1. The KillerFrogs

Running Back Carries

Discussion in 'Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum' started by SuperTFrog, Sep 26, 2020.

  1. We had 44 carries and our running backs had 16 of them. That is a major problem IMO. They all had decent stat lines regarding YPC. Not sure we want our QB’s having 22 of our 44 carries.
     
  2. I think a lot of that had to do with the offensive line pass protection being poor for most of the day forcing the QB to run. But I agree we could have used more direct handoffs.
     
  3. Yeah, when the OL can't block, everyone with the ball ends up running. Whether it's a designated run or not...
     
  4. I thought we should have run it more than we did but playing from behind didn't help. Zach Evans getting zero carries and Demercado getting the most surprised me but I should probably be past being surprised about who GP chooses to play at this point.
     
  5. Turning the ball over is the thing that gives GP the most hesitation when it comes to playing true freshman at RB.
     
  6. Seriously, it’s like an 8 year old that just discovered the Rosetta Stone.
     
    Eight and Salfrog like this.
  7. I will add that I should also know better than to get sucked in by his comments about who is practicing well and who isn't..... scheiss me if those aren't 110% useless.
     
  8. Zach Evans not getting a single carry is a crime
     
  9. That stunned me. Marcel Brooks needs to play way more than he did as well.
     
  10. Being behind the whole game didn’t help but I’m pretty sure having 6 guys with a couple of carries each is not a recipe for success.
     
  11. Demercado with 8 carries and no other RB with more than 3. Insane.
     
  12. Brooks only playing four defensive snaps isn’t just a crime, it’s an atrocity. He made a big impact on two of those four plays. At least our other RBs looked fine (altho we ignored them), but our pass rush was awful
     
    Eight, Bonner4Prez, AZfrogs and 3 others like this.
  13. I'm not surprised.
     
  14. And Spielman
     
  15. I'm definitely in favor of Brooks being on the field more. But I will say that, while the pass rush wasn't good, I can't think of a single big play that ISU had as a result of the poor rush. They were mostly running plays or very quick passes where we blew a coverage and Brooks being in the game more wouldn't have helped with any of that.

    It possible though that maybe he gets a sack that ends a drive or a rush that results in a hurried pass by Purdy that is intercepted and changes the game. So from that perspective he could've helped.
     
  16. Even more to the point of why he should play. He doesn’t play more because he’s a liability in the run game. Well we couldn’t defend the run worse, so what’s the downside?
     
  17. Duggan and Downing had half of the 44.

    I thought Miller, Barlow and Foster looked faster and more explosive attacking the line and openings.
     
    Eight and Putt4Purple like this.
  18. Its almost as if the coaching staff is trying to prove a point by not letting these guys get more snaps. As if "just because you come from a big school, or were a talented recruit" doesn't mean you automatically get to play. I don't know. I predict Zach Evans to transfer if this continues, especially if there's no loss in eligibility.
     
    4 Oaks Frog likes this.
  19. except we weren't behind the entire game, moved the ball on the ground early, and then fell into a pattern of a decent gain on first down only to scheiss up second down

    don't understand the decision to take the offense out of the hands of the backs and put it in the hands of downing

    said it before and will say it again, but meacham and sonny should be kicked in the balls each time they motion a back out to five wide
     
    Putt4Purple likes this.
  20. We will lose two of Barlow, Foster and Evans if the RB carry numbers and distribution stays the same. Obviously Evans will be one
     
    Salfrog and AroundWorldFrog like this.

Share This Page