ADVERTISEMENT

Lester presser

Agreed. Hell I'm a little spoiled in that our family has always raised 10ish cattle each year for ourselves so we have essentially access to whatever cut we would like. And call me a tight wad but I'm not paying $60 for a steak. (Also I almost enjoy cooking more so than eating, something about fire/smoke that hits a primal center in my brain)
Yep, love cooking my own and never had a single complaint by anyone consuming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: obfuscating
Agreed. Hell I'm a little spoiled in that our family has always raised 10ish cattle each year for ourselves so we have essentially access to whatever cut we would like. And call me a tight wad but I'm not paying $60 for a steak. (Also I almost enjoy cooking more so than eating, something about fire/smoke that hits a primal center in my brain)
You ever sell a 1/4 or 1/2 ???
 
Everybody keeps bemoaning the fact Iowa doesn't take any deep shots down the field, rightfully so, but what exactly is everyone's definition of a "deep shot"? Especially KF's??

To me, a deep shot is 30 to 35+ yards. After watching Cade McNamara so far this season, I don't want him attempting a few deep shots, let alone a bunch of them.

He's not super accurate and his arm strength seems quite less than ideal for such throws.


And before you start yelling "Then play Sullivan!!! (for more than just handing off or keepers)", we all know KF won't - unless he has no other choice - so that's a non-starter of an argument or possible solution to the above problem.
The problem is that Kirk has had this entire millennium to develop a QB that can pass 30 yards downfield, and with a few exceptions has failed to do so. In fact...he has taken guys that did pass in HS and coached them into QBs that can't...or won't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DewHawk
The problem is that Kirk has had this entire millennium to develop a QB that can pass 30 yards downfield, and with a few exceptions has failed to do so. In fact...he has taken guys that did pass in HS and coached them into QBs that can't...or won't.
You're preaching to the choir, man.

Until KF retires, the entirety of the passing game - let alone QB expectations - will never be anything remotely considered "dynamic", or hell, even "modern".
 
  • Haha
Reactions: HawkOn15
The problem is that Kirk has had this entire millennium to develop a QB that can pass 30 yards downfield, and with a few exceptions has failed to do so. In fact...he has taken guys that did pass in HS and coached them into QBs that can't...or won't.
What’s most amusing about this is he doesn’t want them to be good at running either lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: DewHawk
It isn't the same if you drop back and wait 3 seconds to get a man downfield and get sacked.

You act like the outcome is binary.

The other point I have…this throw downfield stuff. Lester answered that. The point many seem to be
making is that this keeps people from stacking the box. Sure. But stacking just create a numbers advantages. It doesn't magically create some other benefit. He suggested he solves that by placing more of our guys in the box to match theirs rather than a secondary concept of throwing downfield to remove their guys from the box. Seems to work. I mean we seem to be running the ball well. Which is really the goal. Not burning downs by chucking it downfield just to open it up so we can run it. We already are with the scheme TL is running.

Some of you on here think you know football just because you can type it.

The offensive solution to defensive schemes isn't just throwing it long, playing KB or sitting CM like most if you seem to think. The solution was to have an OC that knows football which BF didn't and TL seems to.
I agree. This is reminiscent of “play what the defense gives you.” Of course, the response to what they give you is dynamic and nuanced.

A stacked box? Then throw a pass to exploit an opportunity they provide. But what if you don’t have the strengths or personnel, for whatever reason, at that moment, to do that?

It’s not just run/pass. Maybe it’s motion, maybe it’s another wrinkle in the run called, maybe it’s something else, to keep the defense guessing.

All I know, if it was easy, everybody would be doing it.
 
Easy yourself, old man. Are the blood pressure meds causing confusion and agitation?

If you really believe in sharing opinions, the dismissiveness and condescension seem incompatible with it.
That first line was a ****ing joke....so lighten up. I do sometimes forget we cannot see each other's faces when participating in these written conversations. Sorry you don't relate to 70's idioms. I reviewed my post and the substantial content is neither dismissive nor condescending.
 
No problem. Not beyond age 13, but what does that have to do with it? It's more about using the right verbage on a touchy subject. I've experienced that numerous times in business situations and company meetings. Sometimes you euphemise a bit to avoid conflict or controversy.

Again it's speculation...note the "maybe". What's your angle, Teddy?
Well, my angle was simply determining how I would respond to your prior post. If you had not coached, I would have a different response. I didn't think about analogous environments like working as team leaders at work or other comparable situations.

Now that you mention the analogous situations and caused me reflect on new facts/ideas, I would have just written, which I think I did elsewhere on this or another thread something akin to: did you ever have an idea that you thought was great and you run them by some other group, presumably small, and ask what the group thought of your idea? Then I would have asked if the majority of the group did not like your idea, hence voted down so you gave and did not proceed with your ideas? Had I not asked and had your answer not expanded my thinking would have been very dickish. I wanted to avoid such a result so I asked the question.

As for euphemisms...I don't really use them, unless my other language would be so foul mouthed that I might get a time out. Experience has taught me that sometimes I can be a little blunt so I say that the statement or question should not be understood to imply a personal attack or intention to offend. There's no doubt when I intend to offend.

I view the threads as conversations and write more like I talk-unless some circumstance that requires a demonstration of erudition and intelligence. There are such circumstances but not very many involve my sports conversations. I'd love to have a convention of posters. F U N NEE!
 
I get a receiver may occasionally run the wrong route but it seems to happen way more often here. Guys had all spring and summer to get the playbook down yet here it is game 3 and struggles continue. Maybe the Bud man is in over his head.
Is our offense still really complicated? Dumbest thing I’ve ever heard!!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: HawkOn15
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT