offensive play calling in the second half
- Thread starter SEclone
- Start date
Mess went to what worked in week 1, but Iowa's defense sniffed out the zone read, and we weren't able to throw around that stacked box.
Jantz was missing receivers....
Jantz was missing receivers....
I would have liked to see more straight up the gut handoffs as opposed to zone read. Seems as though the outside would be a strength with their lbs, while their d line was supposed to be weak. Of course, their defense was jacked up, and we weren't creating the same holes that had been there.
unfortunately, the second half reminded me of the bowl game, Iowa sent a lot of guys around the edge just like in the bowl game, and ISU did not respond well. Need to figure out a way to attack the middle of the defenses or the off tackle quickly rather than the delay zone read. The coaches will figure it out. This team has a lot of talent, they just need to figure out how to attack a defense better. Completing a couple long passes would have been a great help yesterday.
I think it really was a combination of factors. Mess was awfully conservative most the time but that wasn't really the problem, we weren't executing on ANYTHING. The O-line didn't get the push they were in the first half (for whatever reason). And Jantz just missed on a couple of throws. It's hard to see on TV what route the receivers are running but it didn't look like there was a lot of space in the secondary and he didn't force (too) many throws. Also, imagine if one of those long balls had been on the money, it would've been a lot different game. He was really close on a few of them and he erred on the side that didn't result in a INT (long). Overall it wasn't pretty but I think a week against an inferior opponent and then a week off will be a huuuuuuge benefit for the offense.
There were lanes inside but the RB's were kicking it outside. Don't know if this was by design or RB's decision. When they were kicking it outside the tackles didn't maintain there blocks.. Also Iowa was stacking the box so there was an extra defender. This left man coverage on some WR's but Jantz misses those shots down field so the offense couldn't make Iowa's D pay for putting that safety in the box.
I dont know if its the play calling or not making the yards on 1st down. It just seems they are limited to what they do on 2nd and 3rd and 8 or more. The 2nd and 3rd qtrs vs Tulsa and 1st and 2nd vs Iowa Mess called outstanding. The other qtrs not so much. Its almost like he has a plan in his head this will set this up and then we will go to this and this and this, but when one of those doesnt work he is not sure what to do. I also think they need quicker to develop running plays, screw the QB RB zoneread, give the RB the ball and let him find his spots quick.
Like the run game isn't conservative? I think you would have seen more diverse playcalling if we could simply get a first down and get into any kind of rhythm.
i agree. i meant to say the run game, but not the east to west running we did with zone read, it was just taking too long to develop and the rb's kept going outside when the gaps up the middle were there. also i think that those throws that jantz missed deep will come with more reps. completing at least one of them changes the way the iowa d plays instead of filling the box.
Gotcha. I think the overthrows are partially due to our receivers being a little small. Jantz gave Money some chances at jump balls last year, and it would've been nice to give Bundrage or Tiller a chance, but guys like West and Horne it's probably better just to overthrow rather than put it up for grabs.
Plus one. Essentially we were in a time warp from last year. We do need to find an answer to this defense type.
Wrong. We didn't move the ball much, true, but we did two positive things: 1) we maintained field position advantage much of the 2nd half; 2) we kept the clock moving and forced Iowa to use it's timeouts.
In the first half the Big Ten announcers were amazed with the variety of plays and speed of play due to the no-huddle. They repeatedly commented on how it was wearing doen Iowa's defense. We had some turnovers but we looked good and not in trouble.
In the second half, it appeared to me that we slowed down to run to run time off the clock and we limited the number and types of plays that we used previously to play it safer. Further our defense let Iowa's offense have some drives which gave their defense some rest.
This strategy made us look bad in my opinion. I hope we just knew we could contain them and didn't want to show our hand until we play someone good.
In the second half, it appeared to me that we slowed down to run to run time off the clock and we limited the number and types of plays that we used previously to play it safer. Further our defense let Iowa's offense have some drives which gave their defense some rest.
This strategy made us look bad in my opinion. I hope we just knew we could contain them and didn't want to show our hand until we play someone good.
We maintained field position because of the defense and Kirby. iowa using it's timeouts didn't stop them from being in a postion to win the game at the end. We hould have put that game away several times.
