Shows you how a QB's mental skills are just as important as the physical skills. I see Purdy being a great example of that.
Game Thoughts: UNI
- Thread starter cyclone1209
- Start date
Seemed like an ego thing too. Maybe he didn't want to listen to any redirection but also didn't know what to do in the moment.
For those watching the game at home, what happened there on the late hit/roughing the passer call that occurred in the 3rd quarter to extend a UNI drive. They only showed one replay on the board.
To me it looked like the ISU player hit the QB right as the ball was leaving his hand, he did not hit him anywhere near his head, so why make the call?
To me it looked like the ISU player hit the QB right as the ball was leaving his hand, he did not hit him anywhere near his head, so why make the call?
I can't be the only one that thinks there's potential there for some explosiveness from multiple positions including the Oline getting some things going.
That may just take a few games.
All things considered lots of positives across the board. I won’t be too critical of the O line and the offense in general until we see what it looks like mid year. It’s the first game of the year, it’s never going to be perfect. With new staff members and new roles on that side of the ball I expect improvement in each of those areas as the year goes on. They’ll get better.
Now they have film and teachable moments to dissect. As they say week 1 to week 2 growth for a football team is pretty big.
Can’t wait!
Now they have film and teachable moments to dissect. As they say week 1 to week 2 growth for a football team is pretty big.
Can’t wait!
This is absolutely true. But it’s also true that Campbell shuts it down and doesn’t even try to be creative or score once he has a good lead in a game like this.
I'm pretty sure it was for 'driving him into the ground' which I don't believe he did. Just simply a missed call.
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
I believe the penalty was for the defender landing with his full weight on the QB, because the timing of the hit was perfect.
Of course, given the direct head-on collision of the tackle and Day falling down on his back and the physics of momentum - there was literally NOTHING the defender could do to prevent landing the way he did. Heck, he even pulled his arms back in an effort to show he was trying to ease up! What was he supposed to do, defy the law of gravity? Drink a Red Bull and sprout wings to fly over the QB?
There was literally no way for that collision to have ended in any other fashion, and penalizing it was ridiculous.
Rewatched this morning, LT is going to be a problem.
Dekker's first game last year he was 25/31 for 293. 4 TDs and 1 INT.
It most certainly did but not in its entirety. We actually ran play action, something we rarely did with Manning. We also attempted a QB sneak and appeared more willing...and possibly capable, at taking shots down the field.
On the negative side I wasn't super impressed with the over route trees, especially on 3rd down. Quite a few times I saw 3-4 guys running down the field, not even into their breaks, when Rocco needed to throw the ball. The lone valve was often Dean but if he's covered that puts a young QB in a very tough spot, especially when our "pass protection"
Nate also stuck with and called WAY too many WR screens. That crap has never worked (consistently) and it's a complete waste of downs. Can that crap already.
Agree with most of this. Except the WR screens. I don't love the play, but if against the right defense they certainly can be effective. I can remember a few Mike Gundy called games where Oklahoma State destroyed us consistently on WR screens.
That said, outside of some rare successes, we haven't been good at that play.
I have to assume the philosophy is to stretch the field in _all_ directions. Side line to sideline and deep. It will be interesting to see how CNS calls the rest of the season. Manning was obviously very stubborn and didn't evolve his play calling at all.
I had to "watch" the game this morning. Watched the first 3 quarters, which seems more pertinent anyway given the dynamics at that point and the lead we had. On the overall I was extremely pleased with what I saw save for the OL. That (sadly) continues to be a work in progress.
GOOD
- Rocco was great. Juuussssttttt missed on a couple of deep throws but they were accurate (in line with the route...not off "line"), just a tad overthrown. Very quick release and he definitely sees the field (as he sould) much better than JJ. At this point Rocco needs to be the clear cut starter and get the reps. JJ needs another year of seasoning (the freshman "lock on" was apparent on several snaps). I think I feel better about QB than I did before the game.
