ADVERTISEMENT

Thoughts on Bowser, Thorson and mainly Iowa

eastbaycat99

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2009
2,364
3,433
113
Having a high threshold of boredom, I found Saturday's game, even the first half, fascinating. Many posters have commented on Bowser's great game and Thorson's poor one, but few have tried to connect their performances to Iowa and the Iowa defensive game plan. Clearly, Bowser had the the game of his young career, and Thorson was not at his best, though the result was a victory. Watching from the warm comfort of my West Coast couch, I did not feel how the cold and field conditions may have affected the play, and my viewing was further limited by the way the camera did and did not view the full field of play. Nonetheless, a few things jumped out at me within these limitations. Iowa used an interesting defensive game plan, played with discipline and almost gave the Hawkeyes a win.


Iowa has an excellent defensive line, and it seems to me that their defensive game plan was built around this strength. From what I could see, they seemed to commit safety help on Nagel almost all the time, and he was pretty much bracketed all day. In addition, they seemed to hold their middle linebacker off the line to give help on Green on his crossing pattern. Both of these were pretty much predicated on relying on their front four to control the line against the run and bring pressure against the pass, particularly on first down.

The upshot of this is that the Cats were able to get a blocking advantage on first down almost the whole game, and they responded by giving the ball to Bowser on first down on almost every down series, getting a very healthy average in doing so. Iowa was basically daring the Cats to try to beat them by running power football; the Cats responded by trying to do so, and while 14 points is hardly an eruption of offense, it was enough.

On second downs, following up from the initial success, Iowa did crowd the box a little more. When the ball was handed off, they tended to be able to control the gaps and limit the damage, and when the Cats tried to throw, they pretty much overwhelmed Hance and collapsed the pocket all day. Where Bowser won the day was on third and short. He had enough drive, coupled with good lead blocking, to convert in the third and fourth quarter and turn the tide.

Thorson was not precise in his placement, but he was also hurt by some dropped balls. He was more hampered because Iowa sold out to defend against Nagel and Green and remove his first two favored options. For whatever reason, he did not target his other wide receivers often, but McCall did release Bowser as a check down to good result. Also, he did find Skowronek when it counted, and along with the persistence shown by McCall and Bowser, that was enough to win the game. In reality, winning with only 14 points, even on a cold day, is an event the offense should thank the defense for saving their collective bacon, but each team played within their vision and areas of competence.

I have to give the Iowa defense credit. They are very good, had a good plan, and played an incredibly disciplined game. If Skowronek does not make the catch, they may well have limited the Cats to 7 points.

I also think Minnesota will return to a more balanced defense against the Cats, though they may try to bracket Nagel. The real dilemma, particularly for a DC who does not have Iowa's line, is whether to try to limit the Superback crossing or a now proven tough power runner in Bowser. I think Minnesota will open the middle, and so I expect Thorson to have a much better game Saturday than the ones he has had the last few weeks.
 
Having a high threshold of boredom, I found Saturday's game, even the first half, fascinating. Many posters have commented on Bowser's great game and Thorson's poor one, but few have tried to connect their performances to Iowa and the Iowa defensive game plan. Clearly, Bowser had the the game of his young career, and Thorson was not at his best, though the result was a victory. Watching from the warm comfort of my West Coast couch, I did not feel how the cold and field conditions may have affected the play, and my viewing was further limited by the way the camera did and did not view the full field of play. Nonetheless, a few things jumped out at me within these limitations. Iowa used an interesting defensive game plan, played with discipline and almost gave the Hawkeyes a win.


Iowa has an excellent defensive line, and it seems to me that their defensive game plan was built around this strength. From what I could see, they seemed to commit safety help on Nagel almost all the time, and he was pretty much bracketed all day. In addition, they seemed to hold their middle linebacker off the line to give help on Green on his crossing pattern. Both of these were pretty much predicated on relying on their front four to control the line against the run and bring pressure against the pass, particularly on first down.

The upshot of this is that the Cats were able to get a blocking advantage on first down almost the whole game, and they responded by giving the ball to Bowser on first down on almost every down series, getting a very healthy average in doing so. Iowa was basically daring the Cats to try to beat them by running power football; the Cats responded by trying to do so, and while 14 points is hardly an eruption of offense, it was enough.

