Another Iowa observation thread

[MeanGreenTexan]

6 hours ago, Censored by Laurie said:

I mean...it's not though. 

if you're simply saying the offense should've executed better in the second half, I guess...ok...I hear you, but it was still a big 10 defense...but at a certain point if Iowa just says lets play keep-ball they have the depth and ability to do that to our front seven...and that war of attrition is basically the definition of big 10 football...when in doubt they'll do it to PSU, OSU and anyone else on their schedule

Agree,
And what's encouraging is that Iowa came out in the first half thinking they could tinker around and work on some things with us, and we put a scare into them to where they were forced to go back to their serious brand of football to dig out the win.   

There was that one IA fan that came on here saying the 3rd/4th string dudes would be in by the 3rd quarter... and (outside of RB, due to injuries) that just was not the case.   The team stood toe-to-toe with Iowa and just got worn down by their stable of clydesdales.  

The next-toughest OL they'll see is UTEP, and I think we can all agree UTEP OL < IA OL.  But after this IA game, the guys will certainly be ready for UTEP.

[MeanGreenHoops]

18 hours ago, Censored by Laurie said:

this more than anything else. it's so mentally deflating on both sides of the ball to do good work on first and second and then piss it away on third. 

Iowa converted on 61% of their third downs...and 80% of their fourth downs. UNT converted 0% on either.

SMU converted 50% of their third downs...and 100% of their fourth downs. UNT converted a combined 39% on third and fourth

hell...get those ratios to 50% on either side and I'll be relatively happy and can live with some aggressive penalties.

I realize that's still a decent opponents conversion rate, but I don't want to go getting too good on third down defensively...means we'll see more punt returns. those make me too nervous.

So much this. Until we can convert/stop someone on 3rd down we won't challenge for the conference. It's where you show how good you really are.

It's why The Stand against Rice was a miracle. (Not really that defense was good which is why we won so many games)

[FirefightnRick]

9 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

Have seem more than a few tackled, which is the main problem with rolling out.   Like to see Kenworthy stats, rugby versus standard.  NT's net punting yardage seems much better on straight up kicks.  He has had some very short kicks with both techniques, but generally his non-rugby kicks are not returned.   

It is strange what is picked out of a lot of observations to debate about.  

That's a protection and timing issue, not a punting style issue.

I did both in HS and as a walk on at NT.  You can't just go out and do either without the other 8 guys who are in for protection being in sync.

Remember the bad 54-2 Tulsa game in '05?  They punted for distance to perfection and their punter absolutely killed us that day.  One of the most memorable punting games I may have ever seen.  He could place it on a line drive to either side of the returner, right in front of him with force.  I'll never forget it.

 

Rick

[meangreenthirteen]

On 9/18/2017 at 8:46 PM, GrandGreen said:

No, NT's punter is having enough problems with straight on kicks.   I rather see a shanked punk of 20 yards than a blocked rugby kick or a big return.   I am not sure why you think a rugby kick on the run is easier to do than a traditional punt.   It isn't.  

because I was a punter and I punted both ways. Most punters are converted soccer players. When you do a rugby punt, you don't have to worry about spin on the ball. You just hammer it with the top of your foot like you would a soccer ball. The difficulty with traditional punts (and the reason they get shanked) is the form it takes to position the ball and hit it with the outside of your foot (this causes  the spin that gives you distance)

[Cerebus]

2 hours ago, meangreenthirteen said:

because I was a punter and I punted both ways. 

Enjoy your new title @meangreenthirteen.

[GrandGreen]

2 hours ago, meangreenthirteen said:

because I was a punter and I punted both ways. Most punters are converted soccer players. When you do a rugby punt, you don't have to worry about spin on the ball. You just hammer it with the top of your foot like you would a soccer ball. The difficulty with traditional punts (and the reason they get shanked) is the form it takes to position the ball and hit it with the outside of your foot (this causes  the spin that gives you distance)

I yield on the difficulty of the punts, obviously for ex-soccer or rugby players.   However, not on the opinion thus far that NT has done better on traditional kicks.  

[meangreenthirteen]

7 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

Enjoy your new title @meangreenthirteen.

oh hell yeah

Just now, GrandGreen said:

I yield on the difficulty of the punts, obviously for ex-soccer or rugby players.   However, not on the opinion thus far that NT has done better on traditional kicks.  

definitely agree. I mean the punter is just bad no matter how you cut it