- The defense was outstanding. I think we are better up the middle than we were last year....which is needed since we don't have the edge rushers we had. Both Orange and Onyedim showed some big flashes.
- The secondary showed it was every bit as good as I thought it was. Coverage was outstanding. Guys made plays all over the field and almost every completion was only a few inches out of hand's reach. This group will do great things all year long.
- Heacock DEFINITELY showed he wants, and is willing, to put guys in position to make more plays. Yesterday's game was EXACTLY what myself and some others were clamoring for. Okay, your defense is good and isn't "the problem" but we don't attempt to nearly make enough plays. We wanted to see more calculated risks given down and yardage situations and he delivered. More blitzes...more front variations....and not just at half but from the start. Big shoutout to coach Heacock here.
- Our LB situation is so much better than it was a year ago. I saw the freshman fall for some misdirection and get caught out of position a few times but man, we are so much more athletic here. Given it was their first game I thought they played very well. With the LBs and the tackeles we are SO MUCH STRONGER up the middle defensively, in my opinion.
- RB room is stocked. Not sure how many holes they'll have this year to show it. More on that later.
- Nate was a 50-50 bag for me, on the play calling and design, but I want to give the shout outs here. One is he seems much more open to the idea of play action, and it was shown (with effectiveness) throughout the game. We also ran the QB sneak in a situation where we would have snapped it 5 yards into the backfield and took a 2 yard loss on 4th and short. I also thought Nate didn't call quite as many plays the team couldnt' block for. That was a plus.
- Sorry it's so far down but SPECIAL TEAMS WERE GREAT!!! nOT sure what that extra point botch was about but given the rest: a 56 yard FG bomb, deep kicks, great punts/coverage, great returns. Couldn't have asked for much more, after all we are Iowa State.
BAD
- Alright CMC, I'm going to hit you real hard right off the bat here...STOP WASTING ******* TIMEOUTS WITH THE WE "MIGHT GO FOR IT" ********. Want to go for it, that's fine, do it. Want to kick it, that's fine, do it. But wasting numerous timeouts, and timeouts that have often come back to bite us, when he CLEARLY has no intention of going for it, needs to stop. Off hand I'd have to guess we did this at LEAST 5-6 times last year. I'm sure I'm not the only one that was pissed when they saw that play.
- The offensive line did not look good. They didn't fire off the ball very well and struggled to control the line of scrimmage. I think most would agree this was the biggest negative of the game and doesn't bod well for the offense. It's just "one game" but it wasn't a good one. Clanton has his work cut out for him.
- I wasn't super impressed with Nate sticking with the WR screens (that **** has got to go...we don't have the athleticism or physical dominance outside for those to consitently work) or the receiver trees. Other than Dean releasing down the seam we did little to attack the middle of the field. We ran the receiver screens and targeted the outside of the field. We challenged deep (a plus). At some point we are going to need more crosses, slants, and quick hits over the middle, especially if the o-line is as "good" as it looks. I also think we could use more misdirection. It's a different league, but Getsy with the Bears made a very untalented offense look competent with play design. I think Nate will have to do similar things here.
- Penalties. Too many sloppy and ill-timed penalties. It was the first game of the season so hopefully we clean things up. The roughing call in the 3rd quarter was a terrible call and should be stricken from the record.
Final Thoughts
With where this team was/is, I thought it was pretty close to a best case outcome. Rocco looked great, STs had one of their best overall games in recent memory, and the defense looked outstanding. By far the most concerning thing was the play of the offensive line. If we want to keep Rocco upright and effective Nate will need to evolve the offense a bit more with misdirection, route trees, etc.
It was nice to have this game finally look like an FBS vs an FCS opponent but Iowa should provide a much stiffer test. With that said I feel much better about the season that I did going into the game.
GOOD
- Rocco was great. Juuussssttttt missed on a couple of deep throws but they were accurate (in line with the route...not off "line"), just a tad overthrown. Very quick release and he definitely sees the field (as he sould) much better than JJ. At this point Rocco needs to be the clear cut starter and get the reps. JJ needs another year of seasoning (the freshman "lock on" was apparent on several snaps). I think I feel better about QB than I did before the game.
