ADVERTISEMENT

If our O playcalling didn't cut the nutsack off our QB for 3Q's, we win that game by 2+ touchdowns

speed4power

HB All-State
Aug 17, 2017
749
1,074
93
Why try to run the ball between the tackles on 1st and 2nd down, pick up zero yards, and continue the same failed stategy for 75% of the game? It was 100% clear to everyone in the stadium (except our coaches apparently) that Penn St was selling out on the run every 1st/2nd down, and the "run first" mentality was not going to work. Yet we continued to try it. Only in the 4th Q did we start to stretch the field and air it out, and it was immensely successful. Iowa NEEDS to stretch the field more and stop being so freaking stubborn and predictable offensively if we ever hope to reach the next level as a program.
 
Why try to run the ball between the tackles on 1st and 2nd down, pick up zero yards, and continue the same failed stategy for 75% of the game? It was 100% clear to everyone in the stadium (except our coaches apparently) that Penn St was selling out on the run every 1st/2nd down, and the "run first" mentality was not going to work. Yet we continued to try it. Only in the 4th Q did we start to stretch the field and air it out, and it was immensely successful. Iowa NEEDS to stretch the field more and stop being so freaking stubborn and predictable offensively if we ever hope to reach the next level as a program.
Your posts are more predictable than the Iowa offense....:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
Why try to run the ball between the tackles on 1st and 2nd down, pick up zero yards, and continue the same failed stategy for 75% of the game? It was 100% clear to everyone in the stadium (except our coaches apparently) that Penn St was selling out on the run every 1st/2nd down, and the "run first" mentality was not going to work. Yet we continued to try it. Only in the 4th Q did we start to stretch the field and air it out, and it was immensely successful. Iowa NEEDS to stretch the field more and stop being so freaking stubborn and predictable offensively if we ever hope to reach the next level as a program.
And by purposely showing some tendencies ... that had nothing with our success in getting some big chunk plays either, eh?

The early drops that stalled drives ... that had nothing to do with the issues we had on O either?

What I saw was a young O that still has a lot of learning to do ... but, at the same time, they still flash great potential. It's true that Brian didn't call a perfect game ... but some of the lack of execution wasn't helping things either. Just because a play isn't successful doesn't imply that it was a mistake to call it ... from such a play, you can learn how the D responds to what you do. Also, even from such calls ... it can establish tendencies that will influence how the D reacts ... and that can leave the D exposed when you break from tendency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sob5
If PSU hands off to Barkley at the goal-line.......they run you out. They should have run you out as they dominated.
 
Our whole O was suspect in the first half. Have to give credit to PSU's D. That's a group that has probably been overshadowed by their offense. Our vaunted O-Line couldn't create holes for Wadley. I will say that their pass pro has improved tremendously over 15 and 16. Stanley threw some inaccurate balls and he threw some accurate balls that were dropped. Our first screen was blown up and we didn't try any other screens. Our first draw worked somewhat and we only ran a few. They were blitzing run roughly half of the time.

Our D gave up a lot of yards but they were on the field for ~40 minutes. They played well enough to win. If we could have run the ball at all, maybe we stay ahead of the sticks and win. If we could have completed some more passes that were there early, maybe we stay ahead of the sticks and win.
 
Agree with the OP. We should have won this game going away. Predictable play calling is not good coaching.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT