When you have the right skill set in there. CJ's quick release and downfield threat. Daniels and JCs explosiveness and quickness. One stud receiver and two good possession guys. Wait til Jake Duzy gets back in a few games at TE. This is why I have been excited about this team all summer despite naysayer posters who love to high Jack threads using past performance to fuel there arguments. I'd rather use current games to fuel mine. Past performance arguments include a QB like Ruddock who is horrible and Wiesman at RB who is a fullback. Past performance does not predict future results. Enjoy the season.
Well this is what the GD offense looks like
- Thread starter FBletterman
- Start date
Newsflash: We're going to play worse teams than Illinois State this year.
Nah, it's okay for posters to be overly excited. If you guys can be overly critical, then we're not gonna be pandering to any double standards here, so deal with it..........
At least I'm basing my opinion on a real game. Besides most thought this would be a close game? Bro
Before the game many locals and some national folks were picking Illinois St to beat Iowa, and if not to beat Iowa, to make Iowa eke out a close win. I had it 49-9 Iowa, despite the coaching weaknesses because, as noted, a football team is much better off with a real QB and some real RBs. Best of luck to UM and their new QB. I'll take ours, thank you.
So it's funny how before the game people are explaining how great Roberson and the Ill St RB are and how Ill St would beat half the teams in the FBS and on and on... and now those same people are saying sure, Iowa dominated, Ill St. Whaddaya expect? Ill St. is an FCS team.... People are funny...
So it's funny how before the game people are explaining how great Roberson and the Ill St RB are and how Ill St would beat half the teams in the FBS and on and on... and now those same people are saying sure, Iowa dominated, Ill St. Whaddaya expect? Ill St. is an FCS team.... People are funny...
Totally predictable. That said, Iowa hasn't proven anything yet and a lot of improving to do to compete in the B1G.
Any coach or system looks better when they have better talent. Beathard can throw the horizontal screens that Davis loves with velocity and accuracy. Which means the WR catches the ball with time and space to do something with the ball. Still concerned that Iowa receivers had trouble getting open without play-action to help them.
Canzeri and Daniels are a nice combination. Not game-breakers, but of B1G quality. Still a lot of improvement to be made, but it was a good start.
Wrong. They proved to me that they are much better than last year.
Now my worries. Not to many cause that game would have been 38-7 with both teams starters in to the end but,
1. LBs looked average still
2. Need some people capable of the big play. Now they obviously hid some offense for example, Parker on the Jet sweep was very effective last year I bet we see it next week.
3. We need Duzy back at TE because CJ didn't even look in there the TEs direction today?
1. LBs looked average still
2. Need some people capable of the big play. Now they obviously hid some offense for example, Parker on the Jet sweep was very effective last year I bet we see it next week.
3. We need Duzy back at TE because CJ didn't even look in there the TEs direction today?
The two throws I wanted to focus on the most by Beathard was a dump pass to Canzeri that was good for 9 yds and a crossing route that got broken up.
On the pass to Canzeri, had CJ delivered that ball a little earlier, I think Jordan could've had a chance to make the defender miss. As it was, he had to brace for a hit right after catching the ball. It looked like CJ saw him, but didn't make the decision to go to Canzeri right away. At least that tells you Beathard is looking through his progressions.
On the crossing route (can't remember the intended target), but CJ released it a little too early and to the wrong target. I believe it was a 3rd down play and the guy he was looking for would've been short had he actually caught the ball.
But if Beathard waits just a second more, the WR behind his intended target was about to get open in the middle of the field as the converging linebacker was going in the opposite direction and locked onto the target Beathard chose. CJ might've had pressure coming, but it looked to me like had he enough time to wait one more second.
Just my thoughts.
Daniels looked very good; much more like a true RB. Weisman always ran like a FB- straight forward and no patience to wait for his blocks to be set up. Daniels (and others) were much better with following blocks and waiting for holes to develop.
O line played much better than I expected, despite this being an FCS team. We've struggled badly vs other FCS teams in the past in openers, and this was a championship caliber FCS opponent, so while we should be able to outman them, they are well coached and disciplined.
Guarded optimism for the upcoming weeks here - Beathard plays much more calmly than Rudock in the pocket - had better touch on his short passes too.
I saw a number of things offensively that I don't recall seeing much, if at all, last season, all of which were very positive:
1. The under-hand shovel pass to Canzeri. Great call, and executed perfectly.
2. The screen to Canzeri. Again, executed perfectly. We ran very few screens last year.
3. The run-action fake on a short drop and slant to Hillyer, which I saw run twice today, executed perfectly both times.
4. The bubble screen to Vandeberg for the TD, executed perfectly. I know the more horizontal routes are in the GD offense, but I don't recall that the bubble screen off the trips to one side had been used much recently. Plus, the quick horizontal passes to WR's look much better coming from C.J. -- a live, accurate arm makes a big difference here.
