a diverse running game mixing zone concepts and power, and a passing game heavy on play action that threatens all parts of the field.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're saying try it or not? Isn't the bottom line to get your best players on the field? Are we really worried about fatigue? What I am offering wouldn't put any additional burden on AW, or JB or TY. And I'm not saying to put AW in the slot exclusively. Packages. Create some packages. Wouldn't you rather have AW or JB line up in the slot or Falconer? Wouldn't you want to have JB, AW, MVB, Matt Quarrels and Fant on the field at the same time? Is there something wrong with creativity that I might just be missing?

The base package you point out, in my opinion, is part of the problem. Iowa's version is so predictable.
 
I definitely would love to see them both on the field at the same time. Also having fresh legs in the 4th quarter will potentially help sustain drives which is indicative of KF's style. Hopefully this can help the frustrating 3 and outs. Maybe a little changing of the play calling under BF as well.
 
rschneider said:
Am I the only one who'd rather listen to Beth Mowins than Dolphin?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure. It's kind of like the Wadley/Butler deal ... I would like to see them both in the booth at the same time with Eddie working 3rd down out of the slot. No harm in getting your best announcers in the booth at the same time.
 
ArvadaHawk said:
I am fairly certain it won't happen, and I will view that as a lost opportunity. When you have over a month to incorporate new players and even a couple of new schemes, yes, that should be enough time. The program needs a higher powered, more potent offense. We have a chance to be creative this season. We have a new OC we were all promised could stand up to kirk's ultra conservatism. I need to see it because it's needed to push the program forward the next decade.
Click to expand...

LTG
 
I also fall in the camp that doesn't expect many plays with both these guys on the field together. Remember that both these guys can catch, that is the reason to be excited. It's not like you aren't putting pressure on the D with just one of them. You'll see them mostly rotate and stay fresh / lethal for the 4th and all the while the D can't just load up at the los to defang the run.

Also if it were simply a matter of having 2 excellent backs to throw them together and generate something undefendable, it would be prevalent.
 
ArvadaHawk said:
I'm not sure if you're saying try it or not? Isn't the bottom line to get your best players on the field? Are we really worried about fatigue? What I am offering wouldn't put any additional burden on AW, or JB or TY. And I'm not saying to put AW in the slot exclusively. Packages. Create some packages. Wouldn't you rather have AW or JB line up in the slot or Falconer? Wouldn't you want to have JB, AW, MVB, Matt Quarrels and Fant on the field at the same time? Is there something wrong with creativity that I might just be missing?

The base package you point out, in my opinion, is part of the problem. Iowa's version is so predictable.
Click to expand...

They should definitely use it, but I don't think it is reasonable to do so for a majority of snaps. We have seen a lot of good teams in the B1G and college FB in recent years with really talented stables of backs. Have any of them built their offense around putting 2 playmaking RBs in the backfield at the same time? Not that I can think of. It might be used as a wrinkle or situational thing, but most teams would prefer to rotate their backfield so their lead back is fresh and to minimize injury risk.

I would say use Wadley in the slot around 5-10 plays per game, pair him with JB or TY in the backfield for a handful of 3rd and medium type situations, and then have a few special packages that get broken out on a pretty limited basis (e.g.both backs with Boyle for a read-option package, one of the backs receiving a direct snap and running read option with the other, etc.). If the coaches can creatively use them together 10-20 times a game, that seems about right to me.

To your point about running AW in the slot not carrying any additional burden; it would be asking him to learn 2 positions instead of 1. WR is not so easy that you can throw any athlete out there and they will succeed immediately, it takes a lot of reps to get good at it. It is easy to learn a few packages of screens, and sweeps, but having a full understanding of the various route designs, understanding the nuance of positioning yourself relative to the defender (which changes depending upon the coverage), understanding the timing of when to break open, all that stuff takes time and a lot of reps. I would rather have a WR who has been working on that stuff non-stop be in the slot if the expectation is that they will be running a downfield route.
 
desihawk said:
I also fall in the camp that doesn't expect many plays with both these guys on the field together. Remember that both these guys can catch, that is the reason to be excited. It's not like you aren't putting pressure on the D with just one of them. You'll see them mostly rotate and stay fresh / lethal for the 4th and all the while the D can't just load up at the los to defang the run.

Also if it were simply a matter of having 2 excellent backs to throw them together and generate something undefendable, it would be prevalent.
Click to expand...

Great point, who has actually used this extensively? Wisconsin has had great backs, but they rarely had Gordon and Clements in the backfield at the same time. Alabama wasn't putting Yeldon and Henry together in the backfield much.
 
Ozhawk said:
Gary D. Tells me that Butler is going to bust the offense wide open and is unbelievable from practice report. Will provide an opportunity to get in the game putting Wadley outside for pass... good stuff.
Click to expand...
and when Gary looked away, you took a bite of his dessert, didn't you?!?
 
I prefer Rachel Madow...she paints a clear picture of psychosis...

Beth Mowins is right on her tail...and on the rise...

The Iowa broadcasters bring excitement...with helter skelter...and pleasant confusion...at times...homers...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top