Same old offense?
- Thread starter DBQR4CY
- Start date
I actually thought the play calling was much better than years past. I don't ever recalling saying why in the heck did we run that play in that situation. This was pretty common in years past.
If we clean up the penalties and eliminate the turnovers, I think our offense has the chance to be really good.
If we clean up the penalties and eliminate the turnovers, I think our offense has the chance to be really good.
I expected to see more of a power run game like he used at Toledo. Seemed like the same old awkward-looking spread that we have run in the past with regards to the ground game. Passing game was better than in the past IMO.
Lanning threw the ball really well besides the two big interceptions, which 1 of those may have been a wrong route by the WR.
This offense started 3 walk ons.
We lost our only good lineman
Our QB has never thrown for more than 260 yards in a game.
These were all facts we knew coming into the game. Despite knowing those things, we were not all that bad at times. The real killer was simply Joel and Mike giving the ball away.
We lost our only good lineman
Our QB has never thrown for more than 260 yards in a game.
These were all facts we knew coming into the game. Despite knowing those things, we were not all that bad at times. The real killer was simply Joel and Mike giving the ball away.
An offensive line of water vapor and colored light might block better than what we put out there.
Lanning's throwing was actually pretty damn good.
It's his decision making that's subpar. When he makes the right decision, he's throwing better balls than any ISU QB in a long time.
Like Steele Jantz, he has all the physical tools. Whether he succeeds from here is between his ears.
It's his decision making that's subpar. When he makes the right decision, he's throwing better balls than any ISU QB in a long time.
Like Steele Jantz, he has all the physical tools. Whether he succeeds from here is between his ears.
He threw a few very pretty passes and led his receivers quite well. That brain fart INT was horrendous. So bad it makes me think the whole play was busted, like someone ran the wrong route.
We still have a below average OLine, that cannot run block. It's going to be a tough road to hoe until they rebuild it.
I thought the playcalling was good, but the penalties took us out of our game plan.
I thought the playcalling was good, but the penalties took us out of our game plan.
They are going to have to figure out some way to run the ball without holding or we'll be in a lot of trouble all year.
U could be right when we only muster 51 rushing yards against thee univ of nuthin' important
I don't think there's any doubt it was a busted route, but you still have to recognize that the only guy within 15 yards of where he was going with that ball was a UNI defender, whom he put it right on the money.
He doesn't have the personnel and line play for that. I'm sure they are modifying this offense a bit to try and be more successful with this personnel.
I agree with this. I think they wanted to run the ball but we couldn't set it up at all. They were forced to throw it more than usual and they were hurt by costly penalties.
Coach I agree with everything you said and I want to expand on it:
The thing to keep in mind from a fan's perspective is that it's usually difficult to identify an RPO on the field in real time. So we are probably running RPO's already (and probably did some last year too). You have to be able to tell who the QB is reading - easy when it's a DL, but much harder when it's a LB or safety/corner. And even if every play call has a run/pass read, the players still have to execute it. Oh yeah, and the other team is trying to disguise their defense until the last moment too. As with anything, it's easy to type but hard to do.
Watch the podcast with Jeff Woody. UNI's defense was playing their safeties up and keying on Mike Warren during the read option. Our offense was was taking what the defense was giving as it should. This made it hard to get Mike Warren going, but also gave us opportunities deep with Daley and Butler.
UNI was gambling that Lanning wouldn't tear them up rushing the ball. While Lanning was solid rushing, he didn't break off any long runs. If he would have had more success, they would have had to adjust. The penalties also limit the type of plays we could run because we were looking at a 1st and 20 a couple of times.
Eliminate the penalties and turnovers.
UNI was gambling that Lanning wouldn't tear them up rushing the ball. While Lanning was solid rushing, he didn't break off any long runs. If he would have had more success, they would have had to adjust. The penalties also limit the type of plays we could run because we were looking at a 1st and 20 a couple of times.
Eliminate the penalties and turnovers.
Problem is that he is likely throwing to a spot and when the WR breaks early or late he wont see that until the ball is gone.