5. A fake FG on 4th and about 10. Not the ideal distance for a fake FG, as they rarely go for big yardage, but the call showed some aggression and guts, and I loved every second of it. Loved the way the crowd went nuts even though it came up short.
Haven't read the board much today, so I assume most of these things have been mentioned in various places, but just wanted to note that I saw some very positive changes offensively. Don't know how much GD altered his offense this year, if at all, from last year, but it's great to see the variety of play-calling, some aggression in the play-calling, and the crisp execution -- particularly in game #1 against a decent opponent.
Frankly, I think this is the sort of thing Iowa fans have been hoping to see. Not necessarily anything resembling a spread offense, not necessarily an exotic every other set of downs, etc. Just a more varied and aggressive offensive attack, in general. We had ISU's defense on their heels most of the game. I'm sure this was in part due to Beathard's arm, mobility, and more aggressive approach to throwing the ball downfield, although some of it also had to do with some opening up of the playbook.
Also a big shout out to the O-line. For the most part, C.J. had plenty of time to throw it, and the RB's had some very nice holes. No, this wasn't an upper-level Big Ten defensive front 7 we were going against, but ISU isn't chopped liver, and our O-line handled them pretty well, considering their inexperience.
Congrats to the staff and to the players for a great first game, and I hope we see more of this kind of play-calling and execution as the season progresses. I have to admit these guys look quite a bit better than I expected. Hats off to them!
1. The under-hand shovel pass to Canzeri. Great call, and executed perfectly.
2. The screen to Canzeri. Again, executed perfectly. We ran very few screens last year.
3. The run-action fake on a short drop and slant to Hillyer, which I saw run twice today, executed perfectly both times.
4. The bubble screen to Vandeberg for the TD, executed perfectly. I know the more horizontal routes are in the GD offense, but I don't recall that the bubble screen off the trips to one side had been used much recently. Plus, the quick horizontal passes to WR's look much better coming from C.J. -- a live, accurate arm makes a big difference here.
5. A fake FG on 4th and about 10. Not the ideal distance for a fake FG, as they rarely go for big yardage, but the call showed some aggression and guts, and I loved every second of it. Loved the way the crowd went nuts even though it came up short.
Haven't read the board much today, so I assume most of these things have been mentioned in various places, but just wanted to note that I saw some very positive changes offensively. Don't know how much GD altered his offense this year, if at all, from last year, but it's great to see the variety of play-calling, some aggression in the play-calling, and the crisp execution -- particularly in game #1 against a decent opponent.
Frankly, I think this is the sort of thing Iowa fans have been hoping to see. Not necessarily anything resembling a spread offense, not necessarily an exotic every other set of downs, etc. Just a more varied and aggressive offensive attack, in general. We had ISU's defense on their heels most of the game. I'm sure this was in part due to Beathard's arm, mobility, and more aggressive approach to throwing the ball downfield, although some of it also had to do with some opening up of the playbook.
Also a big shout out to the O-line. For the most part, C.J. had plenty of time to throw it, and the RB's had some very nice holes. No, this wasn't an upper-level Big Ten defensive front 7 we were going against, but ISU isn't chopped liver, and our O-line handled them pretty well, considering their inexperience.
Congrats to the staff and to the players for a great first game, and I hope we see more of this kind of play-calling and execution as the season progresses. I have to admit these guys look quite a bit better than I expected. Hats off to them!
Just not that exciting of a win. We once again heard the announcers say, more than once "as well as iowa has played ISU is right in it". We showed absolutely no deep threat or much of an outside threat. the TD pass was a on a worn out inferior defense. The offense looks a little better than last year.
On the other hand, the boys did seem to execute better within the framework of what appear to be serious limitations. Bethards is no MVP kind of QB but he is at least more versatile and athletic than Rudock. A healthy Canzeri gives us at least some open field running threat.
I hope, but doubt, if we were holding a lot back. We are what we have been.
The defense looked pretty good, especially the line.
There were two moments in the game where I think it showed that the Ferentz Administration felt the heat. The first was the fake kick. Great play, very aggressive and almost as good as a punt. Second, running an aggressive play like a screen with less than a minute in the half and a two touch down lead. Never would have seen that in past seasons. Those two moments were the most significant take aways from game 1. It provides some hope that maybe we have some new wrinkles up the sleeve for next week.
On the other hand, the boys did seem to execute better within the framework of what appear to be serious limitations. Bethards is no MVP kind of QB but he is at least more versatile and athletic than Rudock. A healthy Canzeri gives us at least some open field running threat.
