okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
Yep, as bad as we looked, several other B1G teams looked equally or nearly as bad as us, so we could still slide into a bowl game.
The Morning After NIU: I Found Some Silver Linings
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
tubahawk
Well-Known Member
In some ways this team looks better, in other ways there are major concerns.
Improvements:
1. Linbacker corps. While I don't rate them our best group ever, this is a solid group of guys that play smart.
2. Vertical Passing game. For the first time ever we seem to kind of sort of have one.
3. RB Corps. Three game ready guys. Weisman and Bullock are a nice combination.
4. Overall Ruddock played well for a first time QB. Arm strength seems to be questionable, but great decision making. Only mistake I saw resulted in the INT in the 4th quarter. (The first INT wasn't on him, IMO)
Concerns
1. O-line does not seem as good as hoped. NIU graduated most of their d-line last year. We should have dominated the trenches. At best we won in a split decision.
2. D-line did not get consistent pressure on the QB. This will only exacerbate issue #3...
3. Our deep backs are a huge liability. "Bend don't break" doesn't work if the opponents WR gets behind the secondary 3-4 times a game.
WTF?! Status
1. Only 3 attempts to CJF.
2. Have we ever stopped a fake punt under KF?
Improvements:
1. Linbacker corps. While I don't rate them our best group ever, this is a solid group of guys that play smart.
2. Vertical Passing game. For the first time ever we seem to kind of sort of have one.
3. RB Corps. Three game ready guys. Weisman and Bullock are a nice combination.
4. Overall Ruddock played well for a first time QB. Arm strength seems to be questionable, but great decision making. Only mistake I saw resulted in the INT in the 4th quarter. (The first INT wasn't on him, IMO)
Concerns
1. O-line does not seem as good as hoped. NIU graduated most of their d-line last year. We should have dominated the trenches. At best we won in a split decision.
2. D-line did not get consistent pressure on the QB. This will only exacerbate issue #3...
3. Our deep backs are a huge liability. "Bend don't break" doesn't work if the opponents WR gets behind the secondary 3-4 times a game.
WTF?! Status
1. Only 3 attempts to CJF.
2. Have we ever stopped a fake punt under KF?
OLWPAORWWM
Banned
Oh, can you coach?
A
alexzelada
Guest
The silver lining is that we will be better than 2-10. We still need someone who is worth 4 million per year. That's the no-so-silver lining.
theboat
Well-Known Member
except for the fact that when you repeatedly FAIL at execution at the most inopportune times, then it is a direct result of coaching or lack thereof.
Yes, lack of execution is football. It happens. (snort). But I am reminded of the definition of insanity every weekend with this set of coaches.
The most baffling thing to me about the Greg Davis experiment is that Ferentz said (I can't find it but I know I read it) that he and Greg Davis aren't on the same page philosophically. Did he not do the hiring? Why would anyone ever hire someone that they aren't on the same page with?
FreedComanche
Banned
Did he really say that? When? I'm not saying you are wrong, just curious when he said that.
FreedComanche
Banned
No, you weren't the only one. I especially thought Weisman was slow on Saturday.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
You don't understand Iowa football. The ONLY ISSUES with Iowa's offense are the following things:
1) Rhythm - when we get into it, we win
2) Things getting loose - when we tighten up a few things, we win
Keep that in mind. We need to be in rhythm and tighten up a few things and we can win every game on our schedule. It's really that simple.
In terms of why Ferentz hired Davis, I have multiple theories. Theory one is he got sick of the know it all fan base bashing O'Keefe and so he wanted to troll the fan base by hiring a less capable coordinator than O'Keefe. Theory two is that he has a limited budget (say about $300k) with which to hire an o-coordinator (gotta save pennies to pay that $3.8mm salary) but he still needs to show GarBar and others a solid resume that someone who knows nothing about football will sign off on - If you never watched a Texas game and just got handed the guy's resume and it said "O-coordinator for X Big 12 championship teams, one national champion and one team that played in national title game but lost when QB got injured" you'd be ecstatic.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
NIU's defense was really fast. They are the fastest defense we will play all year.
ThunderHawk
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but that discounts the fact that they don't have Kurt at the helm.