On second downs, following up from the initial success, Iowa did crowd the box a little more. When the ball was handed off, they tended to be able to control the gaps and limit the damage, and when the Cats tried to throw, they pretty much overwhelmed Hance and collapsed the pocket all day. Where Bowser won the day was on third and short. He had enough drive, coupled with good lead blocking, to convert in the third and fourth quarter and turn the tide.

Thorson was not precise in his placement, but he was also hurt by some dropped balls. He was more hampered because Iowa sold out to defend against Nagel and Green and remove his first two favored options. For whatever reason, he did not target his other wide receivers often, but McCall did release Bowser as a check down to good result. Also, he did find Skowronek when it counted, and along with the persistence shown by McCall and Bowser, that was enough to win the game. In reality, winning with only 14 points, even on a cold day, is an event the offense should thank the defense for saving their collective bacon, but each team played within their vision and areas of competence.

I have to give the Iowa defense credit. They are very good, had a good plan, and played an incredibly disciplined game. If Skowronek does not make the catch, they may well have limited the Cats to 7 points.

I also think Minnesota will return to a more balanced defense against the Cats, though they may try to bracket Nagel. The real dilemma, particularly for a DC who does not have Iowa's line, is whether to try to limit the Superback crossing or a now proven tough power runner in Bowser. I think Minnesota will open the middle, and so I expect Thorson to have a much better game Saturday than the ones he has had the last few weeks.

Excellent analysis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: montana_cat
At what point will we see teams scheme to really start halting Bowser given how much success he's having?

It's one thing to see uninformed fans on message boards saying "NW has 2.6 ypc running game, worst in the Big Ten. We can completely shut them down by selling out on the pass." - I've seen that separately on Rutgers, Wisconsin, Notre Dame, and Iowa message boards for 4 straight weeks

Okay, I can understand why Rutgers fans thought that. Maybe Wisconsin fans thought Bowser's Rutgers game was a fluke...


Especially now, I can't believe any opposing coach would think that after Bowser's performances the past 4 games. He's been the engine of the offense for 4 straight games now; nobody should be surprised by him.


But then, if they keep focusing on Nagel and the WRs, Bowser will keep having a field day.

I guess it really depends on how effectively we score when we do get down the field.


Either way, great analysis. Really explains why McCall was focused on having Bowser run on 1st downs so often.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GeorgeHonza
I wish I could notice this level of detail while watching a game. It’s easy to focus on a player or two, but understanding schemes in action is beyond my ken.
I see your ken and raise you a scope. Didn't see any of this detail either. Incisive analysis. Particularly from Iowa's perspective.

Generally, committing to stopping our two go-to receivers was the right call. But they certainly weren't counting on Bowser's ability to find and exploit the second level.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hungry Jack
I see your ken and raise you a scope. Didn't see any of this detail either. Incisive analysis. Particularly from Iowa's perspective.

Generally, committing to stopping our two go-to receivers was the right call. But they certainly weren't counting on Bowser's ability to find and exploit the second level.

I could argue that Iowa still made the right call. They held Northwestern to 14 points, and they needed an amazing catch from Skowronek to get that. If you'd have told me a week ago that Iowa held Northwestern to 14, I'd have been pretty confident in an Iowa win. I agree with OP that it was a good defensive game plan.....Iowa just couldn't do enough against Northwestern's D.
 
I could argue that Iowa still made the right call. They held Northwestern to 14 points, and they needed an amazing catch from Skowronek to get that. If you'd have told me a week ago that Iowa held Northwestern to 14, I'd have been pretty confident in an Iowa win. I agree with OP that it was a good defensive game plan.....Iowa just couldn't do enough against Northwestern's D.
Fair point, but what if both halves looked like the 2nd half.

Sort of feels like if we can put up 3 or 4 TDs with this strategy, it'll be hard to match. There aren't that many plays run in a game where the clock is running most of the time; each side gets 12 or 13 drives a game; can be tough to hit 20 points.


