Getting receivers open

[cedarvalleykid14]

Never been a fan of the read and react passing game. Maybe it works at the next level, but for college kids, no matter how talented, I much prefer the old-school timing game. Drive your man 10 yards deep, curl in, and the ball is there, having been released before you made your break. There should be at least SOME timing patterns in any offense, and if there were, Iowa's receivers would be open. No D-back can cover timing patterns unless they anticipate, and if they're wrong, a BIG play happens.

As many have noted, Iowa also needs to use the TEs, the wheel routes, and the quick slants. We've seen virtually none of those things all season. That's crazy.

The problems with the Iowa passing attack are not the players. The coaches have to do a FAR better job of giving them opportunities to be successful.

Let's hope we see all of these things and more starting with the Illini tomorrow. I'm tired of Iowa coaches wasting the talent they do have.

Also, why keep dropping Beathard back against a wild-eyed rush like Pitt and Wisconsin? It's dumb. Virtually no drop-backs. Emphasize a moving pocket and roll-outs. Beathard can throw it 50 yards with the flick of a wrist. He doesn't need to stand like a statue and put his whole body into it like some QBs do. Along with quick tosses to the TEs and the quick slants, this frustrates a rush and gives Iowa the best chance to move the ball through the air. It ain't too tough to figure out.

Are things better from a coaching standpoint? Yes. But as the coaching staff says ad nauseum about the players, there's still plenty of room for improvement. C'mon, GD. Timing patterns, TEs, slants. Let's light up that scoreboard. It's all legal.

 

[cedarvalleykid14]

Nope. Always glad to help, especially since the staff has pretty much taken the advice many of us offered regarding:

* the starting QB
* the starting RB
* throwing the ball down the damn field (sometimes)
* trick plays
* going for it on 4th down
* playing to win usually equals winning; playing to lose usually equals losing
* playing freshmen
* playing the best player regardless of time in the program

So sure. It would be unfair not to help the passing game, too. And be sure to post again if/when GD/KF employ TEs, quick slants, moving pockets, rollouts, etc. and let me know how it went. After all, the Hawks' offensive coaches really did a fabulous job up at Madison by NOT doing ANY of those things. Hey, but 77 yards passing is pretty good, right?

 

[bagdropper]

It must suck, being smarter than the coaches.

 

[trombone96]

Maybe the coaches will come on the board and take that advice

 

[mvhomerj]

I didn't know this was a issue. Did you tell GD?

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

Maybe the coaches will come on the board and take that advice

We can only hope. Many times they seem rather uninspired....

How many times did we have to see a standard off tackle run on 2nd & 12 last year before they figured out this is not putting our offense in the best position to pick up a first down?

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

Solid post OP.

I like Kirk as a person, but a creative football mind he is not.

 

[C/Seahawk]

Nope. Always glad to help, especially since the staff has pretty much taken the advice many of us offered regarding:

* the starting QB
* the starting RB
* throwing the ball down the damn field (sometimes)
* trick plays
* going for it on 4th down
* playing to win usually equals winning; playing to lose usually equals losing
* playing freshmen
* playing the best player regardless of time in the program

So sure. It would be unfair not to help the passing game, too. And be sure to post again if/when GD/KF employ TEs, quick slants, moving pockets, rollouts, etc. and let me know how it went. After all, the Hawks' offensive coaches really did a fabulous job up at Madison by NOT doing ANY of those things. Hey, but 77 yards passing is pretty good, right?

So, you are replying to your own post thanking yourself for commenting, then claim to know more than the coaches and take responsibility for some of the improvement we've seen on the field this year? Curious, where do you currently coach?

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

So, you are replying to your own post thanking yourself for commenting, then claim to know more than the coaches and take responsibility for some of the improvement we've seen on the field this year? Curious, where do you currently coach?

straight to the ad hominems (ie. where do you coach?!)

is there any validity to his post? or not? why not address that stuff first.

 

[C/Seahawk]

Solid post OP.

I like Kirk as a person, but a creative football mind he is not.

straight to the ad hominems (ie. where do you coach?!)

is there any validity to his post? or not? why not address that stuff first.

ok, if you really want me to, its a Friday and its not a bad time to push work aside for a moment, so lets take a look at some of the statements made:

- Never been a fan of the read and react passing game. Maybe it works at the next level, but for college kids, no matter how talented, I much prefer the old-school timing game

I have no issue with the read and react passing game(as if that is all we are doing), but high school players are capable of carrying this out, and do, so it has nothing to do with being too complicated. The poster prefers the old school timing game...what exactly is that based on? Why not have QB's and WR's learn to read a defense and react accordingly? It was being done on the high school level 25 years ago, so I don't see what is wrong with it now.

- The problems with the Iowa passing attack are not the players. The coaches have to do a FAR better job of giving them opportunities to be successful.

I think all you have to do is look at our record, and that suggests to me the coaches are giving the players opportunities to be successful. Do you not recall Beathard starting out something like 15 for 15 the other week? That speaks to good play calling and excellent execution from the players. The conditions at Wisconsin were not ideal for throwing the ball, plus we were missing our most explosive WR, and our most explosive TE is just starting to work himself into playing shape after major surgery. I think this year the coaches, and specifically GD, has done a nice job of mixing up the plays, keeping defenses on their toes and most importantly putting our guys in a position to succeed. We are mixing in screens, play action, crossing patterns, moving the pocket, etc.

- C'mon, GD. Timing patterns, TEs, slants. Let's light up that scoreboard. It's all legal.

We are averaging 32 pts per game through our first five games...I don't see what is wrong with that? We are not utilizing a spread hurry up offense, so its not like we are going to score 50 a game like Baylor. Teams like that and conferences like that play no defense whatsoever, so its not a fair comparison. For a pro-style offense that values ball control, clock control and a rushing attack, putting up 32 a game is just fine by me. Also, this perception that we aren't running timing patters is simply ridiculous. We've also utilized slants, utilized our TE's and also hit quick outs when the defense leaves it open.

- . And be sure to post again if/when GD/KF employ TEs, quick slants, moving pockets, rollouts, etc. and let me know how it went

We've utilized our TE's, moved the pocket, utilized playaction rollouts, etc through our first five games, so I'm not sure what game the OP is watching. Did we struggle to score against Wisconsin? Sure, but do you guys realize Wisconsin hadn't given up a TD for three games leading up to Iowa? To make matters worse, it was awfully windy and we were missing our best playmaker at the WR position. Everyone knew going in that game was going to be archaic as it related to scoring, so I'm not sure what the fuss is all about.

The OP was taking credit for our success this season, which I think is a pretty ridiculous stance to take.

thanks and go hawks!

 

[FBletterman]

Never been a fan of the read and react passing game. Maybe it works at the next level, but for college kids, no matter how talented, I much prefer the old-school timing game. Drive your man 10 yards deep, curl in, and the ball is there, having been released before you made your break. There should be at least SOME timing patterns in any offense, and if there were, Iowa's receivers would be open. No D-back can cover timing patterns unless they anticipate, and if they're wrong, a BIG play happens.

Seriously? Iowa has been using both type of routes forever and so has college football. Under Bill Snyder over half of all our completed passes were read and react routes or as we called them "Get Open" routes. Either X Y R Z or Y Get Open. All the out and curl patterns were timing. But all go, post and comeback routes were read and react routes and that was the 80's. I imagine a team like Baylor almost exclusively uses them today as do all teams in college football so to say college kids cant run them is ignorant.

 

[denmar81]

It must suck, being smarter than the coaches.

Sometimes we are, ask Beathard. Now if they would just listen to us again and use the TE's more, a B1G championship could become reality.

 

[20"Terminator]

I didn't know this was a issue. Did you tell GD?

Just so we're on the same page, "GD" is Game-Day Ron, right?

 

[bagdropper]

Sometimes we are, ask Beathard. Now if they would just listen to us again and use the TE's more, a B1G championship could become reality.

I figured the "lack" of TE usage so far was a combo of Duzey being out and HKC being more a run blocking TE.

Of all the offensive issues Iowa has, TE output I think is maybe...10th on the list.

The o-line I think, while being generally good enough, needs for this year's team to be better. Protect CJ better, and enable continuous pounding of the ball with multiple RB's. I also fear not having a true reliable backup RB. Daniels has to stop getting nicked up, and Watley has to not fumble any more.

Improve those two areas, the TE passing game is a chief beneficiary because they are more susceptible to the play-action and called upon to stop the run all that much more. CJ is clean, giving him more time to find the TE's etc in their routes.

Every great offense has great line play. Give 2015 Iowa that, they will go 12 and 0.

 

[cocoem]

ok, if you really want me to, its a Friday and its not a bad time to push work aside for a moment, so lets take a look at some of the statements made:

- Never been a fan of the read and react passing game. Maybe it works at the next level, but for college kids, no matter how talented, I much prefer the old-school timing game

I have no issue with the read and react passing game(as if that is all we are doing), but high school players are capable of carrying this out, and do, so it has nothing to do with being too complicated. The poster prefers the old school timing game...what exactly is that based on? Why not have QB's and WR's learn to read a defense and react accordingly? It was being done on the high school level 25 years ago, so I don't see what is wrong with it now.

- The problems with the Iowa passing attack are not the players. The coaches have to do a FAR better job of giving them opportunities to be successful.

I think all you have to do is look at our record, and that suggests to me the coaches are giving the players opportunities to be successful. Do you not recall Beathard starting out something like 15 for 15 the other week? That speaks to good play calling and excellent execution from the players. The conditions at Wisconsin were not ideal for throwing the ball, plus we were missing our most explosive WR, and our most explosive TE is just starting to work himself into playing shape after major surgery. I think this year the coaches, and specifically GD, has done a nice job of mixing up the plays, keeping defenses on their toes and most importantly putting our guys in a position to succeed. We are mixing in screens, play action, crossing patterns, moving the pocket, etc.

- C'mon, GD. Timing patterns, TEs, slants. Let's light up that scoreboard. It's all legal.

We are averaging 32 pts per game through our first five games...I don't see what is wrong with that? We are not utilizing a spread hurry up offense, so its not like we are going to score 50 a game like Baylor. Teams like that and conferences like that play no defense whatsoever, so its not a fair comparison. For a pro-style offense that values ball control, clock control and a rushing attack, putting up 32 a game is just fine by me. Also, this perception that we aren't running timing patters is simply ridiculous. We've also utilized slants, utilized our TE's and also hit quick outs when the defense leaves it open.

- . And be sure to post again if/when GD/KF employ TEs, quick slants, moving pockets, rollouts, etc. and let me know how it went

We've utilized our TE's, moved the pocket, utilized playaction rollouts, etc through our first five games, so I'm not sure what game the OP is watching. Did we struggle to score against Wisconsin? Sure, but do you guys realize Wisconsin hadn't given up a TD for three games leading up to Iowa? To make matters worse, it was awfully windy and we were missing our best playmaker at the WR position. Everyone knew going in that game was going to be archaic as it related to scoring, so I'm not sure what the fuss is all about.

The OP was taking credit for our success this season, which I think is a pretty ridiculous stance to take.

thanks and go hawks!

Great post....But now the OP will have to put down the Cheetos and change his wife beater and tell his live-in that he is not that smart. Monday Morning Coaches are the best.