ShadasRevenge
Well-Known Member
Man, tough crowd. Kid throws a pick in his first start, and according to you it's going to define his career.
PeoriaHWKI
Well-Known Member
He is a fullback not a running back. And for all those people who will point to his yard per carry those holes were so big he should have avergaed 115 yards per carry which would have led to an Iowa blowout.
DBAHawkFan
Well-Known Member
yeah, except we can't take advantage of a good rushing performance. Coker had 250 yards rushing against MN and we LOST.
This wasn't like a guy had 10 attempts and had 50 yards. MW had 20 attempts, and Bullock had numerous attempts as well.
So while our rushing was solid, it wasn't there for us when we needed it. Part of that is coaching and play calling (throwing on 3rd and short numerous times), and the other problem is lack of speed.
Canzeri does have some speed, probably the best out of all the RB's we have seen. Bullock is shifty, but that's about it. We need a player that can accelerate and get us a 30-40 yard run once and a while...or even better, break one for a TD.
From what I've seen it's Powell and Canzeri who have the best chance to break one. The rest might get us nice chunks, but with our horizontal passing attack, we put so much pressure on ourselves to sustain long drives that we'll compile good yardage, but low scores.
This wasn't like a guy had 10 attempts and had 50 yards. MW had 20 attempts, and Bullock had numerous attempts as well.
So while our rushing was solid, it wasn't there for us when we needed it. Part of that is coaching and play calling (throwing on 3rd and short numerous times), and the other problem is lack of speed.
Canzeri does have some speed, probably the best out of all the RB's we have seen. Bullock is shifty, but that's about it. We need a player that can accelerate and get us a 30-40 yard run once and a while...or even better, break one for a TD.
From what I've seen it's Powell and Canzeri who have the best chance to break one. The rest might get us nice chunks, but with our horizontal passing attack, we put so much pressure on ourselves to sustain long drives that we'll compile good yardage, but low scores.
whammer33024
Well-Known Member
i'd like to see canzeri get a few more chances. think he could be our homerun threat out of the backfield.
i'd also like to see powell get the ball in space along with the bombs. but he is crazy fast. everytime he was in we went deep to him. NIU had to know this and he STILL got behind the defense. he needs the ball in his hands
i'd also like to see powell get the ball in space along with the bombs. but he is crazy fast. everytime he was in we went deep to him. NIU had to know this and he STILL got behind the defense. he needs the ball in his hands
I have seen nothing from Canzeri that tells me he is a good back. He got two carries and looked lost. His freshman season wasn't anything to brag about. It's all hype until he shows something different. Bullock and Weisman have actually produced.
If I am not mistaken Weisman had a few 30+ yard runs last year maybe even a 40+ yard run.
I think the two starting RBs are perfectly capable of getting big chunks of yards.
DBAHawkFan
Well-Known Member
Weisman had a ton of large runs against MN, and one of those was on a 4th and 1 where MN sent everyone and missed, leaving no one in the secondary to even come close to catching him.
Bullock had his 32 yard misdirection run against NIU, and that's about all I remember from him. Mark to his credit had a few decent size runs, but much like Coker...he'd get caugh from behind after 30 yards.
We need more explosive plays is my point. Canzeri may not be the best RB we have, but he does have speed, so instead of running in between tackles, why not use him on swing passes or the dreaded bubble screen! It could be he's not the playmaker we think he is/could be. But we've seen some glimpses and it'd be nice to at least find out.
Powell is another player who sould be seeing the field more. Give him reverses, quick slants, or swing passes. Create SPACE for him to try and create plays.
I'm just tired of our schemes as they seem to make us look even slower than what we are.
Bullock had his 32 yard misdirection run against NIU, and that's about all I remember from him. Mark to his credit had a few decent size runs, but much like Coker...he'd get caugh from behind after 30 yards.
We need more explosive plays is my point. Canzeri may not be the best RB we have, but he does have speed, so instead of running in between tackles, why not use him on swing passes or the dreaded bubble screen! It could be he's not the playmaker we think he is/could be. But we've seen some glimpses and it'd be nice to at least find out.
Powell is another player who sould be seeing the field more. Give him reverses, quick slants, or swing passes. Create SPACE for him to try and create plays.
I'm just tired of our schemes as they seem to make us look even slower than what we are.
