Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
Inbox
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

Is it Rudock? Or the play calling?

Posted: 8/30/2014 4:00 PM

Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


For the first three and a half quarters it seemed like it was nothing but safety valve dump off passes to either the RB or TE. But then we saw passes down field and a solid TD drive.

Is the issue play calling? Or a reluctant Rudock?

Bottom line - if this team is going to contend the offense needs to be more explosive. Which means Rudock needs to throw downfid.
--In Heaven there is no beer...

Last edited 8/30/2014 4:07 PM by irishchihawk

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/30/2014 4:18 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


I disagree if this team is going to contend it needs to play to Rudock's strength, which is short to intermediate passes. They did that today. Completed 75% and no turnovers. I'll take that every game.
He doesn't have a big arm and looks to be a good game manager. Ride with it and things will take care of themselves.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/30/2014 4:47 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


With that philosophy we are going to have a lot of tight games. And in close games anything can happen (including unexpected losses).

I think against a team like UNI or Ball State let's try and work on the vertical offense. We know he can execute the shirt game. Let's see what else he can do. I was hoping for a more confident JR this year.
--In Heaven there is no beer...
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/30/2014 4:50 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


Chuch Long was broadcasting the game for BTN and was commenting on how most of those check downs were "good decisions" because there was simply no one open down field.  The fact that Ruddock protected the ball gave me a lot of encouragement.

Now, the fact that so many receivers could not get open either because of bad play calling or lack of skill worries me.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/30/2014 4:50 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


I think Rudock has an underrated arm, and needs to be let loose a bit with the play-calling.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/30/2014 4:51 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


I think UNI was trying to take away the deep stuff until later when they needed to get the ball back and started taking a few chances on "D". JR may try and hold the ball a count longer later in the year, but I don't think he wanted to force things if he didn't have to.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/30/2014 4:52 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


I guess then we all better get use to 9 in the box and a mediocre running game. 
WizardHawk wrote: I disagree if this team is going to contend it needs to play to Rudock's strength, which is short to intermediate passes. They did that today. Completed 75% and no turnovers. I'll take that every game.
He doesn't have a big arm and looks to be a good game manager. Ride with it and things will take care of themselves.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/30/2014 5:05 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 



theiowahawkeye wrote: Chuch Long was broadcasting the game for BTN and was commenting on how most of those check downs were "good decisions" because there was simply no one open down field.  The fact that Ruddock protected the ball gave me a lot of encouragement.

Now, the fact that so many receivers could not get open either because of bad play calling or lack of skill worries me.
I heard Chuck repeatedly state: "Rudock came off of his primary too soon and dumped it too quickly" particularly in the first half.  All game long it was "All of Rudock's 'check with me's' are run plays.  He needs to call a 'check with me' pass play because UNI now knows what to expect."

To me, those are either Rudock not having a good game, or (most likely in my opinion) it was the game plan to be that conservative.  Does the word conservative sound familiar when discussing a KF coached team?  Let's keep in mind that we beat a FCS school, that had almost 20 penalties accepted against them, at home, by one score.  This is the kind of crap that frustrates the hell out of me with KF.  One turnover at the end of the game and we're down 31-24 instead of up 24-23.  Just stupid.  Come on...it's UNI!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/30/2014 5:08 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


biggrin Maybe not, they may start to open things up, they did in the 4th quarter and I believe they will do more next week.  I believe KF and offensive staff will begin to open things up and that will help the defense as well.  This team is definitely a work in progress, but I think they will improve.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/30/2014 5:30 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 



marshawk wrote: biggrin Maybe not, they may start to open things up, they did in the 4th quarter and I believe they will do more next week.  I believe KF and offensive staff will begin to open things up and that will help the defense as well.  This team is definitely a work in progress, but I think they will improve.
You could be right and I hope you are.  But, in sports, there is a very important rule of thumb and that is: "you can't just turn it on."  I mean, the only way to keep Willies and deep throws a "secret" is to never throw to Willies or throw deep passes.  So, hell, why not practice them?  We beat an FCS team with almost 20 accepted penalties against them, by 1 score, at home.  Really?!
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/30/2014 5:38 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 



ArvadaHawk wrote:
theiowahawkeye wrote: Chuch Long was broadcasting the game for BTN and was commenting on how most of those check downs were "good decisions" because there was simply no one open down field.  The fact that Ruddock protected the ball gave me a lot of encouragement.

