I’m hoping for 21+ points against each team and the other team not putting their backups in until the final drive because it’s still “close”.
Purdue 46, Illinois 7 POSTGAME
I’m hoping for 21+ points against each team and the other team not putting their backups in until the final drive because it’s still “close”.
RedRocksIllini
- Morrison, CO
Come on, man, where's the panic? But seriously, great write-up and thanks for sharing.
Curious question: Given the pros and cons listed, what do you see as a ceiling for the team going forward, given the schemes we're using? Thanks.
Deleted member 654622
D
Guest
I just want to point out that Sat was AJ Bush's FIRST start in a "serious" game. I know he is older, and mature, but nothing beats game experience. It is not above the realm of possibility that AJ learned that he cannot do it all himself, the RBs need to be involved and he needs to make better reads.
I really still think he can be a good quarterback (by our standards, which honestly isn't a tall task). If he hands the ball off, instead of running it himself, maybe 10 more times, I think the score is different. I get he likes the ball in his hands, and he is a plus running, but Corbin/Epstein are just more explosive and better at making guys miss. Having a running QB is such a great weapon, but he needs to understand he's the 2nd option, on 90% of options. Let the RB do what the first letter in his title stands for.
If Bush can recognize that and trust his RB's, he will be fine for this year.
Deleted member 654622
D
Guest
I completely agree
Neidermeyer
- Faber College
What an eye opener those vids are.
Deleted member 654622
D
Guest
I agree somewhat. We see a ton of negatives for sure. But I would like to see a breakdown of OSU's game vs Minny last week. I want something to compare it to.
My only problem with the vids is that he likes to hold the def end responsible for both making tackles on inside rushes while maintaining outside responsibilities. You can't do both. There are also times that he criticizes the inside lb for not maintaining containment. That is a de, outside backer, or db responsibility depending on the D that has been called. Some positions call for an inside out point of attack whereas others are outside in.
When Ron Turner was coach I called in to one of the radio shows he was on and complained about how predictable the offense was in the most recent game. I complained that the other team seemed to know exactly what we were doing and as a result, they took it to us. Coach Turner said, "We should be able to tell the defense every play we're going to run in advance, and still beat them in execution." That must have been in 2000, because the next year we did starting winning the execution, (with a senior laden team), and we went 10-2 and won the B1G outright. That was a great year to be a fan.
Anyway, I think Lovie is 100% in agreement with Turner; have to win those individual battles so we can win in execution. He certainly believes in his scheme, too, but if individuals aren't winning their battles, the opponent is winning on execution. It's pretty obvious that's what is happening this year (be it by missing reads, using poor technique or just getting beat). And I agree with the posters who say that the physical disparity between 19 y/o's and 22 y/o's has a huge impact on winning the individual battles, especially in the 4th quarter. Add our young players' lower position on the learning curve they have from less experience, and three wins sounds about right.
Finally, if there was a corrosive element in the locker room, it's no wonder we couldn't put it together and finally click. Nothing worse than being undermined from the inside. Hopefully everyone else is 100% bought in and ready to start putting it together.
Anyway, I think Lovie is 100% in agreement with Turner; have to win those individual battles so we can win in execution. He certainly believes in his scheme, too, but if individuals aren't winning their battles, the opponent is winning on execution. It's pretty obvious that's what is happening this year (be it by missing reads, using poor technique or just getting beat). And I agree with the posters who say that the physical disparity between 19 y/o's and 22 y/o's has a huge impact on winning the individual battles, especially in the 4th quarter. Add our young players' lower position on the learning curve they have from less experience, and three wins sounds about right.
Finally, if there was a corrosive element in the locker room, it's no wonder we couldn't put it together and finally click. Nothing worse than being undermined from the inside. Hopefully everyone else is 100% bought in and ready to start putting it together.
Deleted member 654622
D
Guest
I don't disagree with your thoughts here in general. However, I feel like we're David to OSU's Goliath. Last week I watched David play to Goliath's strengths. If we're a David that's fine; let's fight like a David and stop pretending we're seven feet tall and 320 pounds. Is lining up to Purdue and telling them,"We're going to run, stop us," really the answer? Because they stopped the crap out of us. That to me isn't the answer. That's the problem. So Turner's statement can be our direction and goal (hell I'd LOVE to be Goliath of the gridiron), but that sure as hell isn't a good way to get there from where we're at. If anyone thinks six more Purdue results like last week is the path to success I might take issue with the logic. What do they call it when you do the same thing repeatedly expecting a different result? Maybe lets try something a wee bit different. I don't think we will though. We'll "try and clean things up."
Are you arguing that we are executing the scheme as planned and the scheme doesn't work, or that our athletes are incapable of executing the scheme?
My argument is that when our athletes properly execute the scheme, (i.e. they're making the right reads, blocking/covering the right guy, rarely drop the pass or miss the tackle, etc.) we'll win. I don't believe making the scheme more complicated is inherently better, particularly given how often blown assignments have hurt us. I think our team has the speed and size to compete once they're physically developed, i.e. the 19yo vs 22yo thing still puts as at a physical disadvantage late in the game as the young guys wear down. A lot of the beginner-mistakes we're seeing are kids from lower in the depth chart getting more reps, or players moved to new positions. So that will "get cleaned up" as players get the reps they need to master the scheme.
The Purdue game was obviously a huge let down and missed opportunity. And I think that's exactly how Lovie saw it. And while I have no insight into the locker room, I'm interpreting Lovie's comments about "players who didn't need to be here are no longer here" as an indicator that he's going to push his agenda more forcefully, and raise performance standard. Specifically, I think he's demanding greater discipline on and off the field. "Do your job", as the saying goes.