I hope, but doubt, if we were holding a lot back. We are what we have been.
The defense looked pretty good, especially the line.
There were two moments in the game where I think it showed that the Ferentz Administration felt the heat. The first was the fake kick. Great play, very aggressive and almost as good as a punt. Second, running an aggressive play like a screen with less than a minute in the half and a two touch down lead. Never would have seen that in past seasons. Those two moments were the most significant take aways from game 1. It provides some hope that maybe we have some new wrinkles up the sleeve for next week.
Last edited:
Regardless of what the announcers said, ISU wasn't in this game. We dominated them physically and statistically. Their points came in garbage time.
As for the defense, the line looked great, and Johnson is going to be a disruptive force this year to complement Ott. The secondary is experienced and solid. The LB's looked better to me today but are still the weakness. If they continue to progress, I think our D will be alright.
As for the defense, the line looked great, and Johnson is going to be a disruptive force this year to complement Ott. The secondary is experienced and solid. The LB's looked better to me today but are still the weakness. If they continue to progress, I think our D will be alright.
One other comment on the O -- props to Smith for great downfield blocking on Vandeberg's big gainer down the right sideline. He sprung Vberg for about another 10 yards by staying on his block. Shows great effort and leadership. Looks like Smith is going to be a strong leader for this team this year.
Team chemistry is reportedly much better this year than last year; I saw quite a bit of evidence of that today. Guys congratulating each other a lot, helping each other up, etc. Very positive body language from the Hawks today. Very good sign.
Team chemistry is reportedly much better this year than last year; I saw quite a bit of evidence of that today. Guys congratulating each other a lot, helping each other up, etc. Very positive body language from the Hawks today. Very good sign.
Agree on the chemistry. Like the improved execution it seemed like the boys were much more enthused and yet simultaneously focused. That's a darn good combination.
You have to account for the fact that the game was game-planned based on the opponent AND where the roster is at in terms of player development. What are the consequences of this?
- Iowa's OL is a work in progress - consequently, the coaches wanted to build their confidence by grinding yards out with our bread and butter. That is basic teaching ... get your guys confidence and get them executing your base like instinct.
- Iowa's RBs, for the most part, need live reps. Given the state of the OL, it helps them to have a "bruiser" at RB. Thus, it helps out or O enormously to get Daniels those quality reps. Also, it's nice to get Canzeri's confidence up - and knock off the rust.
- We're eventually going to face Ds that are really strong against the run - so cultivating the quick passing game, that acts as an extension of the running game, will help the overall efficiency of the O. Furthermore, it will help Beathard find his rhythm.
By and large, Iowa's core TEs are pretty experienced. Obviously Duzey couldn't play due to injury ... however, Duzey, Krieger-Coble, and Kittle are all experienced guys who the coaches trust a lot. What we did see is that Wisnieski and Outsey each saw reps in the game - that will be valuable downstream. In future games, particularly when we need TEs to exploit match-ups ... we'll see the TEs play a bigger role. The apparent lack of targets to the TEs had more to do with developing other facets of the O, rather than neglecting them.
Also, while I could be wrong, my guess is that Mitchell and his contribution to the team (particularly on third downs) is meant to be an extra wrinkle that is intended to be "unveiled." Either that or he's dinged or in trouble. My hunch is that former case is true rather than the latter two.
Relax brah, CJ said the routes weren't there and he was not going to force it but take what they gave him.
I don't know which broadcasters you were listening to but that's kind of ridiculous. Illinois State was not "in it" from about the beginning of the 2nd Quarter. Iowa was dominating, especially on defense, and ISU was not a serious threat to score a TD until Iowa pulled most of their starters late in the game -- ahead by more than 4 TDs
Also, if you once heard the announcers say anything more than once then you are very bad at counting or stumbled upon a new law of physics.
Im listening to texas pregame today and announcers saying greg davis all time leader here and totally re wrote the record books despite everyne hating him ha ha
Coach Davis had superior talent at Texas for many years. At Iowa he has less talent and has to coach it up. I don't think he has been as successful coaching them up.
I think what the announcer said was more along the lines of .... "as well as Iowa has played, it's only a two score game. If ISU can score, then they're right back in it." The key word was the 'If' - as you say, Iowa's defense stifled ISU, the Redbirds could never get a score when they needed it, and Iowa dominated the game. So I agree with your view and think the other poster missed a key part of the comment.
Regarding the shovel pass, Ferentz said in the postgame with Dolph and Eddie that he was a bit nervous about that call because the defense had blown that play up every single time they ran it in practice.
Kudos to the staff to give the team a chance to make a play anyways.
Kudos to the staff to give the team a chance to make a play anyways.