Now, the fact that so many receivers could not get open either because of bad play calling or lack of skill worries me.
I heard Chuck repeatedly state: "Rudock came off of his primary too soon and dumped it too quickly" particularly in the first half.  All game long it was "All of Rudock's 'check with me's' are run plays.  He needs to call a 'check with me' pass play because UNI now knows what to expect."

To me, those are either Rudock not having a good game, or (most likely in my opinion) it was the game plan to be that conservative.  Does the word conservative sound familiar when discussing a KF coached team?  Let's keep in mind that we beat a FCS school, that had almost 20 penalties accepted against them, at home, by one score.  This is the kind of crap that frustrates the hell out of me with KF.  One turnover at the end of the game and we're down 31-24 instead of up 24-23.  Just stupid.  Come on...it's UNI!
He did say that a few times.  But he was more often than not praising Rudock.

Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/30/2014 6:52 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


Ruddock missed a few deep open throws today and settled for safety check off. I think it has a lot to do with in game action. I wouldn't make too much of it. Ruddock is a smart QB, he will learn, watch film, and get better.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/30/2014 7:10 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 



theiowahawkeye wrote:
ArvadaHawk wrote:
theiowahawkeye wrote: Chuch Long was broadcasting the game for BTN and was commenting on how most of those check downs were "good decisions" because there was simply no one open down field.  The fact that Ruddock protected the ball gave me a lot of encouragement.

Now, the fact that so many receivers could not get open either because of bad play calling or lack of skill worries me.
I heard Chuck repeatedly state: "Rudock came off of his primary too soon and dumped it too quickly" particularly in the first half.  All game long it was "All of Rudock's 'check with me's' are run plays.  He needs to call a 'check with me' pass play because UNI now knows what to expect."

To me, those are either Rudock not having a good game, or (most likely in my opinion) it was the game plan to be that conservative.  Does the word conservative sound familiar when discussing a KF coached team?  Let's keep in mind that we beat a FCS school, that had almost 20 penalties accepted against them, at home, by one score.  This is the kind of crap that frustrates the hell out of me with KF.  One turnover at the end of the game and we're down 31-24 instead of up 24-23.  Just stupid.  Come on...it's UNI!
He did say that a few times.  But he was more often than not praising Rudock.
Rudock played a good game, don't get me wrong.  He executed the decisions he made, well.  But, it was the decisions he made that were questioned by Chuck; meaning, coming off the primary too soon and hitting the dump-off.  Yes, Rudock had a very good %.  But he missed open receivers deep.  To me, that was part of the game plan.  But, either way, Rudock missed open guys deep or the game plan wasn't to throw deep.  And that is just way too conservative for my tastes.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/30/2014 7:21 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


I said it in the game thread; we needed to throw some deep passes early in the game and keep throwing them, to keep UNI honest; this, of course, would have opened up the field and would have made UNI play "honest."  instead, all we threw were the safe passes, and it was pretty easy for UNI to defend us.

Why we did not start throwing down field until the 4th quarter I have no idea.
irishchihawk wrote: For the first three and a half quarters it seemed like it was nothing but safety valve dump off passes to either the RB or TE. But then we saw passes down field and a solid TD drive.

Is the issue play calling? Or a reluctant Rudock?

Bottom line - if this team is going to contend the offense needs to be more explosive. Which means Rudock needs to throw downfid.


***************************************************************************
Dec 31, 2013: RPI = 37; Strength of
Sched = 112; Rank: #22 in AP; #23 Coaches

We will go 14-4 in the B1G (25-6 overall)...or better =)  
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/30/2014 9:28 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


To be honest, I don't care in the least what type of passes are thrown or how effective our run game is if we can put up 31 points per game. And if we can do it without turning the ball over, even better.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/30/2014 10:06 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


Rudock has been working in this system for 4 years and U would think he'd be tearing it up in the passing game, but it's just the opposite. Check down, check down, check down! He can't throw it until the receiver has broken free or he throws the 1 yarder. Sorry, not impressed with this performance at all. It is clear that he is as good as he is going to get and that's why I'd take Beathard now and make a few mistakes because his ceiling is considerably higher and he'd be better in the long run, way better.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/30/2014 10:21 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


And I thought we won!

Some of you need to lighten up. UNI seems to give us a good battle more often then not. It is our 1st game of the year, starting out slow and building confidence. I was not near as concerned about the O as I was the D while watching the game. We gave up a lot of passing yards. The O is fine. our secondary needs some work!

Go Hawks!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/31/2014 8:57 AM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 



theiowahawkeye wrote:
ArvadaHawk wrote:
theiowahawkeye wrote: Chuch Long was broadcasting the game for BTN and was commenting on how most of those check downs were "good decisions" because there was simply no one open down field.  The fact that Ruddock protected the ball gave me a lot of encouragement.

Now, the fact that so many receivers could not get open either because of bad play calling or lack of skill worries me.
I heard Chuck repeatedly state: "Rudock came off of his primary too soon and dumped it too quickly" particularly in the first half.  All game long it was "All of Rudock's 'check with me's' are run plays.  He needs to call a 'check with me' pass play because UNI now knows what to expect."

To me, those are either Rudock not having a good game, or (most likely in my opinion) it was the game plan to be that conservative.  Does the word conservative sound familiar when discussing a KF coached team?  Let's keep in mind that we beat a FCS school, that had almost 20 penalties accepted against them, at home, by one score.  This is the kind of crap that frustrates the hell out of me with KF.  One turnover at the end of the game and we're down 31-24 instead of up 24-23.  Just stupid.  Come on...it's UNI!
He did say that a few times.  But he was more often than not praising Rudock.
Exactly.  And, Chuck did say early in the game that the Iowa receivers were not gaining separation from  defenders.  This observation was a problem last season as well.
 
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/31/2014 9:14 AM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


I know what you mena. Dolph said on the pregame show they would play conservative to control the clock and help the young defense (stay off the field). Three and outs kill the defense. I didn't see many of the long routes open when he threw the short passes.
Jehawk wrote: And I thought we won!

Some of you need to lighten up. UNI seems to give us a good battle more often then not. It is our 1st game of the year, starting out slow and building confidence. I was not near as concerned about the O as I was the D while watching the game. We gave up a lot of passing yards. The O is fine. our secondary needs some work!

Go Hawks!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/31/2014 10:48 AM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


I am tired of hearing about how our receivers are not getting separation. We heard that all last season. Against the Michigan State secondary last year? Fine. But against the UNI secondary? Not acceptable.

The QB has an obligation to lead the receiver open. You cannot simply wait for the WR to get open. Both have to work together.

Rudock needs to believe in himself, take the training wheels off, and throw the ball in the secondary. And now against these second tier opponents.
--In Heaven there is no beer...
Reply | Quote
  • BiRDS
  • HI Legend
  • 2588 posts this site

Posted: 8/31/2014 11:19 AM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


Watching that game made me see KF as the Captain of conservative. This dink and dunk their way down the field was a bit frustrating.

However, it was the first game and as one poster said he was trying to keep his young D off the field because we all saw Lomax and Loudermilk get burnt time after time. The D-line did good to stop the run but no pressure on the QB by themselves.

We did win and it wasn't pretty but that's what we've come to expect from a KF coached team.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/31/2014 11:33 AM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


UNI looks like a very good team. IMO, Johnson will be a draft pick and a solid pro, especially with his speed and pass catching ability combined with his size. That said, we did shut down the run. It does get frustrating when the Iowa offense continuously throws short of the down markers and ... if we trust our speedier receivers (Smith,Powell,Willies), we should be able to "throw them open". Isn't that basically what happened on Smith's TD? On the plus side, it looks like we found our starting LB. Bowers made some big plays and got the call at crunch time. The punting and FG kicking is a bit shaky as well. With our style of play, the kicking game is crucial. Bottom line . . . it is a W. We are usually fundamentally sound, that is why so many of our guys get drafted but the word "dynamic" is not in our vocabulary. It would be nice to see that change.
"If the other team doesn't score, the worst we can do is tie." - Hayden Fry

Last edited 8/31/2014 11:39 AM by Dohly

Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/31/2014 11:50 AM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 



Jehawk wrote: And I thought we won!

