I think one could argue – right or wrong – that while recruiting is as good as it’s ever been, it didn’t seem to take quite the bump some expected based on the success we’ve had, especially at certain positions. Whether that be at O-Line where there clearly should have been a focus or at TE or WR where we’ve shown we can get players to the league.
The downfall of the OL is nothing new, though. It's been a problem since Campbell has been here.
I'm sure he means our scheme. Receivers don't exactly love running quick 4 yd routes and get hit into oblivion. If you listen to the WRNL podcast that came out yesterday between Levi Stevenson and Marchie Murdock. Marchie said that our style does not lead to having fun by WRs and it doesn't look like they're having fun out there, from a former ISU WR's perspective.
Yes but also - its not just the number of receptions I think some kids look at . I think its one thing to catch a bunch of crossing patterns and slants and hooks / curis. I think when you so rarely throw the ball down the field - people notice that. That and the fact that essentially we throw it to 2-3 guys and then the running backs. X is the best receiver we have, yes, get him the ball, yes, but good defenses are going to be like, we're going to make someone else beat us. It'd be good to start getting other people involved in some way or form.
Yep - was thinking the same thing. X has a lot of catches but they're 99.9% crossing routes, hitches / quick outs or a slant. Same with OL honestly - if I'm an OL what do we do that makes me feel like its a good fit?
Dean is actually a great example. He’s our best TE and as a Redshirt Junior has a total of 4 catches this year (1 last year). Nobody expected him to be Kohler but that is one of the worst stat lines after 5 games that you’ll see.
I can agree on the schematic things- but we weren't necessarily talking about that until after the KU loss because thats all we were running. Maybe a little bit after the Baylor game.
I think you could make an argument that those guys coming back may have stunted the growth of the program.
Completely agree on the TE's, not just Dean. He's the main one but Hannika showed flashes, then he disappears. Tyler Moore if nothing else sure looks like he could be a decent battering ram even if he;s not a receiving threat - somewhat similar to Dylan Soehner - at least early career wise but he never plays.
Yes, you are correct there - but that's all we ran against Iowa etc - and I don't get it. Its not that Dekkers doesn't throw it down field - its that we don't even have the route tree's to take advantage of the vertical game a decent amount of the time. That's why I am so worried about the offense. If it was simply a situation where we were taking what the defense gave us - that's fine, that's the smart, logical thing to do and its what we should do.
biggest fear.
That’s the other thing I don’t get, is that by nature due to scheme? We saw it with Purdy too where he looked like a statue in the pocket and took sacks we knew he could avoid. Seems like more of the same with Dekkers
I don't think Dekkers has that "improvise" bug that Purdy had. Purdy was great at avoiding sacks or at least not taking them b/c it was his fault.
Agree on the sacks. He holds the ball - not even talking about how he moves he just doesn't come off of reads. Now a big / reasonable part of that is experience but IDK if he's just looking to X or maybe Noel but he doesn't come off his initial read and when you're late as a QB - its usually a sack or a INT and that's what we are seeing right now
Purdy was elusive.
