Go from a hurry-up offense and throwing on most downs to a slowdown option offense in one season? I understand we were trying to keep the ball away from Ohio State. But we have good backs and receivers. The option takes too long to develop, and all Ohio State did was string it out to the sideline for no gain or losses. Basically, we had no chance running that offense against them. It also is risky; it can result in fumbles or having the quarterback get creamed. I suggest we do more play action, with one back or two, and either throw to one of them out of the backfield or look for quick hitters over the middle or sideline with our receivers. Think about it. Most FBS receivers are great athletes. The chances of having a successful pass play one-on-one are pretty good, at least 50-50, against any team if we get rid of the ball fast. The chance of running twice up the gut against Ohio State in four downs and succeeding is probably about 1 percent, considering the difference in personnel. The absurdity of doing that repeatedly is what stood out to me most about the offense. Defensively, what I was most impressed with other than the overall performance is that we tackled well. I really appreciated that because in watching since 1980, tackling has for many seasons (not all) been a bane of this team.
How did we ... ?
- Thread starter IUNY
- Start date
IU worked hard on skills during the spring and it shows because in the fall practices they don't have time to do it. Bell better show in the next four games he has an offense to go with the outstanding defense our defensive coaches have created with a few exceptions. I hope coach G and Wilt will stop sending DT on a slant away because teams seem to always run away with from it. We now have players to just attack the LOS and keep Carr on rushing the QB or helping the LBs because Carr is too big to run with receivers even TEs.
Yes, I think most TEs would run away from Carr, who looks like a traditional strong side DE, but plays opposite a typically uncovered LT (saying this … an attempt to help the LT with a TE chip on Carr might explain the two TE sets … with the FB the expected goal would be to overwhelm a slightly undersized MLB (#44), Bull, and Husky (Pierre). This didn’t really improve 3rd down efficiency. (A TE chip could have been organized using a slot to the right … but I don’t recall a slot to the strong side)