Some of you need to lighten up. UNI seems to give us a good battle more often then not. It is our 1st game of the year, starting out slow and building confidence. I was not near as concerned about the O as I was the D while watching the game. We gave up a lot of passing yards. The O is fine. our secondary needs some work!

Go Hawks!
I think our secondary is okay, though Lowdermilk seemed out of position or took a wrong angle, at times.  Our lb's played horrible pass defense (with the possible exception of Bower's).  How on earth do both Alston and Spearman not cut off Johnson coming out of the backfield multiple times each?  That is inexperience and coaching.
Reply | Quote
  • BiRDS
  • HI Legend
  • 2588 posts this site

Posted: 8/31/2014 1:15 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


At times? LOL Lowdermilk is very good at the run but pass coverage? If I was scouting this team he's going to get picked on a lot this year.

Our Lb's looked like the rookies they are but I liked the way they flew to the ball on run D. Pass coverage will be something this coaching staff will address and give them more support from the FS and SS but our FS and SS was out of position most of the time as well it seemed to me.

This staff has their work cut out and KF has once again has his team playing to the level of the competition. I thought UNI was well coached and they took a lot of nice chances down the field. They exposed our young LB'ers  but I know KF and coaches will get this team going again.

I'm not overly impressed with our O. But hey we won right?! tongue
ArvadaHawk wrote:
Jehawk wrote: And I thought we won!

Some of you need to lighten up. UNI seems to give us a good battle more often then not. It is our 1st game of the year, starting out slow and building confidence. I was not near as concerned about the O as I was the D while watching the game. We gave up a lot of passing yards. The O is fine. our secondary needs some work!

Go Hawks!
I think our secondary is okay, though Lowdermilk seemed out of position or took a wrong angle, at times.  Our lb's played horrible pass defense (with the possible exception of Bower's).  How on earth do both Alston and Spearman not cut off Johnson coming out of the backfield multiple times each?  That is inexperience and coaching.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/31/2014 1:57 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


I think Iowa plays to the level of the competition.  Last year in a game I read where Fernetz didn't want 2nd and 3rd stringers to score at the end of a game.  That seems ridiculous to me.  I remember Fry teams in the 80's scoring at will.  It seems to me the coach and or coaches are content to be an average team.  That's sad for the fans.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/31/2014 2:27 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 



Forgery5 wrote It is clear that he is as good as he is going to get and that's why I'd take Beathard now and make a few mistakes because his ceiling is considerably higher and he'd be better in the long run, way better.
Bingo.  Anyone who thinks this team can win 10 games this year using this short to intermediate passing game are out of their minds.

With no home run threat in the backfield we will have to grind our way down the field time after time for touchdowns.  Good luck with that.

With no vertical passing game the field shrinks too significantly making it easier to crowd the box and not have to worry about playing in space.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/31/2014 2:32 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


It could be that the coaching staff has stressed to Jake that he had to improve on his decision making this year and not throw as many interceptions.  I remember hearing something about that on this board too.  I know Kirk doesn't take kindly to fumbles and I'd guess he's equally adverse to interceptions.  I'd bet some of the practices it was stressed for everyone not to beat themselves.  Jake didn't do that and he hit enough passes to win the game.

In other news, we only drew 4 flags in an opener and that is a pretty good sign to me.

I'd be more frustrated about the fact our vaunted offensive line had trouble opening holes.  Some people felt we wouldn't miss the 3 linebackers that left.  It didn't take long for that to be proven false in the passing game.  We stuffed their run game only allowing 25 yards for the game.  That could be worthy of an atta boy or two IMO. We survived 5 new starters in the back 7 and anyone who wasn't expecting us to have some breakdowns  was a bit unrealistic.

In any opener you always have a lot to work on.  This game is no exception.  Like it or not this game probably meant a lot more to UNI than the Hawks.  For years this board has been filled with posts talking about ISU treating the Hawkeye game as their Super Bowl.  It's probably closer to being true for UNI.  We got a W.  Sorry the style points didn't live up to some expectations.
Reply | Quote
  • BiRDS
  • HI Legend
  • 2588 posts this site

Posted: 8/31/2014 2:46 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


Loved the run D for sure. The first drive was very good, and the 13 plus play drive was good to see as well.

