Charles Jones

pistachio1999

HR All-American
Nov 29, 2021
3,773
4,444
113
It's the classic "good riddance, we didn't want him anyway" Iowa homer response - Charlie Jones made Brian Ferentz and his understudies look like goddamn morons with last nights performance.
I guess we should have just thrown to Charlie cause Charlie wants the ball. Hell with team play, throw it to Charlie all the time. Great team loss last night by Purdue, but yeah Charlie. In Charlie's mind he got a W.

Penn State sure did not shy away from kicking right to him.
 

reotto

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 25, 2002
13,331
5,846
113
Sioux City, IA
Charlie is very, very lucky he doesn't have broken ribs after going up to get that ball along the sideline.

That safety made a horrible play on the ball there.

I think that was a byproduct of the targeting rule. 10 years, heck 5 years ago he would of been lit up.
 

jonesy5960

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Sep 6, 2012
6,152
10,679
113
Because while Purdue's pass offense is effective at times, they had zero run game, which showed with their inability to seal the deal late.
They actually did have a run game yesterday. Doerue averaged almost 4 yards per carry. Surprised they didn't use it more.
 

SCKCtb93

Scout Team
Dec 8, 2014
129
130
43
Because while Purdue's pass offense is effective at times, they had zero run game, which showed with their inability to seal the deal late.
Are you saying that Iowa has no way of improving their passing game efficiency and effectiveness without sacrificing their strengths and style in other areas? Why do we need to choose one or the other?

The posters here seem think that we can only be exactly like Purdue, with all of their faults, or we need accept the current ineptitude of our passing game because that is how we win football games. I'm not suggesting that we should play in every way like Purdue, but it would be nice if we could utilize more of someone like Charlie Jones' talent and ability (like Purdue did last night) while continuing to play Iowa's style of football.
 
  • Like
Reactions: citizenHawk

Frosty7130

HR All-American
Gold Member
Oct 11, 2012
4,276
8,925
113
South Dakota
Are you saying that Iowa has no way of improving their passing game efficiency and effectiveness without sacrificing their strengths and style in other areas? Why do we need to choose one or the other?

The posters here seem think that we can only be exactly like Purdue, with all of their faults, or we need accept the current ineptitude of our passing game because that is how we win football games. I'm not suggesting that we should play in every way like Purdue, but it would be nice if we could utilize more of someone like Charlie Jones' talent and ability (like Purdue did last night) while continuing to play Iowa's style of football.
Purdue's entire philosophy is volume passing. Throwing it early and often.

That's not happening at Iowa.
 
  • Like
Reactions: F5n5 and BBHawk

SCKCtb93

Scout Team
Dec 8, 2014
129
130
43
Purdue's entire philosophy is volume passing. Throwing it early and often.

That's not happening at Iowa.
When did I say that Iowa should change philosophies?

I said that everyone here (including you in the above post) is insinuating that you either have to be exactly like Purdue in order to have an effective passing game which resulted in losing to Penn State last night, or you have to accept our passing game as it stands currently which resulted in beating Penn State last year. Those aren't the only two options.
 
Last edited:

Frosty7130

HR All-American
Gold Member
Oct 11, 2012
4,276
8,925
113
South Dakota
When did I say that Iowa should change philosophies?

I said that everyone here (including you in the above post) is insinuating that you either have to be exactly like Purdue in order to have an effective passing game which resulted in losing to Penn State last night, or you have to accept our passing game as it stands currently which resulted in beating Penn State last year. Those aren't the only two options.
You're not understanding what I'm saying, because I'm not insinuating that at all.
 

SCKCtb93

Scout Team
Dec 8, 2014
129
130
43
You're not understanding what I'm saying, because I'm not insinuating that at all.
You kept bringing up Purdue when I was saying that we don't have to be Purdue to improve our passing game.

I repeat that we aren't forced into either being Purdue-like or having to accept where our passing game stands currently. There are more options than just those two.
 

ghostOfHomer777

HR Heisman
May 20, 2014
8,457
9,727
113
False dichotomy. Believe it or not you can win football games and have an effective passing game at the same time. In fact, they often go hand-in-hand.
Yes and no.

Given the tempo of Iowa's O ... a REALLY effective and efficient passing game might mean just 200 yards per game through the air. I can guarantee you ... if Iowa is able to average 200 yards rushing per game AND 200 yards passing per game ... that implies that our O is clicking on all cylinders. In this scenario ... we're not only winning games ... we're crushing our opponents!

Iowa already has a tendency of playing a field-position style of complementary football that CAN, when it's working, give the O plenty of short-fields. Let's suppose that Iowa can manage to have starting field position that around the 50 yard line several times a game. If Iowa's yardage production is evenly split ... if the Hawks see 4 50 yard fields ... the passing game needs to just rack up 100 yards passing ... and that could be enough for us to chalk up 4 TDs! Then, if they're averaging 200 passing yards per game ... the remaining 100 passing yards is distributed among the remainder of the drives.

However, given that Iowa plays a brand of ball where there aren't always that many more possession ... the remainder of that yardage likely translates to more scores (a few field-goals, let's say). So all of a sudden ... you're looking at an O that is scoring in the ball park of 34+ points per game ... and that's with the opposition having a limited number of times to score themselves.

For Iowa's brand of ball ... an effective passing game is typically an efficient one. Specifically, it's one that enables us to score TDs with good enough frequency whenever we even sniff the redzone.
 

ghostOfHomer777

HR Heisman
May 20, 2014
8,457
9,727
113
When did I say that Iowa should change philosophies?

I said that everyone here (including you in the above post) is insinuating that you either have to be exactly like Purdue in order to have an effective passing game which resulted in losing to Penn State last night, or you have to accept our passing game as it stands currently which resulted in beating Penn State last year. Those aren't the only two options.
You're putting words into Frosty's mouth that weren't even remotely there. I read the same posts that you did ... Frosty was CLEARLY insinuating no such scenario/situation.
 

grayhair81

HR Legend
Sep 3, 2006
11,218
13,632
113
I guess we should have just thrown to Charlie cause Charlie wants the ball. Hell with team play, throw it to Charlie all the time. Great team loss last night by Purdue, but yeah Charlie. In Charlie's mind he got a W.

Penn State sure did not shy away from kicking right to him.

Nobody would have returned those punts last night. The PSU punter did a great job with hang time and there were people there when he caught the ball. He was one of the best punt returners in an Iowa uniform in my lifetime not named Tim Dwight.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BBHawk

SCKCtb93

Scout Team
Dec 8, 2014
129
130
43
Yes and no.

Given the tempo of Iowa's O ... a REALLY effective and efficient passing game might mean just 200 yards per game through the air. I can guarantee you ... if Iowa is able to average 200 yards rushing per game AND 200 yards passing per game ... that implies that our O is clicking on all cylinders. In this scenario ... we're not only winning games ... we're crushing our opponents!

Iowa already has a tendency of playing a field-position style of complementary football that CAN, when it's working, give the O plenty of short-fields. Let's suppose that Iowa can manage to have starting field position that around the 50 yard line several times a game. If Iowa's yardage production is evenly split ... if the Hawks see 4 50 yard fields ... the passing game needs to just rack up 100 yards passing ... and that could be enough for us to chalk up 4 TDs! Then, if they're averaging 200 passing yards per game ... the remaining 100 passing yards is distributed among the remainder of the drives.

However, given that Iowa plays a brand of ball where there aren't always that many more possession ... the remainder of that yardage likely translates to more scores (a few field-goals, let's say). So all of a sudden ... you're looking at an O that is scoring in the ball park of 34+ points per game ... and that's with the opposition having a limited number of times to score themselves.

For Iowa's brand of ball ... an effective passing game is typically an efficient one. Specifically, it's one that enables us to score TDs with good enough frequency whenever we even sniff the redzone.
Completely agree with this which is why I've said that an efficient and effective passing game doesn't mean we have to play like Purdue.
 

SCKCtb93

Scout Team
Dec 8, 2014
129
130
43
You're putting words into Frosty's mouth that weren't even remotely there. I read the same posts that you did ... Frosty was CLEARLY insinuating no such scenario/situation.
Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth. All I've been saying the entire time is that Iowa should be able to have a more effective passing game and utilize someone like Charlie Jones and his talent better without having to look like and be Purdue.

This whole thread has presented a choice of either having a bad passing offense like we have and winning a good chunk of games OR have a passing offense like Purdue and lose more games. I'm just saying those aren't the only two choices.
 

Sett1997

HR Heisman
Nov 27, 2004
8,488
9,824
113
I guess we should have just thrown to Charlie cause Charlie wants the ball. Hell with team play, throw it to Charlie all the time. Great team loss last night by Purdue, but yeah Charlie. In Charlie's mind he got a W.

Penn State sure did not shy away from kicking right to him.
It's not like him though to not return punts. Lots of fair catches. Charlie was fearless with us.
Coach? Too conservative telling him to fair catch?
 

MeetTheFerentz

HR Heisman
Nov 20, 2006
9,007
15,393
113
It's not like him though to not return punts. Lots of fair catches. Charlie was fearless with us.
Coach? Too conservative telling him to fair catch?
Makes sense that since CJ is a much bigger part of their offense this year than he was for Iowa last year, they don't want to take any chances of him getting hurt. Ironically, that might be part of the reason that he had trouble getting more scrimmage time at Iowa - the Iowa coaching staff didn't want their star returner worn out, and special teams is stressed at Iowa more than just about everywhere else.

And LOL at people who continue to suggest that since Iowa beat Penn St in a close game last year with great defense and special teams with little offense, and Purdue lost to Penn St in a close game this year with a great offensive passing game but not-so-good defense, that Iowa is obviously doing everything right and Purdue is obviously doing everything wrong, and Iowa won't miss our "#4 guy" C.J. one bit. I agree that Iowa's philosophy is better suited for consistent success in the B1G, which is why Iowa has been a better program for the most part, but there's no law against a defense-first team fielding a B1G-quality QB and having something resembling a 21st-century passing game.