as stated before, maybe to set up Dean's 66 yarder on 4th and one?
Run up the Middle
- Thread starter KCyclone2010
- Start date
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
In that case, okay, you can say running the ball three straight plays set Texas up to bite on the QB on 4th and short. Well done. You can get away with that once per season.
But then after hitting the long pass to Higgins that energized the crowd and lit things up, what did ISU call on the next play? A run up the gut. I swear, 98% of the time after the Cyclones hit on a big play, CMC calls a dive up the middle. It’s infuriating, and not just because 60% of the time it works zero times.
Not to mention we had something like 5 rushing yards at halftime and 9 yards at the end of the game. It was plainer than plain that running the ball was not working.
So run the ball how
Many times to set up one play? Besides the Iowa Hawkeyes, name one other successful team that keeps doing the same thing over and over just to set up one play on 4th down
Conf and national champions don’t keep running up the middle for 1/2 yard average the way we did the entire first three games and the first half of several other games.
Those teams tend to have an offensive line that makes that sort of ineffective result impossible against a MAC opponent.
We have this stubborn tendency, but we’ve also shown we can shake it for a second half or a full game.
And it's after ISU has pulled up to slow down for that 1st down play...maybe it's done so the defense catch their breath?
Especially when you make a clear weakness that one dimension (this is what we did for the first three games and first halves of some others) and ignore other areas where you have a better natural aptitude.
Agreed. Also, as I have said, maybe these one-dimensionable halfves have set up the passing game.
You HAVE to run up the middle some to keep the defense honest, even if you don't expect it to work much. This was the first time in a while it didn't work AT ALL.
It would have been nice to run a few more times to the outside - pitch, jet sweep, whatever. Might not have worked either, but maybe pulling them inside was the goal, idk.
I was disappointed they didn't run a sluggo route a couple times - the slants were working so well, you're telling me they wouldn't have bit on that once? Against a great defense, sometimes you only score by scheming (e.g. TD to Dean). Although maybe they did try this and Rocco got buried before he could throw.
It would have been nice to run a few more times to the outside - pitch, jet sweep, whatever. Might not have worked either, but maybe pulling them inside was the goal, idk.
I was disappointed they didn't run a sluggo route a couple times - the slants were working so well, you're telling me they wouldn't have bit on that once? Against a great defense, sometimes you only score by scheming (e.g. TD to Dean). Although maybe they did try this and Rocco got buried before he could throw.
It’s not about fewer runs! It’s about not calling plays that don’t work! We want and need imagination! Wow us! Don’t run plays that don’t work!
Don’t try to get objective and nail down specifics. “What would you like to see?” “How many fewer runs?” We don’t need to be gaslit! We know what we want! It’s pretty clear!
You just want them to only run plays that work, got it. Seems easy enough.
Yes! It is easy enough! We’ve been trying to tell the coaches this for years! But they refuse to listen to reason and logic!
If you have the answers you should talk to them, they'd hire you as a consultant for sure and then we'd be national champs, why are you being selfish keeping it to yourself?
I didn’t have a problem with how the game was called from an offensive standpoint, even the runs in to the black hole, I get what the point of that is. No one seems to be talking about another game lost to ST debacles. That EP doesn’t get blocked and returned I think this game goes a completely different direction.