I wasn't overly impressed with the play selection or the O-Line. I thought we would run more and open more holes. It seemed Daniels had trouble reading the holes at his big run. He seemed to want to run outside rather than turn it up and take what was given. Then again UNI was stacking 8 in the box, so that made it a little tougher to run.

I would agree the staff stressed not to beat ourselves so JR did what he was coached to do.
DowsHawkfan wrote: It could be that the coaching staff has stressed to Jake that he had to improve on his decision making this year and not throw as many interceptions.  I remember hearing something about that on this board too.  I know Kirk doesn't take kindly to fumbles and I'd guess he's equally adverse to interceptions.  I'd bet some of the practices it was stressed for everyone not to beat themselves.  Jake didn't do that and he hit enough passes to win the game.

In other news, we only drew 4 flags in an opener and that is a pretty good sign to me.

I'd be more frustrated about the fact our vaunted offensive line had trouble opening holes.  Some people felt we wouldn't miss the 3 linebackers that left.  It didn't take long for that to be proven false in the passing game.  We stuffed their run game only allowing 25 yards for the game.  That could be worthy of an atta boy or two IMO. We survived 5 new starters in the back 7 and anyone who wasn't expecting us to have some breakdowns  was a bit unrealistic.

In any opener you always have a lot to work on.  This game is no exception.  Like it or not this game probably meant a lot more to UNI than the Hawks.  For years this board has been filled with posts talking about ISU treating the Hawkeye game as their Super Bowl.  It's probably closer to being true for UNI.  We got a W.  Sorry the style points didn't live up to some expectations.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/31/2014 5:59 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 



BiRDS wrote: Loved the run D for sure. The first drive was very good, and the 13 plus play drive was good to see as well.

I wasn't overly impressed with the play selection or the O-Line. I thought we would run more and open more holes. It seemed Daniels had trouble reading the holes at his big run. He seemed to want to run outside rather than turn it up and take what was given. Then again UNI was stacking 8 in the box, so that made it a little tougher to run.

I would agree the staff stressed not to beat ourselves so JR did what he was coached to do.
DowsHawkfan wrote: It could be that the coaching staff has stressed to Jake that he had to improve on his decision making this year and not throw as many interceptions.  I remember hearing something about that on this board too.  I know Kirk doesn't take kindly to fumbles and I'd guess he's equally adverse to interceptions.  I'd bet some of the practices it was stressed for everyone not to beat themselves.  Jake didn't do that and he hit enough passes to win the game.

In other news, we only drew 4 flags in an opener and that is a pretty good sign to me.

I'd be more frustrated about the fact our vaunted offensive line had trouble opening holes.  Some people felt we wouldn't miss the 3 linebackers that left.  It didn't take long for that to be proven false in the passing game.  We stuffed their run game only allowing 25 yards for the game.  That could be worthy of an atta boy or two IMO. We survived 5 new starters in the back 7 and anyone who wasn't expecting us to have some breakdowns  was a bit unrealistic.

In any opener you always have a lot to work on.  This game is no exception.  Like it or not this game probably meant a lot more to UNI than the Hawks.  For years this board has been filled with posts talking about ISU treating the Hawkeye game as their Super Bowl.  It's probably closer to being true for UNI.  We got a W.  Sorry the style points didn't live up to some expectations.
One thing we hardly ever see at Iowa is the outside shoulder throw our comeback pattern.  If our receivers can't get open, throw a timing comeback pass. Unless the defender is expecting it, it is almost impossible to defend.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/1/2014 1:20 AM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 





---------------------------------------------
--- olroyjules wrote:


BiRDS wrote: Loved the run D for sure. The first drive was very good, and the 13 plus play drive was good to see as well.

I wasn't overly impressed with the play selection or the O-Line. I thought we would run more and open more holes. It seemed Daniels had trouble reading the holes at his big run. He seemed to want to run outside rather than turn it up and take what was given. Then again UNI was stacking 8 in the box, so that made it a little tougher to run.

I would agree the staff stressed not to beat ourselves so JR did what he was coached to do.
DowsHawkfan wrote: It could be that the coaching staff has stressed to Jake that he had to improve on his decision making this year and not throw as many interceptions.  I remember hearing something about that on this board too.  I know Kirk doesn't take kindly to fumbles and I'd guess he's equally adverse to interceptions.  I'd bet some of the practices it was stressed for everyone not to beat themselves.  Jake didn't do that and he hit enough passes to win the game.

In other news, we only drew 4 flags in an opener and that is a pretty good sign to me.

I'd be more frustrated about the fact our vaunted offensive line had trouble opening holes.  Some people felt we wouldn't miss the 3 linebackers that left.  It didn't take long for that to be proven false in the passing game.  We stuffed their run game only allowing 25 yards for the game.  That could be worthy of an atta boy or two IMO. We survived 5 new starters in the back 7 and anyone who wasn't expecting us to have some breakdowns  was a bit unrealistic.

In any opener you always have a lot to work on.  This game is no exception.  Like it or not this game probably meant a lot more to UNI than the Hawks.  For years this board has been filled with posts talking about ISU treating the Hawkeye game as their Super Bowl.  It's probably closer to being true for UNI.  We got a W.  Sorry the style points didn't live up to some expectations.
One thing we hardly ever see at Iowa is the outside shoulder throw our comeback pattern.  If our receivers can't get open, throw a timing comeback pass. Unless the defender is expecting it, it is almost impossible to defend.

---------------------------------------------
Terry Allen was the master of the button hook on 3rd and long when he coached at UNI.
He would have his WRs line up on off of each sideline and they would drive the defenders 15 yards deep and then plant and drive back to the ball for 8-10 yards. Every team knew it was coming but they still had to play it honest and UNI was able to convert a very high percentage of 1st downs using this strategy. If the defender cheated, they would hook and go on them.
"If the other team doesn't score, the worst we can do is tie." - Hayden Fry
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/1/2014 2:00 AM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 



ArvadaHawk wrote:
theiowahawkeye wrote:
ArvadaHawk wrote:
theiowahawkeye wrote: Chuch Long was broadcasting the game for BTN and was commenting on how most of those check downs were "good decisions" because there was simply no one open down field.  The fact that Ruddock protected the ball gave me a lot of encouragement.

Now, the fact that so many receivers could not get open either because of bad play calling or lack of skill worries me.
I heard Chuck repeatedly state: "Rudock came off of his primary too soon and dumped it too quickly" particularly in the first half.  All game long it was "All of Rudock's 'check with me's' are run plays.  He needs to call a 'check with me' pass play because UNI now knows what to expect."

To me, those are either Rudock not having a good game, or (most likely in my opinion) it was the game plan to be that conservative.  Does the word conservative sound familiar when discussing a KF coached team?  Let's keep in mind that we beat a FCS school, that had almost 20 penalties accepted against them, at home, by one score.  This is the kind of crap that frustrates the hell out of me with KF.  One turnover at the end of the game and we're down 31-24 instead of up 24-23.  Just stupid.  Come on...it's UNI!
He did say that a few times.  But he was more often than not praising Rudock.
Rudock played a good game, don't get me wrong.  He executed the decisions he made, well.  But, it was the decisions he made that were questioned by Chuck; meaning, coming off the primary too soon and hitting the dump-off.  Yes, Rudock had a very good %.  But he missed open receivers deep.  To me, that was part of the game plan.  But, either way, Rudock missed open guys deep or the game plan wasn't to throw deep.  And that is just way too conservative for my tastes.
We must have been watching different games.  The one I watched Long was praising Rudock for checking down because no one was open down field.

Reply | Quote
  • BiRDS
  • HI Legend
  • 2588 posts this site

Posted: 9/1/2014 8:06 AM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


I re-watched the game and Chuck did more praising than questioning JR. I do know a couple of times he did say he went to the check down to soon especially late in 3rd qtr when the O went stagnant and he threw a 2 yard out when a receiver was breaking open over the middle. Chuck pointed that play out, but overall had a lot of praise for JR.
theiowahawkeye wrote:
ArvadaHawk wrote:
theiowahawkeye wrote:
ArvadaHawk wrote:
theiowahawkeye wrote: Chuch Long was broadcasting the game for BTN and was commenting on how most of those check downs were "good decisions" because there was simply no one open down field.  The fact that Ruddock protected the ball gave me a lot of encouragement.

Now, the fact that so many receivers could not get open either because of bad play calling or lack of skill worries me.
I heard Chuck repeatedly state: "Rudock came off of his primary too soon and dumped it too quickly" particularly in the first half.  All game long it was "All of Rudock's 'check with me's' are run plays.  He needs to call a 'check with me' pass play because UNI now knows what to expect."

To me, those are either Rudock not having a good game, or (most likely in my opinion) it was the game plan to be that conservative.  Does the word conservative sound familiar when discussing a KF coached team?  Let's keep in mind that we beat a FCS school, that had almost 20 penalties accepted against them, at home, by one score.  This is the kind of crap that frustrates the hell out of me with KF.  One turnover at the end of the game and we're down 31-24 instead of up 24-23.  Just stupid.  Come on...it's UNI!
He did say that a few times.  But he was more often than not praising Rudock.
Rudock played a good game, don't get me wrong.  He executed the decisions he made, well.  But, it was the decisions he made that were questioned by Chuck; meaning, coming off the primary too soon and hitting the dump-off.  Yes, Rudock had a very good %.  But he missed open receivers deep.  To me, that was part of the game plan.  But, either way, Rudock missed open guys deep or the game plan wasn't to throw deep.  And that is just way too conservative for my tastes.
We must have been watching different games.  The one I watched Long was praising Rudock for checking down because no one was open down field.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/1/2014 9:01 AM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


A huge benefit in getting a sizable lead is allowing the second and third stringers playing time. The playing time provides valuable experience for the future. Next season, or in the event of injury, when these second and third stringers are needed, they are not playing their first snaps. It also allows for the discovery of a "Diamond in the rough" who can contribute right away.

Lastly, in playing so conservatively, the games stays close and the opponent gains confidence and plays at a higher level. When the game is close in the fourth quarter anything can happen.




---------------------------------------------
--- hawkfan1963 wrote:

I think Iowa plays to the level of the competition.  Last year in a game I read where Fernetz didn't want 2nd and 3rd stringers to score at the end of a game.  That seems ridiculous to me.  I remember Fry teams in the 80's scoring at will.  It seems to me the coach and or coaches are content to be an average team.  That's sad for the fans.

---------------------------------------------
--In Heaven there is no beer...
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/1/2014 4:33 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


Good grief!  Rudock had a pretty good game.  31 for 41 passing isn't bad.  Yes, we could afford to go downfield more and I am sure we will as the season goes on.  Someone remind me, was Jake sacked in the game?  Thought our run blocking drive needs more work than the pass blocking.

PATIENCE IS A VIRTUE.  WHEN IT COMES TO IOWA FOOTBALL WE NEED TO BE MORE VIRTUOUS.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/2/2014 9:31 AM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


I think we will see a passing game that fits Rudock's strengths & deficiencies.

Rudock does NOT have a big arm and his release is average to slow.  The long out patterns require arm strength…and Jake just does not have it.  
Jake is accurate when throwing 10 yards and less.  This will only condense the defense even more, as it also lines up to stop the run.  Iowa's TEs are going to be more important than ever and we saw that on Saturday.  

Good things  - Smith & Willies are big bodies to throw to.  And as JR becomes more confident and more comfortable with game speed & timing with the receivers, the  average ypc will increase.  

I did notice several times that it appeared the receivers ran the wrong routes and forced the quick dump downs.  This is a really positive reaction by JR…he did not panic.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/2/2014 10:45 AM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 


So whats the difference? If rudock has the the arm strength to throw 20 yards across the field, does he not have the strength to throw 20 yds down field? You all need to quit making excuses. I was at the game. Jake never saw the guys open in the middle. Maybe his view was blocked, I dont know. But all I can say is we are trying to be northwestern with players not built for it. But hey, if you cant beat them, join them. Right?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/2/2014 11:54 AM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 



ArvadaHawk wrote:
marshawk wrote: biggrin Maybe not, they may start to open things up, they did in the 4th quarter and I believe they will do more next week.  I believe KF and offensive staff will begin to open things up and that will help the defense as well.  This team is definitely a work in progress, but I think they will improve.
You could be right and I hope you are.  But, in sports, there is a very important rule of thumb and that is: "you can't just turn it on."  I mean, the only way to keep Willies and deep throws a "secret" is to never throw to Willies or throw deep passes.  So, hell, why not practice them?  We beat an FCS team with almost 20 accepted penalties against them, by 1 score, at home.  Really?!
Keep in mind, the only reason UNI was in the game was because blown coverages on 3 plays to the running back. Otherwise Iowa dominates this game. Everybody needs to take a breath, there were some great things I saw in this game and a lot to build on this week. 1-0 people.cool
Rudock The New Vandenberg,
Beathard The New Stanzi!!
Reply | Quote
  • hoxrock
  • HI Legend
  • 6787 posts this site
Avatar

