Pregame: Illinois vs Minnesota, Saturday, November 7th, 2:30pm CT, BTN

Status
Not open for further replies.
#26
+100 on the throwing motion comment.
(and he's not a runner either. Bad combo)

I'm sort of amazed at the board's willingness to overlook that Purdue never felt threatened in this game, and thus, played very soft defense in the secondary. I judge CT on his technique and instinct... neither of which need 'reps' to show up. And running (low marks for both), passing (low marks for technique, and better for instinct, although inflated by the soft coverage.)

IW needs to start and play the full game.
IW is out, from my understanding. So......Coran Taylor I guess is the guy.
 
       
  • Like
Reactions: Fr8trn16 and the national
#27
Morrison, CO
+100 on the throwing motion comment.
(and he's not a runner either. Bad combo)

I'm sort of amazed at the board's willingness to overlook that Purdue never felt threatened in this game, and thus, played very soft defense in the secondary. I judge CT on his technique and instinct... neither of which need 'reps' to show up. And running (low marks for both), passing (low marks for technique, and better for instinct, although inflated by the soft coverage.)

IW needs to start and play the full game.
Thought I read that IW won't be available this week per protocol. Any word on whether Robinson will be available?
 
       
#29
South Carolina
+100 on the throwing motion comment.
(and he's not a runner either. Bad combo)

I'm sort of amazed at the board's willingness to overlook that Purdue never felt threatened in this game, and thus, played very soft defense in the secondary. I judge CT on his technique and instinct... neither of which need 'reps' to show up. And running (low marks for both), passing (low marks for technique, and better for instinct, although inflated by the soft coverage.)

IW needs to start and play the full game.
Maybe our judgement is clouded by the fact he's an illinois native who had stuck it out so far in spite of being buried on the depth chart.

I'm also kind of interested to see what these other guys have. At this point I don't think we are a good team and basically have nothing to lose (except Lovie's job hopefully, addition by subtraction). I'd be fine with IW starting as well though
 
       
  • Like
Reactions: philcon
#30
+100 on the throwing motion comment.
(and he's not a runner either. Bad combo)

I'm sort of amazed at the board's willingness to overlook that Purdue never felt threatened in this game, and thus, played very soft defense in the secondary. I judge CT on his technique and instinct... neither of which need 'reps' to show up. And running (low marks for both), passing (low marks for technique, and better for instinct, although inflated by the soft coverage.)

IW needs to start and play the full game.
We did have the ball on their 15 with a chance to tie late in the 4th quarter. Guessing more than a few Purdue fans felt “threatened.”
 
       
  • Like
Reactions: Fr8trn16, wewillwint, Oskeefan and 6 others
#31
Rockford I agree with you. Needed to get that first down. That play should have gone to a TE or Bhe Bhe. I still think that this being a first game to play in did not do a bad job. I wonder how PU would have played with their fourth string qb? Three OL missing. I know all teams have guys missing. The two most important positions qb and ol.
 
       
#32
+100 on the throwing motion comment.
(and he's not a runner either. Bad combo)

I'm sort of amazed at the board's willingness to overlook that Purdue never felt threatened in this game, and thus, played very soft defense in the secondary. I judge CT on his technique and instinct... neither of which need 'reps' to show up. And running (low marks for both), passing (low marks for technique, and better for instinct, although inflated by the soft coverage.)

IW needs to start and play the full game.

Curious, what have you seen from IW that says he need to start and play a full game?
 
       
#33
Curious, what have you seen from IW that says he need to start and play a full game?
Nothing, but he leads Coran in the depth chart, and Coran wasn't half bad by Illinois football standards. Might as well rest Lovie's job hopes on the back of his best recruit.
 
       
  • Like
Reactions: CogDog, rtbritt, Chukwuwumba and 1 other person
#34
Curious, what have you seen from IW that says he need to start and play a full game?

Rod has a lot of packages for IW. As he should, he's definitely a unique talent. I get he may not be ready, but if anything I'm very curious to see him get more snaps.
 
