Poke-proud
Well-known member
Agreed 100%!Wyoklaelk said:seattlecowboy said:Wyoklaelk said:This front 7 nonsense....we were able to run some outside the A gaps, but those runs didnt work all game and they kept getting called. The read option was thrown in just enough to make us look cute and that didnt work either. The problem was that these plays were called on 3rd down way too often and never worked . When we started the 2nd half running outside the a gaps and play action passing, we had success, albeit not sustained in any drive. Screw the amazing front 7 talk, they didnt blow us up and we held their run game in check enough to compete. The failure was the jr high play calling. Barely any throws downfield against their weak secondary, too many out routes and short curls, too many runs in a gaps and too much read option....that was garbage play calling. Nothing remotely attacked them. There was no identification of some offensive game plan to exploit anything. Iowa played solid and straight up, they did well, but we made it way too easy on them.
So explain to me then how their secondary was weak? Where was there evidence of this? Or are you just spewing non sense because you heard they were starting some new guys back there? I didn't see any evidence of a weak secondary.
I saw Wyoming receivers that couldn't get open and the couple of times they did they dropped the ball. So again how was their secondary weak?
The play calling didnt exactly test their secondary....that being said, yes, i am spewing a fairly accepted idea that their secondary was their weakness, especially with a starter sitting out. As our strength is supposed to be our qb play, seems like a logical game plan would have tested what i am spewing. The passing game was a jike with all the 5 yd out routes and 3 yd curls. Receivers didnt help the qb, and vigen didnt put anyone in a position to exploit anything.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk