it is interested but personally I'd prefer Manning to stick to 11, 20 / 12 or however we identified it and classify Rus as the H/ U as a TE or FB hybrid. There's more than enough power football that can be played from there as well as the fact that it still allows us to have 2-3 receivers to try to stretch the defense out a little bit even if we are not taking home run shots every play.
Why don't we hear more about Hunter Dekkers?
- Thread starter byebye
- Start date
Yes… agree it was not only UNI. The reason I used that as an example is that in theory you should be able to over power them at the los and we could not. Part is scheme part is personnel (imho).
In the end, we could not make anyone pay for selling out to stop the run. If Dekkers can get the deep pass going and force teams to respect it, that could help on the los by limiting the players teams commit to the run… but I don’t see us winning games with deep shots. I think we will still need to control the los, make accurate passes in the short/mid range to win consistently. Just don’t think the philosophy will change. We have to “win in the margins” and be more physical on the o-line.
I agree but we don't need to win with deep shots. We just have to make the defense respect them enough that we have an 8 man box instead of 9, or 7 instead of 8.
And occasionally if the deep shot's produce 2 home runs or doubles / triples a game, that makes scoring and shifting momentum even easier
Agree. Only thing I would say is that we need to be better than we have been up front if we want to win 8-10 games consistently.
I understand part of it is getting guys off of the line. But looking at the OU game for example (understand this is an outlier, but if B12 titles are the goal we need to beat them not come close to beating them) they beat us up on the line with their 4 dudes up front. It was brutal. I don't expect us to overwhelm a team like that. But you have to be able to play with them. We were completely outmatched. I would say toe was pretty dominant as well their dl vs. our ol.
To me those games were not about the resources but just their guys beating our guys.
Granted. But that's where it comes back to play-calling and scheme. I'd imagine if you asked those OU guys and they were being honest - they knew that there were certain things that they didn't need to fear. If you give a defensive linemen just one thing and allow them to tee off on them - then unless you have the best OL in the world, you're making an offensive linemen's job a million times harder.
I'll have to watch the OU game again to make sure but....
I don't remember seeing any real concerted effort to move the pocket, run screens or draws, get the ball on the perimeter quickly like we used to do when Akers was here, etc... esentially we told those guys from OU that they could tee off on our offensive line with two guards trying to play tackle and play the run on the way to the QB and yeah, against good defenders the result is going to be what we saw.
Heck, I don't even really remember us going on different snap counts that much.
We literally did next to nothing to help the offensive line in that game or in any other game where they struggled. Are they amazing? Heck no they weren't. Neither were they terrible though. And I think if he's truly healthy, Remsburg is a huge upgrade at tackle over Derek - even though I like Derek - the other tackle spot I think is somewhat concerning as of today but if we allow Hufford to play guard like he truly is and we are able to get Miller or another young tackle up to speed - I think our offensive line is actually in a good spot.
The offense took off two years ago after Remsburg became a fixture - was it all him? No, it was a lot of moving pieces as it always is. But I do think not having him was a bigger deal than what we probably thought it was going to be at the start of the season last year
Part of having a deep ball game is having guys who can get consistent separation.
Unsure if we have that or not.
Agree with all the above.
Remsburg and the younger guys at tackle are why I have hope that we could (not saying we will) have more success next year than we did this year. When we had foster at the top of the depth chart that was the first red flag for me.
I don't think our o-line is terrible. I think it has gotten better. But it has not been full of future NFL players either (at least not yet). But I just don't think we will change scheme very much... that long drive vs. k-state is exactly how ISU wants to play (think it was about 90 yrds and 10+ mins)... But to do that consistently, you need to control the LOS and run the ball.
My main point is... until we are dominant up front, it will be hard for us to win given our scheme regardless of who our QB is.
Correct. But part of it is also a guy who "throws people open" as the saying goes or can put the ball in the right spot.
It's kind of a chicken or egg thing. because if you have a guy who gets separation but the QB can't get it there - there's no deep game. If you have a QB who can get it there but there's no separation or ability to win a contested ball, there's no deep game.
Which is more to blame? I guess it depends on your POV but I'd say we were probably lacking both to some degree
Gramted but to some degree, the QB makes the OL's job easier if the box is lighter. If an offnesive linemen has to control 6 guys compared to 7-8, we're asking less of them and therefore its easier on them.
Again, chicken and egg, but the QB and outside threats have an impact on the OL just like the OL not giving Brock time to throw was at times an issue with our passing game as well. Tomato, tomatto.
