What? Good teams can always get some pressure with 4 guys, which is what Iowa is, a good team. We cannot get pressure with 4, and that is why our Dline has been considered one of the worst in the Big 12 for the past half of a decade. You have adjusted reality to reflect ISU football. Good teams will get pressure with 4.
Osemele
- Thread starter SPOONER
- Start date
What? Good teams can always get some pressure with 4 guys, which is what Iowa is, a good team. We cannot get pressure with 4, and that is why our Dline has been considered one of the worst in the Big 12 for the past half of a decade. You have adjusted reality to reflect ISU football. Good teams will get pressure with 4.
While Iowa fans on mesage boards had no respect for Osemele, you can tell the coaches at Iowa did. Osemele is a draft horse, he is very strong, but has little lateral agility. They stunted him to make the line react and switch. Alvarez couldn't hold up Clayborn. That is all there is to it. As a unit, the Oline of ISU got beat by the Dline of Iowa. The worst offenders on the Oline were Alvarez and Hicks, our guards. One on one, both Burris and Osemele could lock on and stop their guys(Binns and Clayborn). But Oline has to play as a unit, and they did not do a good job on Sat. We had a key loss when Scott Haughton was removed from the team. We cannot lose impact lineman at ISU and replace them in a span of months. With Haughton at RG, I have a feeling Hicks would have been playing left guard, and things would not have been as bad as they were. He was a bigger loss than most believe. Chemistry is key to a line, and we didn't have it yesterday.
Iowa is good because they appear to have no weaknesses. They are good across the board.
Their coaching has done them well.
If you could criticize something Iowa underperformed at, what would it be?
Their depth at positions is as good as anyone in college.
They are based in little Iowa. Shall we emulate their model at some point?
We need to get a heck of a lot better in next two years.
First two games make me think Osemele's head has gotten larger than his backside, and that's saying something. He's been unimpressive to say the least. Somewhere along the line, he decided he was so good he could just shpw up and be large and get the job done.
You obviously didn't watch the game. That statement is true, but you know, just say anything. It is a message board.
I've been saying for months that losing SH was going to really hurt. How bad was Hicks yesterday, sheesh.
I know he was.. Did you read my post? Clayborn ran a ton of stunts.. Which meant he wasn't KO's assignment for those plays. Do yourself a favor and watch the game again. Focus on KO and Clayborn. When Clayborn simply bull rushes KO, KO wins. Same story as last year
What constitutes winning the battle? Clayborn was disrupting AA almost the whole game.
I agree 100%. I'm watching the game again, as much as it hurts, and watching the lines specifically and even more specifically, AC. KO has one EVERY time they went against each other. Every time that AC has been anywhere is when he ran over Alvarez. I'm even more impressed with KO after watching this game.
it is called stunting, and yes, Clayborn was doing a ton of it. he was more taking on Alex than, KO. NOT KO best game by any means but I think Iowa had a game plan to get him into the backfield to disrupt...
Clayborn beat Osemele in the pass rush several times, but Arnaud always got it off on time. Osemele would be pretty terrible if he was losing a matchup every time -- even against an elite DE.
FWIW, Iowa stunts a lot against everyone, and Clayborn did beat the guard some as well.
Osemele also failed to get any push against Clayborn in the running game. But all in all, he did OK. He lost the matchup but wasn't dominated.
FWIW, Iowa stunts a lot against everyone, and Clayborn did beat the guard some as well.
Osemele also failed to get any push against Clayborn in the running game. But all in all, he did OK. He lost the matchup but wasn't dominated.
I disagree. After my last post I did see KO get beat twice in the middle of the third. But I also saw KO do very well in run and pass when he was actually working AC. There were not many runs from ISU though, so not a big sample to view. Anyway, your team won, no need to try and convince us of your AMAZING players.
That Osemele got no push in the run game against Clayborn is my honest opinion and not an attempt to flame the kid or rub in the win. I watched that matchup closely based on all of the "KO will dominate Clayborn again" talk on this board, and that's what I saw. He wasn't letting Clayborn live in the backfield either on those plays, FWIW.
Again, he was beaten several times in pass protection by Clayborn (and once or twice by Klug on stunts) but for the most part, he did a serviceable job against a very good player.
Thursday.. Good thing the game was on Saturday. The only person that played better than KO yesterday was Shontrelle so maybe everyone on the team should have been at the bars on Thursday.
How can you say that? When has he not done his job? How many sacks has he given up? He went up against a DE who many claim is the best in the nation and didn't give up a sack! What more do you want from an O-Lineman?
Just wondering if you were watching all the run plays or not? You do realize that on some of ISU run plays the DE isn't blocked? The QB is supposed to read the DE and decide whether to keep it or give it to the RB. Like the first play for ISU, when Clayborn crashed as hard as possible and made the play for one of his 3 tackles, Arnaud should have kept the ball and would have ran for 10 yards or more!
