Folks, Benji is sad. He is only fifth in dumb ratings, he has been asking for them and you super fans have been kinda stingy with them.
All Iowa Football Team---Post Bowl Edition
- Thread starter YeahBuddy
- Start date
Folks, Benji is sad. He is only fifth in dumb ratings, he has been asking for them and you super fans have been kinda stingy with them.
Um, I've gave him one every time he's asked. Sometimes I've given them without him asking.
1:45
3:25
3:45
Sorry, I guess I misremembered; there were only three blown coverages leading to wide open receivers in that short 4 minute clip.
- At the gym
- On a date
- On a vacation
- Didn't know I needed to respond to each post
- You are obsessed with me
Yet for Iowa when it is blown coverage, its the scheme!
Maybe you’d be a little less cranky if you tried one of those first three, herby.
We all can't be the ultra athletic, geneous, world traveler, and charming stud that you are.
Was Akers and Milton's really blown coverage? Akers is really fast and Milton made a sick move to get open. When I think of blown coverage I think of nobody even close to you but I'm curious your opinion on it
OSU looked to be in a cover one or cover two on both of those plays and the safety was nowhere to be found. I would consider that a blown coverage. I’m not familiar with what OSU’s defensive scheme asks for though, so I could be wrong.
If a safety is in zone coverage and lets the receiver get behind him, do you consider that a blown coverage?
The first three are really benji's excuses. Think he is obsessed with his mom or something.
This is going to be too much for you to understand, but try to keep up.
Depends if there is other action in or even outside the area to draw the safety's attention... (a la scheme)
People on here don't blindly argue against any pro-Iowa point. They argue against you because your points are almost exclusively stupid, your style is douchey, and you're never funny. There's a reason people like Gonzo and Dex and it isn't because they don't argue pro-hawk points.
I know trying to point out your idiocy is a waste of time, but I might as well do it for my own sake. On they plays you point out the ball isn't released for about 3 seconds, and even more. Second, look at where the receivers line up and where they end up catching the ball. They are running actual routes with actual moves and beating actual coverage. Obviously it's not good coverage in those three cases, but to claim it is similar to Easley's TD is beyond moronic.
In comparison, upon the snap, or the time it takes Easley to run 8 yards, he runs a straight line and is 8 yards open. It is literally impossible to blow a coverage any worse considering he is not over a blitzer. To make matters worse, MSU's front 7 was completely dominating Iowa in the run game and there is zero reason for a DB to be peeking in the backfield or sucked in to play action. So no, none of the plays you point out account for anything close to the level of blown coverage as Easley's touchdown.Claiming they are the same thing is just explicitly stating that you don't know **** about football.
So Stanley benefitted from only 1.4 blown coverages per game, and Purdy 3 per game? Sounds about right considering Stanley faced some of the best defenses in the country and Purdy played in the defense-optional Big XII.