This offense

BigD

Well-Known Member
As far as today’s situation goes I still feel the answer is the spread. Take the snap…… one thousand, one thousand two, throw it!!! Goodson the only back in the backfield. Have him stand right next to the QB as this opens up options for Goodson to run or block or run into open areas for the short pass. It’s nuts to run the pro-set with seven or eight in the box. Spreading it in and of itself stops that stacking the box nonsense and would also give Goodson some running space.

Maybe Kirk should give Brian one of those football video game as a quick gift…….. as in today!
 

hawkfan2679

Well-Known Member
As far as today’s situation goes I still feel the answer is the spread. Take the snap…… one thousand, one thousand two, throw it!!! Goodson the only back in the backfield. Have him stand right next to the QB as this opens up options for Goodson to run or block or run into open areas for the short pass. It’s nuts to run the pro-set with seven or eight in the box. Spreading it in and of itself stops that stacking the box nonsense and would also give Goodson some running space.
Every base personnel box we are going to face is going to have a minimum of 7 in it because we ourselves have loaded the box. We will take the FB off the field occasionally, but I'm not sure we ever take the TE off the field. Even in empty sets we seem to have LaPorta and Goodson on the field.

In base 21 personnel sets (2 backs, 1 TE, 2 WR's aligned "normally") anything less than a 7 man box consistently would be an indictment for the DC.
 

BigD

Well-Known Member
Every base personnel box we are going to face is going to have a minimum of 7 in it because we ourselves have loaded the box. We will take the FB off the field occasionally, but I'm not sure we ever take the TE off the field. Even in empty sets we seem to have LaPorta and Goodson on the field.

In base 21 personnel sets (2 backs, 1 TE, 2 WR's aligned "normally") anything less than a 7 man box consistently would be an indictment for the DC.
Let’s see what Brian comes up with, with two weeks of preparation.
 

NCHawker

Well-Known Member
Brad ran a 4.7 40, compared to a 4.8 for Tate, not that big of a difference. I love Brad Banks but he had one of the best supporting casts as far as receivers, Oline and RBs that Iowa has had in the Ferentz era. I think he would struggle without those pieces (this year's team) around him more than Tate would, that's all I'm saying.

but banks was quick and a shifty and elusive runner. that was what made him a threat.
 

Ree4

Well-Known Member
Maybe I am getting the two mixed up as one had to deal with very little supporting cast due to injured running backs. Would love to have either one at QB today.
Yeah it was 2004 when we were down to 4th string RB, Sam Brownlee. Tate's first year as starter and a sophomore.
 

Hawkfnntn

Well-Known Member
Ok we brought in a power forward from the portal in basketball, did everyone transfer? No, well one did and a walk on tried but the rest of the team is staying and competing. Why is football different? Oliver transferred here and no wide receivers transferred. I didn't say recruit him but if he wanted to come to Iowa I wouldn't say "no way!". Our last two back-ups transferred instead of waiting for their turn, what makes anyone think Hogan or Alex are gonna wait for theirs?
I get your mindset on it. When it comes to football that's what it's became all over too. Nobody has the same QB rooms 2 yrs in a row. (Except us it seems like just recently) But we aren't immune to it. It's more likely then not we'll lose at least 1 qb this off season. How the rest of this season goes will have something to do with that but I doubt the QB room is exactly the same next yr with just adding May to it. (who is really highly thought of in Oklahoma. OK St fans are really pissed they missed out on him)

I could see us being willing to have a highly thought of talented qb come in this next yr if one wanted to. Just not him specifically. Not saying it's right or wrong just how it is in regards to fit. He and the Ferentzs would be oil and water in lots of ways and I couldn't see either side being too interested in that happening.
 

Ree4

Well-Known Member
but banks was quick and a shifty and elusive runner. that was what made him a threat.
Tate was incredibly elusive, he just scrambled while he looked downfield while Banks would run.

One of my favorite Tate plays.

 

uihawk82

Well-Known Member
Wow that would be a tough choice, but I would take banks because of his advantage is speed………. Especially with our current offering line. Both QB’s were good at extending the play with their feet, but banks was quicker while Tate may have been a little more accurate. Yah know they don’t just make everyone a Heisman runner up.

Tate was amazingly elusive escaping and keeping plays alive and he was fast enough, not blazing but good enough to burn the defense.
 

Latest posts

Top