Weisman to Fullback?

SCHawkeye2

SCHawkeye2

Well-Known Member
[FONT=&amp]Why not move Weisman to fullback and use a quicker RB as the tailback...at the same time?! Weisman is a hard runner, but he is straight ahead, inside the tackles, no moves, no threat to catch a pass out of the back field, etc. When he is in there it is very predictable for the defense - he is running between the tackles - who can load the box. With two threats in the backfield the inside and outside running game could both improve. Perhaps we could confound the defense if they needed to worry about two backs instead of one. [/FONT][FONT=&amp][FONT=&amp](Just curious - how many carries does our FB have this year? ) [/FONT][/FONT]
​
 
SCHawkeye2 said:
[FONT=&amp]Why not move Weisman to fullback and use a quicker RB as the tailback...at the same time?! Weisman is a hard runner, but he is straight ahead, inside the tackles, no moves, no threat to catch a pass out of the back field, etc. When he is in there it is very predictable for the defense - he is running between the tackles - who can load the box. With two threats in the backfield the inside and outside running game could both improve. Perhaps we could confound the defense if they needed to worry about two backs instead of one. [/FONT][FONT=&amp][FONT=&amp](Just curious - how many carries does our FB have this year? ) [/FONT][/FONT]
​
Click to expand...

Interesting thought. Not sure anyone has discussed it here before. Oh wait, yes, they have...
 
SCHawkeye2 said:
[FONT=&amp]Why not move Weisman to fullback and use a quicker RB as the tailback...at the same time?! Weisman is a hard runner, but he is straight ahead, inside the tackles, no moves, no threat to catch a pass out of the back field, etc. When he is in there it is very predictable for the defense - he is running between the tackles - who can load the box. With two threats in the backfield the inside and outside running game could both improve. Perhaps we could confound the defense if they needed to worry about two backs instead of one. [/FONT][FONT=&amp][FONT=&amp](Just curious - how many carries does our FB have this year? ) [/FONT][/FONT]
​
Click to expand...

Makes too much sense, therefore it has not/will not be considered.
 
He is #11 all time with 2050 rushing yards, and will likely be at least number 6 all time by the time the season ends. That puts him right up there was Owen Gill, Tony Stewart and Fred Russell. His 22 touchdowns is also near the top. He is far to good of a runner to have at full back with regularity. His speed is also greatly underestimated as we saw in his kick off return this year. At most I would like to see would be a 2 running back formation to use on some plays, kind of some inside and outside run threat plays.
 
SCHawkeye2 said:
[FONT=&amp]Why not move Weisman to fullback and use a quicker RB as the tailback...at the same time?! Weisman is a hard runner, but he is straight ahead, inside the tackles, no moves, no threat to catch a pass out of the back field, etc. When he is in there it is very predictable for the defense - he is running between the tackles - who can load the box. With two threats in the backfield the inside and outside running game could both improve. Perhaps we could confound the defense if they needed to worry about two backs instead of one. [/FONT][FONT=&amp][FONT=&amp](Just curious - how many carries does our FB have this year? ) [/FONT][/FONT]
​
Click to expand...


LOL Seriously. KF turns his playbook over to the other team before every game... it is his ritual. Eskimos know what plays KF is going to run. Guile is something KF does not have.
 
Well, if we stop getting screwed on all the calls, we would be able to run the ball better. The defense is constantly committing fouls and the refs don't call it. Ever since Forrest Evashevski complained publicly about Alex Karras being continuously held in every game, we haven't been getting any calls and the refs have been out to get us.

This was the primary reason for our 20 losing seasons in a row...it was a referee conspiracy to keep us down due to our complaining about a call that had limited impact on a game we were never going to win anyway.
 
I used to think that MSU's offense was similar to Iowas...until I watched last night. Far more creativity at MSU.
 
It seems like we have the same playbook, and run the same plays we have run for 15 years, whether we have Weisman or Fred Russell as the RB, or a passer or game manager as a QB. We are conservative, predictable and worst of all stubborn. If it's not working, we keep doing it. If there are 9 defenders in the box-we keep running right at them. Our idea of an exotic play is to run to the short side of the field.
 