- The defense was outstanding. I think we are better up the middle than we were last year....which is needed since we don't have the edge rushers we had. Both Orange and Onyedim showed some big flashes.
- The secondary showed it was every bit as good as I thought it was. Coverage was outstanding. Guys made plays all over the field and almost every completion was only a few inches out of hand's reach. This group will do great things all year long.
- Heacock DEFINITELY showed he wants, and is willing, to put guys in position to make more plays. Yesterday's game was EXACTLY what myself and some others were clamoring for. Okay, your defense is good and isn't "the problem" but we don't attempt to nearly make enough plays. We wanted to see more calculated risks given down and yardage situations and he delivered. More blitzes...more front variations....and not just at half but from the start. Big shoutout to coach Heacock here.
- Our LB situation is so much better than it was a year ago. I saw the freshman fall for some misdirection and get caught out of position a few times but man, we are so much more athletic here. Given it was their first game I thought they played very well. With the LBs and the tackeles we are SO MUCH STRONGER up the middle defensively, in my opinion.
- RB room is stocked. Not sure how many holes they'll have this year to show it. More on that later.
- Nate was a 50-50 bag for me, on the play calling and design, but I want to give the shout outs here. One is he seems much more open to the idea of play action, and it was shown (with effectiveness) throughout the game. We also ran the QB sneak in a situation where we would have snapped it 5 yards into the backfield and took a 2 yard loss on 4th and short. I also thought Nate didn't call quite as many plays the team couldnt' block for. That was a plus.
- Sorry it's so far down but SPECIAL TEAMS WERE GREAT!!! nOT sure what that extra point botch was about but given the rest: a 56 yard FG bomb, deep kicks, great punts/coverage, great returns. Couldn't have asked for much more, after all we are Iowa State.
BAD
- Alright CMC, I'm going to hit you real hard right off the bat here...STOP WASTING ******* TIMEOUTS WITH THE WE "MIGHT GO FOR IT" ********. Want to go for it, that's fine, do it. Want to kick it, that's fine, do it. But wasting numerous timeouts, and timeouts that have often come back to bite us, when he CLEARLY has no intention of going for it, needs to stop. Off hand I'd have to guess we did this at LEAST 5-6 times last year. I'm sure I'm not the only one that was pissed when they saw that play.
- The offensive line did not look good. They didn't fire off the ball very well and struggled to control the line of scrimmage. I think most would agree this was the biggest negative of the game and doesn't bod well for the offense. It's just "one game" but it wasn't a good one. Clanton has his work cut out for him.
- I wasn't super impressed with Nate sticking with the WR screens (that **** has got to go...we don't have the athleticism or physical dominance outside for those to consitently work) or the receiver trees. Other than Dean releasing down the seam we did little to attack the middle of the field. We ran the receiver screens and targeted the outside of the field. We challenged deep (a plus). At some point we are going to need more crosses, slants, and quick hits over the middle, especially if the o-line is as "good" as it looks. I also think we could use more misdirection. It's a different league, but Getsy with the Bears made a very untalented offense look competent with play design. I think Nate will have to do similar things here.
- Penalties. Too many sloppy and ill-timed penalties. It was the first game of the season so hopefully we clean things up. The roughing call in the 3rd quarter was a terrible call and should be stricken from the record.
Final Thoughts
With where this team was/is, I thought it was pretty close to a best case outcome. Rocco looked great, STs had one of their best overall games in recent memory, and the defense looked outstanding. By far the most concerning thing was the play of the offensive line. If we want to keep Rocco upright and effective Nate will need to evolve the offense a bit more with misdirection, route trees, etc.
It was nice to have this game finally look like an FBS vs an FCS opponent but Iowa should provide a much stiffer test. With that said I feel much better about the season that I did going into the game.
