Can we really trust a guy that doesn't button down his collar?If we're going to talk about Jacob Park can we take a minute and discuss what the **** is going on with this haircut? It looks like a guy with curly hair is standing directly behind him.
Jacob Park
- Thread starter sweetnsourtower
- Start date
If we're going to talk about Jacob Park can we take a minute and discuss what the **** is going on with this haircut? It looks like a guy with curly hair is standing directly behind him.
Lanning isn't the second coming of Seneca Wallace and that's fine. He didn't an ok job for most of the game. That fumbled snap and safety are on him sure but the real problem here is that the O-Line is a disaster right now. If the O-Line hadn't been manhandled by a FCS school we'd be ok this year, I don't know about bowl eligible but we'd beat UNI. We need both lines to step up or we're in for a long season.
If we're going to talk about Jacob Park can we take a minute and discuss what the **** is going on with this haircut? It looks like a guy with curly hair is standing directly behind him.
Thats the time, the ONLY time the man bun would be the right choice.
Forget the quarterback play.
When you have a returning Freshman All American RB, you give him the ball on the first drive. You give him more than 5 carries in the first half. You give him more than 12 carries in the game.
There is no reason Warren shouldn't have 10-15 carries in the first half of a game, even if they only go for 10-15 yards. He's eventually going to find a hole and get going.
Boy, our fascination with the back-up QB is truly special. Guy hasn't taken a snap in two years but he's ready to replace Lanning. I suppose Lanning is next in a long line up "This guy's the next Joe Montana!", followed by "Well, maybe the next Joe Flacco", followed by "Well, maybe the next Joe Webb."
I would start with the offensive line not the quarterback. This offensive strategy of play 10 minutes and take the rest of the half off needs to change .... but not before our coaches get their stuff together. The good thing is the coaches and team set the bar low enough we can do better than expectations now.
Listen people!!!!! To say that Lanning is the problem is like comparing Nolan Ryan with JH players around him. He throws strikes, but the catcher doesn't catch the ball. He gets the batters to his ground balls and the infielders can't make a play. Look at how many rushing yards we had, 51!!!! Our line is not quite where it needs to be. When Lanning had time, he made good throws, when he didn't have time, we had problems. I am sure Peyton Manning would have the same problems. Give the guy a break!!!! Last year we all wanted Sam out and wanted Lanning to play. Now its the same thing after 1 game. We knew our O Line was not going to be good. Stop and take a breath and realize the real situation. Lanning is fine. Penalties at the wrong time killed us. O line hurt us. Chill out!!!!!!!!!!
If we're going to talk about Jacob Park can we take a minute and discuss what the **** is going on with this haircut? It looks like a guy with curly hair is standing directly behind him.
Love it. He doesn't give a crap about pictures he only cares about making plays on the field.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
The last 6 minutes of the game Lanning laid a pretty big egg. The two interceptions killed us. Mike Warren gets a bad grade for this game as well. Yes, the blocking sucked. But you still can not fumble the ball. That is what cost us.
We were missing Good-Jones. Which meant Fett had to move from guard to tackle. An already weak OL was made even weaker. It was obvious that UNI was keying on Mike Warren. Lanning did not do well on making his QB reads. The whole game he struggled. Even so, we had a 1 point lead and the ball late in the game. The game was ours to pull out. We responded with 3 turnovers. 2 picks and a fumble. Ballgame over. When crunch time came we choked.
Just needed a Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky reference in the to hit the big 4.
5/10 based on only hitting 50%
The biggest problem in the game was play calling. Warren only touched ball 5 times in the first half and if I remember correctly, 2 came right before half. The biggest question mark for me coming into the season was the hiring of Tom Manning as the OC, and he did nothing to change that questioning. He will get better, but his play calling was horrid.
Everyone wants to blame Lanning. One of the INTs was on 2nd and 4, with the lead, in the fourth quarter (why the hell are we even throwing the ball in that situation in the first place?). The other appeared to be a miscommunicated route change between him and Lazard. The space he threw to was actually open, it's just that there was no receiver there. The fumbled snap is on him, fine. I didn't see if it was a clean snap, or if it missed the mark, I don't know. The safety falls some on him, and some on the OL. Just snap-throwing that ball away without taking an intentional grounding on it anyway would've been very difficult.
Our OL was terrible, simply put. Multitude of dumb, costly penalties. Poor run blocking. (Honestly, I thought their pass protection was pretty good at times.) We had what, 50 rushing yards total on ~25 attempts? That's very poor. That's a huge problem. For being designed as a run-first attack, we surely will not be able to do that in Big 12 play if we can't do it against UNI. I wasn't too pleased with allowing UNI 230 or so yards on the ground, either, but that's partly because Bailey is extremely mobile -- we shouldn't see much of that in conference. Our pass defense I thought was serviceable for the most part, too.
This loss is not on Lanning, and putting in Park will not magically solve big OL problems.
Our OL was terrible, simply put. Multitude of dumb, costly penalties. Poor run blocking. (Honestly, I thought their pass protection was pretty good at times.) We had what, 50 rushing yards total on ~25 attempts? That's very poor. That's a huge problem. For being designed as a run-first attack, we surely will not be able to do that in Big 12 play if we can't do it against UNI. I wasn't too pleased with allowing UNI 230 or so yards on the ground, either, but that's partly because Bailey is extremely mobile -- we shouldn't see much of that in conference. Our pass defense I thought was serviceable for the most part, too.
This loss is not on Lanning, and putting in Park will not magically solve big OL problems.
I felt like our playcalling was very vanilla. I guess I was expecting some more flair, it looked just the same as last season to me, except for Lanning's deep fades. (Credit to both him and the receivers for making those connections). I was really disappointed with how inefficient our running game was; we have a star running back. We must find ways to utilize him, and we have to figure it out fast.
Lanning panicked in crunch time, definitely concerning, but otherwise he played a decent game. He has to understand the situation better on the safety. But I'd rather see them try to iron those mistakes out then destroy his confidence and stir up a QB controversy.
Or recruits see that you'll get benched if you have on bad game, or a couple bad plays. How is that a good thing?