       
  • Like
Reactions: KevinC and pvaughn8
#35
Nothing, but he leads Coran in the depth chart, and Coran wasn't half bad by Illinois football standards. Might as well rest Lovie's job hopes on the back of his best recruit.

I'm sure if Tim Horton (Taylor's high school coach) was on the staff, he would probably be number 2 on the depth chart. Just being realistic. I understand Peters, but I don't see a whole lot of separation from the rest of the pack.
 
       
  • Like
Reactions: CogDog
#36
Rod has a lot of packages for IW. As he should, he's definitely a unique talent. I get he may not be ready, but if anything I'm very curious to see him get more snaps.
I agree he has a lot of packages, however, I haven't really seen a lot of success out of them. Maybe if he was in there for an entire game, things would be different. The Int against Wisc was pretty bad.
 
       
  • Like
Reactions: CogDog
#37
I agree he has a lot of packages, however, I haven't really seen a lot of success out of them. Maybe if he was in there for an entire game, things would be different. The Int against Wisc was pretty bad.

Along with some of those throws that were “in the vicinity” of our receivers.

WOOF
 
       
#38
IW is not a QB. He can't throw accurately... which is the most important part of that position. I hope he realizes that soon so we can see him on the field as a slot WR or a DB. I think the coaches are going to let him make the call.

I specifically watched him at the bowl game last year in warmups and he was off by 10+ yards on nearly every throw... behind, short, long WOOF is right
 
       
#39
Applying learnings from the first two games (along with Covid impact), I'm going with:

MIN 52
ILL 24
 
       
  • Like
Reactions: illini80
#40
I think we win this one. Minnesota looks to generate a lot of there offense from the run, we looked ok against the run for the first half against Wisconsin. Right the time of possession a little bit and we can slow Minn. For first game, with little prep Taylor did enough to think we can move the chains and score some points against Minny. Just have to improve on the pass coverage mistakes.
 
       
  • Like
Reactions: ILL_INI, KevinC and Illinivek23
#44
Forgottonia
Given how their defense has been shredded this year, this might be a really bad break for us.
From a couple interviews I’ve heard this week, it’s been said their players were in position to make plays and just haven’t been executing. Our problem has been something different. I do think we will score some points, I just don’t think it will be enough to keep up.
 
       
#45
Morrison, CO
From a couple interviews I’ve heard this week, it’s been said their players were in position to make plays and just haven’t been executing. Our problem has been something different. I do think we will score some points, I just don’t think it will be enough to keep up.
The numbers from the Maryland game suggest that mainly they were in position...to read the names and numbers on the backs of jerseys. Which has been the same problem our secondary has had. Suspect you're right about the outcome.
 
       
#46
Werner/Illini Inquirer have a pod cast out where he interviews Minnesota 247 writer. He thought we should be able to run all over them. Said the linebackers look awful, defense couldn’t contain, worst defense in football @ 9+ yards per play. Said new offensive coordinator was locked in on the run. I am encouraged, they seem to be a good matchup for us. As bad as our pass defense has been, a team that likes to run is good. With a new QB, use the experienced oline and set up the run game to minimize the risk of putting too much pressure on CT.
 
       
  • Like
Reactions: ILL_INI
#48
+100 on the throwing motion comment.
(and he's not a runner either. Bad combo)

I'm sort of amazed at the board's willingness to overlook that Purdue never felt threatened in this game, and thus, played very soft defense in the secondary. I judge CT on his technique and instinct... neither of which need 'reps' to show up. And running (low marks for both), passing (low marks for technique, and better for instinct, although inflated by the soft coverage.)

IW needs to start and play the full game.
So your kinda like Iverson on this one...practice doesnt matter.
 
       
  • Like
Reactions: cuillini
#50
Not much enthusiasm on the board this week..........(or, guess I should really say year)...........
 
       
Status
Not open for further replies.