Urban Meyer breaking down iowa scheme

PCHawk said:
It's funny how many posts you see using stats to discredit our offense. How do iowa fans not understand what you laid out in your post. Its equally funny to see the posts using stats to talk up our defense. They aren't near as good as the stats suggest and the offense isnt near as bad as the stats suggest.
Click to expand...

I wish people would understand our philosophy a little more and how it is directly related to depth and recruiting. We have always been and will always be at a disadvantage in recruiting due to the geography mostly, and where that shows up is not in the ones but the twos, threes and fours.

Look at the NFL for instance. Why does the spread uptempo offense not work? They can certainly run it. And why aren't the games in the 40's and 50's but instead in the 20's and 30's? Because they have 53 man rosters and a 16 game regular season. They won't make it to the end like that.

Now college is different, each team can have 85 scholarships, so 32 more players than the NFL. So ask yourself if the teams make the college football playoff because they are uptempo or does them being uptempo allow them to make the playoff? With Clemson, Ohio state, Alabama, Oklahoma. Georgia's, etc. their 4th string guy as as good as our 2nd string guy because our 4th string guy is a true freshman that was a 2 or 3 star and needs to be developed for 2-3 years before they can be productive and they have 4 star guys ready to go. Our ones against their ones is a pretty fair fight, but beyond that not so much.

Our style is designed to negate that advantage as much as we possibly can to field a competitive team over the course of an entire season.
 
PCHawk said:
This post would make more sense if the team was executing poorly.
Click to expand...

This is the flow of the discussion you're commenting on (paraphrased):

WOTC: BF's been great, the last few years we always have guys open.
Me: Always open? Numbers don't reflect more than an average passing attack last year.
WOTC: NS, execution. Not BF's fault.
Me: If it was an all year problem, coaches shouldn't get a pass.

So to summarize, my main points were "always open" gives BF too much credit and "not executing" is a sketchy excuse.

At no point did I say they are or are not executing.

Your post might make more sense directed at WOTC... or restated to reference something I actually said?
 
hawkeyes87 said:
This is the flow of the discussion you're commenting on (paraphrased):

WOTC: BF's been great, the last few years we always have guys open.
Me: Always open? Numbers don't reflect more than an average passing attack last year.
WOTC: NS, execution. Not BF's fault.
Me: If it was an all year problem, coaches shouldn't get a pass.

So to summarize, my main points were "always open" gives BF too much credit and "not executing" is a sketchy excuse.

At no point did I say they are or are not executing.

Your post might make more sense directed at WOTC... or restated to reference something I actually said?
Click to expand...

"Always open" is a bit of an exaggeration, but they are open quite a bit. Bryan has done a pretty good job, and his job would look even better if Nate didnt have the tendency to miss the big plays. An offensive coordinator's job isn't to teach a qb better accuracy.
 
BrianFerentzForPresident said:
If Nate were to never miss on the big throws, the Hawks wouldn’t lose a game. The Hawks are going to drop, at minimum, a game or two. You are setting the bar impossibly high for Nate. I’m not disagreeing with you, he needs to miss less, but even the greats miss sometimes. Cut those misses in half and he’s in very good shape. Unless you’re saying, in particular, that the Hawks are likely to drop two of the following: Nebraska, Minnesota, Purdue, and Northwestern. If that is the case, and if the Hawks lose more than one of those (preferably none of them) then I’m with you, provided you’re right about them losing a couple.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is all true. No QB is perfect and if he made a few more he would be elite. And, Iowa probably won't win all their games with or without Stanley.

But, the aspect that sets him apart, IMHO, is how ungodly wide of the mark he is on players who are at times wide open or nearly so. That is what needs to be corrected, somehow, for Nate to be in the NFL.

It is like the receivers (and fans) are stopped in their tracks thinking...that pass was for me/him? Really?

Stanley has a lot going for him, I hope he makes it big this year and into his future in the NFL. I think top flight NFL coaching would be a huge upside maker for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top