Since it takes at least 3 guys to tackle Mark Weisman a lot of plays such as the flea flicker against Minnesota are open. Also Michigan State stinks, even the 2012, 2007, 2000 and 1994 teams beat them. Iowa's offense had been better even on down years for the program.
 
This topic comes up a lot. Weisman is not a great blocker or receiver, in a Ferentz offense that's what a FB does. Just because he's big and slow by RB standards doesn't instantly mean he's a good FB.
 
There isn't a lot of good options behind Weisman to be the full time RB.

Canzeri is good but is not really built for 20+ carries, probably best used periodically
Bullock is a 3rd down back and really should be in the slot but picks up blitzes pretty well
Parker appears to be a Ferentz favorite but like Canzeri doesn't have a lot of size, could be the future at RB, will be somewhere
Daniels has true RB size, but was being considered as a RS in summer practice, not a good sign unless RB is stacked, its not
Wadley ? pretty small himself
Hilliard ? is his future elsewhere
 
I thought this discussion was done. Early in the year I would have agreed with you, but the production has been the best with Weisman. I think you have to stick with Mark and give these other guys some snaps to keep him from getting too worn out and change the pace. A healthy Weisman has been good for the Hawks. I would love it if Canzeri could shoulder a full load but that just isn't going to happen. I think Daniels needs to be utilized more and could be molded into the next Iowa back. Parker has got to get some plays because of his speed alone. Still Weisman should be the no 1 as of now.
 
SCHawkeye2 said:
[FONT=&amp]Why not move Weisman to fullback and use a quicker RB as the tailback...at the same time?! Weisman is a hard runner, but he is straight ahead, inside the tackles, no moves, no threat to catch a pass out of the back field, etc. When he is in there it is very predictable for the defense - he is running between the tackles - who can load the box. With two threats in the backfield the inside and outside running game could both improve. Perhaps we could confound the defense if they needed to worry about two backs instead of one. [/FONT][FONT=&amp][FONT=&amp](Just curious - how many carries does our FB have this year? ) [/FONT][/FONT]
​
Click to expand...

The only teams that use 2 backs at once, both as legit ball-carrying options, are option teams. The days of the wing-T are long gone. Defenses are too sophisticated and they (usually) are not fooled by backfield misdirection; they read the blocking and follow it to the ball. If you send a RB one way as a decoy and send the ball the other way, you are just wasting a player. Teams would much rather make that extra player a TE who can be a blocking or receiving threat or an extra WR who can spread the defense.

Now if it is a true option play and either player could potentially end up with the ball that is different, but I don't think Iowa can decide to become an option team midway through the season.

One caveat: if a team busts out some misdirection that no opponent has ever seen before, it is typically effective for a brief while (think the "Wildcat" craze). But once teams have had an opportunity to scout it, and the D is reminded to read their keys, this type of thing loses its effectiveness.
 
NCHawker said:
I used to think that MSU's offense was similar to Iowas...until I watched last night. Far more creativity at MSU.
Click to expand...

No one has a similar offense to iowa now that guys like Paterno, Carr, Tressel ect are no longer around.

Kf is the last of the boring breed.
 
CP87 said:
The only teams that use 2 backs at once, both as legit ball-carrying options, are option teams. The days of the wing-T are long gone. Defenses are too sophisticated and they (usually) are not fooled by backfield misdirection; they read the blocking and follow it to the ball. If you send a RB one way as a decoy and send the ball the other way, you are just wasting a player. Teams would much rather make that extra player a TE who can be a blocking or receiving threat or an extra WR who can spread the defense.

Now if it is a true option play and either player could potentially end up with the ball that is different, but I don't think Iowa can decide to become an option team midway through the season.

One caveat: if a team busts out some misdirection that no opponent has ever seen before, it is typically effective for a brief while (think the "Wildcat" craze). But once teams have had an opportunity to scout it, and the D is reminded to read their keys, this type of thing loses its effectiveness.
Click to expand...


I think your assessment of the two-back set is incorrect - it is not the ancient wing-t, it is the 'pro set'. Used by the NFL.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/footballs-offensive-team-formations-for-running-ba.html

Besides, shouldn't your formation and plays be based upon the talent you have - not on what you wish you had or have had in the past?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top