But that is the hope i have for Dekkers is that he can at least be consistent enough of a threat vertically that our offensive line can a less stacked box.
I also think two years ago might be more the way we want to play - still run heavy, yes, but with a little more tempo and a little more diversity. I think last year losing Remsburg early, having Breece banged up early along with Kolar, not having a great number 2 option opposite X as Shaw was dinged up as well - I think that made us become a little more methodical in our approach to our game since our passing game for various reasons never really seemed to click. I think Sean's struggles + Remsburg's injuries plus not wanting to through a young tackle out there to the wolves too early on meant asking some more verteran OL to play out of a position which meant we didn't want to be in a situation where we were asking a lot of them in an uncomfortable role so we compressed the playbook, tried to play more bully ball and slowed it down.
I think two years ago all things being equal is a better case of who we should try to be offensive ly IMO
tend to agree with you to an extent. For example, no one was complaining about lack of a deep ball when we had Butler.
I really just don't think purdy was very comfortable running the offense from within the scheme. People talk about arm strength and that is part of it... but it was ability to "always" be open even if you have two guys on you and purdy to be able to throw it where only his guy can get it and his guy going and getting it.
When purdy was running around pump faking and tossing it up down field it was kind of johnny manziel like (not personality, style of play). trying to turn him into tom brady took away what he was best at... improvising. Without Butler, he also lost a key weapon he could count on when the called play broke down.
True but that's why its chicken and the egg.,... how much was Butler just being a big freaking stud at the collegiate level that contributed to the down field passing game?
Like the reason for me Brady's the best QB is because for the most part, he did what he did much of his career with a great TE, another good TE but horrible person - and one year with Moss but otherwise - a fairly pedestrian receiving core and running game. Danny Amendola made a lot of money because of Tom Brady lol... not saying those guys aren't great athletes, because they are, but he didn't have Wayne and Marivin Harrison or Bruce and Holt and Faulk etc... point being, there are two parts. When a receiver's running wide open in the secondary - I don't know if that's a sign of the QB being good with the deep pass or the receiver just being better than the guys covering him. Probably a little bit of both.
Agree on the idea of trying to make him into a pocket QB ruined or damaged Purdy. I thnk for me he never was great at progressing - I think his decision making was fine but he came off reads late which is why sometimes the ball floated or hung in the air because he was late coming off of Charlie or X or whomever.
But by far I do think limiting the improve hurt him - he was never comfortable being totally in the pocket and we also didn't get the broken coverage plays because he was scrambling and now you put the defender in limbo.
You weren't flamed. You asked why you weren't hearing more about Dekkers. People responded with the answer to your question: because it is basketball season.I love how half of this board is just people flaming others for sharing opinions & asking questions - I'm so sorry for wanting to talk about football on the football forum during basketball season...
I'm not sure how that is flaming you.
Do you guys think Noel & maybe Sanders can fill the void that Akers left, in re: to those quick outside throws & WR screens? I know Sanders is a RB, but I think I've seen him described as a Percy Harvin-type in the past.
If Sanders can reliably catch I think getting him the ball in space is a winning proposition.
Noel was already filling that role by the later stages of the season. Our line was terrible so the timing was always off, but he made as much hay as he could when he got the ball on the outside.
My first thought, is this Karen Dekkers? Pumped about the dudes potential but c'mon
Holy selective nitpicking, Batman!
So maybe on that throw Hunter was off. But on the rest of his handful of throws, he made a couple that Brock couldn’t have replicated.
In a word, yes. Or even someone else. I like the make up of the receiver room - even if some of it is unproven.
Obviously we have X back which is insanely huge.
Noel had emerged into that slot - quick hitter type of guy but also more than just that.
Daniel Jackson started playing a little bit and I think he's got potential there.
Interesting that Potter is now listed as a DB - was thinking maybe he'd get a chance at WR....
Bitter had flashes as a freshman.
Darren Wilson I thought had some moments
Shaw of course is a veteran guy
And then you have other youngsters like Gaines, etc....
Do we have Ohio State's wide receiver room where all of them are NFL top picks? No, of course not. But I do think that is a - average to maybe slightly above average room of receivers. They need to develop and improve, we have to have a scheme in place to maximize their strengths and Dekkers or whomever is at QB need to be able to get them the ball / OL blocking, etc. ... but I like the makeup of that WR room more than I have in recent years where it was basically one or two guys . I think there is potential there. I know that is a dirty word in athletics but I'm excited for the future of that group
Great to hear from Charlie. Excited as well... when does spring practice start officially? Having a hard time remembering
