T1B

Pryor looked better on TV than he did from where I was sitting.

Wow. I can only imagine how bad he looked in person then. Is it even possible to look any shittier than he did on TV?

The USC scheme was to make Pryor pass the ball.

I believe this is when you know your QB sucks big time when the opposing team's defensive strategy is to make you throw the ball.

TheJON wrote:I believe this is when you know your QB sucks big time when the opposing team's defensive strategy is to make you throw the ball.

You do realize that this is every defensive coordinator's game plan, right? All defenses focus on stopping the run, and daring the other team to beat you with the pass. Tell me you knew?

Even when they play Taco Tech, Houston and Hawaii?

I really didn't think either looked very good, I would say that both looked real green out there. Pryor reminded me of Vince back in 2003, you see flashes of how good he might get but right now he is no where near that good.

Barkley impressed with is ability to stay poised, I still see two losses in their future.

I think both will be very good next season but for now they are both overrated.

Killian wrote:

TheJON wrote:I believe this is when you know your QB sucks big time when the opposing team's defensive strategy is to make you throw the ball.

You do realize that this is every defensive coordinator's game plan, right? All defenses focus on stopping the run, and daring the other team to beat you with the pass. Tell me you knew?

Hu?? No, they do that with teams that can't throw for shit. Who the fuck dares Sam Bradford, Colt McCoy, etc. to throw the football??????

Or watch Iowa's gameplan against ISU. 3 man rushes, just straight up let them run the football and dropped our LB's into coverage. We dared them to run. It worked against a good offensive team to the tune of 3 points.

Who the hell dares a good QB to throw???????????????????????

Most good DCordinators. If you take away the run, you force the defense to be one dimensional. When you pass the ball, more bad shit can happen than if you run it. The way to beat a fast defense (like Florida) is to line up and punch them in the mouth. If you run on them, you force them to put 8 guys in the box and then you are going to have single coverage on one of your outside receivers. If you can't run, that allows defenses to play with 7 or even 6 in the box, dropping the rest into coverage. The more guys in coverage, the more often bad shit will happen with the other team passing the ball. If a team doesn't have the ability to run (Notre Dame last year), it doesn't matter how good your QB or WR's are, the QB is going to be forced into making bad/difficult throws. Sooner or later, one of those throws will get picked off.

You dared ISU to run the ball because likely, your DC knew that a 3 or 4 man rush would work to contain the run. By doing that, you aren't daring the other team to run as much as you are to throw into 7 and 8 man coverages. If ISU had started gashing you for big gains, Iowa would have likely gone to a more traditional 7 man front to keep the run at bay. If that were to happen, the offense starts dictating the game and they can do whatever they want. OU and Texas are going to throw the ball no matter what. But what makes the throws successful is the presence of a running game. You take the threat of the run away and any offense is easy to defend.

Killian, what if you're playing a team that is one-dimensional by design, such as Taco Tech, or Hawaii under June Jones?

Still going to game plan to stop the run, daring them to beat you with the pass; which is all they're going to do anyway, regardless of what you do.

Conversely, do you game plan against Navy or Georgia Tech beating you with the pass, daring them to try and run on you?

You dared ISU to run the ball because likely, your DC knew that a 3 or 4 man rush would work to contain the run. By doing that, you aren't daring the other team to run as much as you are to throw into 7 and 8 man coverages. If ISU had started gashing you for big gains, Iowa would have likely gone to a more traditional 7 man front to keep the run at bay.

No, we baited them to run it. ISU did run the ball pretty well against us. I think they had 190 yards. We LET them run the ball knowing that ISU wouldn't be patient enough to stick with it the entire game because they're more of a pass-first offense. We made Austen Arnaud's day a living hell. We got very little pressure on the QB and they had holes to run through because we dropped our LB's in coverage and, often, rushed 3. It was a thing of beauty.

If a D-coordinator is smart they gear up to shut down what the other team does well. If that's running the ball......then put 8 guys in the box. If you've got Sam Bradford at QB, you have to almost give OU the run. How can you gear up to stop the run against an offense like that? Or any great passing offense. Bigger plays come from the passing game, so take away the big play and contain the passing game and bait them into running.

Now, if it's a balanced attack where you've got a quality QB and a good RB, you run a base 4-3 and only put a nickel back in or drop your LB's in coverage on 3rd and long.

If Petey had any respect for Pryor as a passer, he would have geared up more to stop the pass than the run. Does Boom Herron really scare you as a runner? With him as your RB, even though Pryor can run well himself, if OSU had a good passing QB it makes absolutely no sense to not gear up to stop the pass and almost give them free yards in the running game. Petey knows this.