I feel like we'll try the same thing with Michigan/Ohio State depending on how well Thorson is playing.
 
Fair point, but what if both halves looked like the 2nd half.

Sort of feels like if we can put up 3 or 4 TDs with this strategy, it'll be hard to match. There aren't that many plays run in a game where the clock is running most of the time; each side gets 12 or 13 drives a game; can be tough to hit 20 points.


I feel like we'll try the same thing with Michigan/Ohio State depending on how well Thorson is playing.

Against most teams, I love this game plan. Iowa just has more DL than most teams. Bowser is a beast and I've seen him getting better and better every week (wife is NU grad, so I've seen all the games).

Coming into the game, I still feared Thorson/Nagel-Green more than Bowser in terms of putting points on the board.
 
I could argue that Iowa still made the right call. They held Northwestern to 14 points, and they needed an amazing catch from Skowronek to get that. If you'd have told me a week ago that Iowa held Northwestern to 14, I'd have been pretty confident in an Iowa win. I agree with OP that it was a good defensive game plan.....Iowa just couldn't do enough against Northwestern's D.

I'm with you. But Bowser still could have split the seam on 2nd down and scored on a 32 yard run. :)
 
I saw that replay again and Bowser looked appreciably fast to my biased eyes. He has a really good mix of skills.

It was interesting when a reporter called Bowser a slower version of D Autry. Fitz adamantly disagreed. I do too. He seems to have both a burst to make it through a hole quickly and can power in on defenders for a couple of extra when the hole isn’t there. What I see about him that separates him from the other running backs is really fast decision making on what he needs to do and most of the time he makes good decisions. I’ve seen him wait when he needs to, speed up when he has to, and ram it straight north-south when there was no where to go. Just 4 weeks ago, it looked like we were going to throw 50+ passes each game and now everyone talks about our running game. That Iowa front four was good and I give their secondary credit at taking away our top two receivers, but that was a team who has a great run defense and they couldn’t stop us from getting a first down when they knew we were running the ball. That happens only when you been softening them up all game.
 
I saw that replay again and Bowser looked appreciably fast to my biased eyes. He has a really good mix of skills.
It was interesting when a reporter called Bowser a slower version of D Autry. Fitz adamantly disagreed. I do too. He seems to have both a burst to make it through a hole quickly and can power in on defenders for a couple of extra when the hole isn’t there. What I see about him that separates him from the other running backs is really fast decision making on what he needs to do and most of the time he makes good decisions. I’ve seen him wait when he needs to, speed up when he has to, and ram it straight north-south when there was no where to go. Just 4 weeks ago, it looked like we were going to throw 50+ passes each game and now everyone talks about our running game. That Iowa front four was good and I give their secondary credit at taking away our top two receivers, but that was a team who has a great run defense and they couldn’t stop us from getting a first down when they knew we were running the ball. That happens only when you been softening them up all game.
Yeah, I don't get the comments on speed about Bowser. Does he have the raw speed of JJ or Larkin? Of course not. Those comparisons are completely bogus since he's built more like a power back.


Does Bowser have enough explosiveness/speed to get into holes and get to the next level of the defense where he can use his balance/body control/strength to ensure he's at least gotten a couple of yards or can run out to 10+ yards? Yeah, easily.

His vision is the most impressive attribute I think: against Rutgers and Wisconsin, he was sort of just going for the first crease/hole in the defensive line. Then against Notre Dame he started to show some patience to let the play develop before he attacked, which allowed him to find more yardage or lanes that let him go further out. Finally, versus Iowa he showed the full range of what he can do at this level.


The guy looks as hard to tackle as any RB we've had in a while, and he's a true freshman that's only been here for <12 months.


Way too early for Darnell Autry comparisons as Fitz properly noted (a freshman with 4 starts), but Bowser can be special here. He's got the toolkit, if he develops properly, sky's the limit for him.
 
I could argue that Iowa still made the right call. They held Northwestern to 14 points, and they needed an amazing catch from Skowronek to get that. If you'd have told me a week ago that Iowa held Northwestern to 14, I'd have been pretty confident in an Iowa win. I agree with OP that it was a good defensive game plan.....Iowa just couldn't do enough against Northwestern's D.

I agree with your point, NU was shut out in the first half and scored a total of 14 points, so I think the Io_a defense did a great job. However it seemed our offense was getting stronger as the game progressed, and Io_a had no answer for Bowser.

Our offense has to be better, especially Thorson.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeek55
It was interesting when a reporter called Bowser a slower version of D Autry. Fitz adamantly disagreed. I do too. He seems to have both a burst to make it through a hole quickly and can power in on defenders for a couple of extra when the hole isn’t there. What I see about him that separates him from the other running backs is really fast decision making on what he needs to do and most of the time he makes good decisions. I’ve seen him wait when he needs to, speed up when he has to, and ram it straight north-south when there was no where to go. Just 4 weeks ago, it looked like we were going to throw 50+ passes each game and now everyone talks about our running game. That Iowa front four was good and I give their secondary credit at taking away our top two receivers, but that was a team who has a great run defense and they couldn’t stop us from getting a first down when they knew we were running the ball. That happens only when you been softening them up all game.
I agree with this and Zeek55's comment on vision. It just seems like some guys "blindly" go to the hole where the play is supposed to develop. Either because he sees it or is able to break out of it, Bowser seems to be able to pick a better spot or bounce it to the outside. Maybe he sells the play up the gut better and draws the D in. What ever he does, it seems to work.
 
I agree with this and Zeek55's comment on vision. It just seems like some guys "blindly" go to the hole where the play is supposed to develop. Either because he sees it or is able to break out of it, Bowser seems to be able to pick a better spot or bounce it to the outside. Maybe he sells the play up the gut better and draws the D in. What ever he does, it seems to work.

I posted the following after the Rutgers game, but thought it was relevant again after reading the comments about how Bowser might compare to the Cats' best, and use of other backs at this point. Relative to the Autry comparisons, one area I think Bowser needs to work on is his balance. Several times in the last few weeks he has hit the hole, fought through contact into the clear and lurched forward to the ground after contact. Darnell was able to keep his feet after contact, and if Bowser had been able to on those occasions, he would have had long runs instead of 7 to 8 yard gains. On his long touchdown Saturday, he had little if any contact going through the line. Anyway, here is what I said after Rutgers:

"While a number of posters have commented on Bowser's success, I don't think there has been specific comments on why he was successful where Vault, Moten, and Anderson have had limited success. To me, with the inside zone blocking scheme, the running back needs to be able to identify the point of leverage the blocker is giving him, have the quickness to get to that point, and have the leg drive to break through whatever contact the defender achieves while fighting off the block. The blocker rarely creates a complete opening, and the combination of getting there and driving through are essential. Larkin had the full set of attributes (experience to recognize, quickness and strength). Vault and Anderson strike me as not have the strength to drive through, and Moten, this year at least, has not had the quickness. I was surprised Bowser had the recognition, as he does have the other two. Here's hoping it was not just because the defenders had an R on their helmets."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: drewjin
"While a number of posters have commented on Bowser's success, I don't think there has been specific comments on why he was successful where Vault, Moten, and Anderson have had limited success. To me, with the inside zone blocking scheme, the running back needs to be able to identify the point of leverage the blocker is giving him, have the quickness to get to that point, and have the leg drive to break through whatever contact the defender achieves while fighting off the block. The blocker rarely creates a complete opening, and the combination of getting there and driving through are essential. Larkin had the full set of attributes (experience to recognize, quickness and strength). Vault and Anderson strike me as not have the strength to drive through, and Moten, this year at least, has not had the quickness. I was surprised Bowser had the recognition, as he does have the other two. Here's hoping it was not just because the defenders had an R on their helmets."

I'd like to give you a Pulitzer for writing this. Or at least I nice Thank you note and a box of mint creams.

One thing I saw on that tape was Bowser basically cutting back off the bum/hip of his lead blocker, often one who had pulled. I guess it takes a fair amount of smarts/instinct/training/je ne sais quoi to be able to do this well.
 
Yeah, I don't get the comments on speed about Bowser. Does he have the raw speed of JJ or Larkin? Of course not. Those comparisons are completely bogus since he's built more like a power back.


Does Bowser have enough explosiveness/speed to get into holes and get to the next level of the defense where he can use his balance/body control/strength to ensure he's at least gotten a couple of yards or can run out to 10+ yards? Yeah, easily.

His vision is the most impressive attribute I think: against Rutgers and Wisconsin, he was sort of just going for the first crease/hole in the defensive line. Then against Notre Dame he started to show some patience to let the play develop before he attacked, which allowed him to find more yardage or lanes that let him go further out. Finally, versus Iowa he showed the full range of what he can do at this level.


The guy looks as hard to tackle as any RB we've had in a while, and he's a true freshman that's only been here for <12 months.


Way too early for Darnell Autry comparisons as Fitz properly noted (a freshman with 4 starts), but Bowser can be special here. He's got the toolkit, if he develops properly, sky's the limit for him.
My DA1 comparisons were based on his running style. Watch him running in space and compare it to films of DA1 and their styles look similar. Plus being able to get the tough couple yds
 
  • Like
Reactions: drewjin and zeek55
My DA1 comparisons were based on his running style. Watch him running in space and compare it to films of DA1 and their styles look similar. Plus being able to get the tough couple yds
It is a good comparison in terms of style; I was just pointing out that as Fitz said it's a bit early to substantively compare a freshman with 4 starts to a Heisman finalist.

Bowser's ceiling is probably Autry given their similar running styles, which is a very exciting thought, but I guess we're going to see how he adapts and matures.

This Iowa game more than any other felt like Bowser's coming out party; I'd imagine whoever we face in the Big Ten championship game will try to make sure he doesn't get going. Will probably be the first time he faces real adversity in terms of a defense out to stop him.


You combine an RB with a year like Autry had in '95 with the potential that Johnson and our WR group can have next year..., sky is the limit.
 
It is a good comparison in terms of style; I was just pointing out that as Fitz said it's a bit early to substantively compare a freshman with 4 starts to a Heisman finalist.

Bowser's ceiling is probably Autry given their similar running styles, which is a very exciting thought, but I guess we're going to see how he adapts and matures.

This Iowa game more than any other felt like Bowser's coming out party; I'd imagine whoever we face in the Big Ten championship game will try to make sure he doesn't get going. Will probably be the first time he faces real adversity in terms of a defense out to stop him.


You combine an RB with a year like Autry had in '95 with the potential that Johnson and our WR group can have next year..., sky is the limit.
I still think Noah Herron is a better comparison. If he can have a career like Noah's we'll be very happy. Noah rushed for 2,524 yards and averaged 5.5 ypc, caught 72 passes averaging 10.8 ypc and scored 28 TDs. Very under rated NU back.
 
Last edited:
Bowser's stride reminds me of Devon White, to use a cross-sport example. White was a long strider who didn't look like he was moving too fast, right up until the point he snagged a fly ball in the gap or beat a lazy throw to the bag.

Bowser, of course, weighs about 40 more pounds than Devo did in his playing days.
 
I wish I could notice this level of detail while watching a game. It’s easy to focus on a player or two, but understanding schemes in action is beyond my ken.

Me neither. Which is why I get incensed when posters with a similar lack of ability in regard to observational analysis claim members of the most successful coaching staff in NUs history should be fired, based on their limited understanding of what they see on the field.
 
My DA1 comparisons were based on his running style.

I still think Noah Herron is a better comparison.

Bowser's stride reminds me of Devon White, to use a cross-sport example.


For a more recent comparison, Bowser really reminds me of former Pitt and Le'Veon Bell replacement, James Conner.

Both have a real physical style of running, and like Connor, as the season as gone on, Bowser has started to cut-back, etc. make tacklers miss instead of just barreling straight into them (which they both still do at the end of runs).

Both are 6-1 and Connor had a 4.65 40 time at the combine at 233 lbs.

Can see Bowser get up to 225-228 lbs by his Soph or Jr. seasons.
 
And remember, we stuffed Conner t the Pinstripe Bowl a couple of years ago. Our defense has been solid vs. the run for quite awhile now.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT