The biggest difference between the first and second half offensively...

G

GesterHawk

Well-Known Member
We could run the ball much better in the second half.

The line looked sharper and most importantly the backs looked better.

It could be argued that the threat of CJ throwing long opened up the run, but I would like to postulate something totally different:

Mark Weisman.

Is it possible we just have not had enough Weisman in the previous three games?
 
GesterHawk said:
We could run the ball much better in the second half.

The line looked sharper and most importantly the backs looked better.

It could be argued that the threat of CJ throwing long opened up the run, but I would like to postulate something totally different:

Mark Weisman.

Is it possible we just have not had enough Weisman in the previous three games?
Click to expand...

NEED MORE WEISMAN!
 
Absolutely. If Weisman gets 15-20 carries in the 2nd half of the ISU game, I think we win. He won the game the prior year with 147 yards on 35 carries. The thing I loved about this game is there was very little GD type shot gun/spread offense and it was mostly I formation and pro-set. It was like we had an identity this game. The defense couldn't key on formation. I thought when the 1st half ended regardless if we win we look a lot better than against ISU (Pitt's a much better team).
 
I thought it was Damon Bullock in the third down package. He fits into the shotgun formation, protects the qb from the blitz, and can run out for a catch.
 
thetrza said:
I thought it was Damon Bullock in the third down package. He fits into the shotgun formation, protects the qb from the blitz, and can run out for a catch.
Click to expand...

I would say that this year Bullock is the most improved player on offense.

But during the second half Mark looked hungry and ran like it.
 
I think it was a combination. Although I think if we'd gotten more of Weisman or Canzeri (more of a focus on one back, doesn't matter which one), it would have been an improvement. It lets that guy get into a rhythm and get a better feel for the game.

But taking more shots downfield definitely had a big role in opening up the run game, even with Rudock under center. Pitt's defense couldn't just stack the box all the time and stop both our ground and passing games in the process.
 
tm3308 said:
I think it was a combination. Although I think if we'd gotten more of Weisman or Canzeri (more of a focus on one back, doesn't matter which one), it would have been an improvement. It lets that guy get into a rhythm and get a better feel for the game.

But taking more shots downfield definitely had a big role in opening up the run game, even with Rudock under center. Pitt's defense couldn't just stack the box all the time and stop both our ground and passing games in the process.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're probably right on all accounts. I've bashed Davis, but I've also said his O has been good at getting guys open downfield. If the QB change is all that is needed to get the ball to those open guys, the guy might actually not be half bad because once we softened up the D with the deep ball in the second half, the run game looked good. Weisman being given the opportunity to get into a rhythm definitely helped, too.
 
I think Weisman is a guy who needs a lot of touches. He wears down defenses but of course in doing so he takes a toll on his own body.

Weisman was effective last year with Jake but he certainly benefits when CJ can stretch the field.
 
Was it worth 'saving' The Hammer in the ISU game, and losing to those fools though?

Me thinks by the end of the season, we will all want that game back.
 
1) Beathard sells the play - action better and is more of a threat to run which freezes the backers.
2) They rolled the pocket and also took deeper drops to allow more time for something deep to open up.
3) They let Weisman primarily run straight ahead and it was 1 cut off the fullback's block with just a handful of the dreaded sideline stretch runs
4) it appeared to me the receiver corps stuck to preset routes as I did not see near as many plays with 2-3 of them ending about 5 yrds apart
 
Wait, I thought all the fans said Weisman should be at FB this year.

Now him playing halfback for most of the game is what kickstarted the offense?

I guess the coaches knew best in this instance....shocker.
 
HawkIPA said:
Wait, I thought all the fans said Weisman should be at FB this year.

Now him playing halfback for most of the game is what kickstarted the offense?

I guess the coaches knew best in this instance....shocker.
Click to expand...

I never thought that he should be a fullback. When he is healthy, he is almost a lock for 4 yards and hardly ever takes a loss.

This offense is best when it is second and 5 or less. That is when the play action pass is most effective.

That said, Jordan has shown, when healthy, he can be productive within the tackles. He just does not look like he is able to plant hard and make the first cut/cut back right now. Hopefully the coaches ride Mark and Damon this week to victory and Jordan can heal up by the end of the bye week.

What a lot of people forget is that Mark had actually started getting carries at RB the week leading up to his move. This has been confirmed by interviews with the coaches and players in the past.

Funny how the hard core KF haters had bashed the coaches Mark's sophmore year for not knowing what they had and then bashed them the following year for using him before Canzeri.
 
hwk23 said:
Kirk, that you?
Click to expand...


In this game it's true. You can argue that the change at qb created the better execution, but they didn't change the playcalling from what I saw. Wrs caught deep passes in the second half (in this game, both qbs looked pretty accurate), which allowed the oline to be able to execute their blocks better, which created space for the rbs to execute better.
I like cj at qb over ruddock, and would agree that the team executes better with him in the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top