Posted: 9/2/2014 12:16 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 



IAcountryboy84 wrote: So whats the difference? If rudock has the the arm strength to throw 20 yards across the field, does he not have the strength to throw 20 yds down field? You all need to quit making excuses. I was at the game. Jake never saw the guys open in the middle. Maybe his view was blocked, I dont know. But all I can say is we are trying to be northwestern with players not built for it. But hey, if you cant beat them, join them. Right?

This offense always has and always will make my hair more gray.  But the reason open receivers are missed is because Iowa's QBs for the last 15 years have been taught to check down or throw the 2-3 yard out routes to the sideline.  This has never been a down the field offense save for 2002 and 2004.  QB's can't find open receivers if they don't look for them, and you don't look for them unless you are coached to do so.  More often than not, our receivers going downfield are only doing so to occupy a defender and try to open up the short to intermediate routes.  Later in the game the idea is that once you have the defense sold out to defending plays close to the line of scrimmage, receivers will be open down the field.  That was the case on Saturday as most of the long pass attempts came in the second half.  This is a ball-control offense not designed to take chances down the field very often (out of 70+ plays a game, probably 5-6 will be long pass attempts).  Turnovers happen less when the ball is not in the air. 

And we are not trying to be Northwestern.  That was a very different attack where they had 4 and 5 receivers cutting all over the place.  We may have picked up the pace a bit but compared to the programs that run the spread or variation of it, we are still slow. Last season we were close to 80 plays a game, up from around 70.  Spread offenses like to run 90+ plays per game.  We have a long way to go to match Northwestern's output for plays in a game.
"That's Football."-- Kirk Ferentz
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/2/2014 12:28 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 



IAcountryboy84 wrote: So whats the difference? If rudock has the the arm strength to throw 20 yards across the field, does he not have the strength to throw 20 yds down field? You all need to quit making excuses. I was at the game. Jake never saw the guys open in the middle. Maybe his view was blocked, I dont know. But all I can say is we are trying to be northwestern with players not built for it. But hey, if you cant beat them, join them. Right?
A 15 - 20 yard out pattern requires tremendous timing and actually travels much farther than 20 yards.  It also requires 'zip' on the ball, otherwise DBs have an opportunity to adjust and make a break on the ball.  
Many great college QBs can't even sniff the NFL because they lack the arm strength and arm speed to make this throw.  
I agree with your point that Jake never even looked for these deeper routes or was patient enough to let them develop.  Pump fakes and looking off the defense goes a long way to helping the WRs become open, especially when you have a weaker arm.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/2/2014 1:59 PM

Re: Is it Rudock? Or the play calling? 



LutherHawk wrote:
IAcountryboy84 wrote: So whats the difference? If rudock has the the arm strength to throw 20 yards across the field, does he not have the strength to throw 20 yds down field? You all need to quit making excuses. I was at the game. Jake never saw the guys open in the middle. Maybe his view was blocked, I dont know. But all I can say is we are trying to be northwestern with players not built for it. But hey, if you cant beat them, join them. Right?
A 15 - 20 yard out pattern requires tremendous timing and actually travels much farther than 20 yards.  It also requires 'zip' on the ball, otherwise DBs have an opportunity to adjust and make a break on the ball.  
Many great college QBs can't even sniff the NFL because they lack the arm strength and arm speed to make this throw.  
I agree with your point that Jake never even looked for these deeper routes or was patient enough to let them develop.  Pump fakes and looking off the defense goes a long way to helping the WRs become open, especially when you have a weaker arm.
Jake's arm looks very good this year, I don't think arm strength is the problem anymore. They came in with a game plan and stuck to it, but Jake will have to be more proactive in the middle of the field throws. He can make them and looked very accurate Saturday. I am pretty confident they will open it up more this week.
Rudock The New Vandenberg,
Beathard The New Stanzi!!
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >