Jon - please tell me this came out differently than it was typed

[DodgerHawki]

I hear you, but what is it that you think...

I understand that we try to stick to our philosophy. But when the players just aren't there to execute it as well, why do we not adjust the schemes some to make up the difference?

should be done that hasn't been done/tried already? We hear calls that we need to play nickel more. Well, on the last NU possession, Castillo was in the whole drive as the nickel back, we took out a LB. He proceeded to whiff on tackling Persa at the line of scrimmage on a 22-yard run and then get completely turned around by Trumpy out of the backfield for another long-gainer. Not picking on him, as he's not the reason Iowa lost, but in that case Iowa did bring in an extra DB with no better results.

The second-to-last Northwestern drive we blitzed and played man coverage on multiple occassions. One time even bringing a corner blitz. It didn't matter. Persa ended up hitting Ebert in the end zone with Greenwood trailing him right as Sash was crashing into him.

My point is that the staff tried darn near everything they could throw out there on the last two drives. It just wasn't good enough. We could have played some 3-4 I suppose but by that time Tarpinian was out with an injury so not sure we could have lined up effectively in a 3-4.

Everyone dislikes losing. But sometimes you lose because you just were not as good, not because the scheme sucked or you didn't gamplan properly. Lots of chatter here that Persa "knew what were were going to do." Big deal, most times a QB has a good idea of what the defense is going to do. And for all of that, NU went 8 straight drives from their first TD to their last two with 6 punts, a missed FG and an interception.

Yes, the defense couldn't do it at the end, but didn't we also "need it" during the middle portion of the game when the Iowa offense put together only two good drives and got us out to a 17-7 lead. The game was lost by Iowa not taking advantage of stopping Northwestern on 8 straight possessions. Do some more scoring and the last two Northwestern possessions don't matter.

There's plenty of examples of teams that lose when their talent level drops off. Oklahoma lost games last year when Bradform and Gresham were out and they had to play Landry Jones. Is Stoops an idiot for not changing his scheme, or just a genius when Bradford is playing QB. Same for Mack Brown. Amazing that Texas' offense was superb when Vince Young and Colt McCoy are playing QB and not as good with Garrett Gilbert in there. Should Texas dump their scheme? And would it even matter?

It gets back to the question, what exactly should Iowa be doing from a schemes perspective? Going to the shotgun spread-zone read offense is a non-starter. And what would be gained by putting 9 men at the LOS and playing man everywhere on defense? We don't have the personnel to pull that off.

Losing stinks, and I'm sure no one cares more than the players. The defense has not been as good as advertised or hoped for, but if there's one place for blame this year it's special teams. Period. Gave up 15 points directly or missed out on at Arizona, then left 4 points on the field against Wisconsin (blocked PAT and mishandled FG snap), and another 7 when Wisky runs the fake punt. You are never going to be perfect on ST, but just average in those games gives Iowa a win.

 

[sergeanthulka]

Re: I hear you, but what is it that you think...

should be done that hasn't been done/tried already? We hear calls that we need to play nickel more. Well, on the last NU possession, Castillo was in the whole drive as the nickel back, we took out a LB. He proceeded to whiff on tackling Persa at the line of scrimmage on a 22-yard run and then get completely turned around by Trumpy out of the backfield for another long-gainer. Not picking on him, as he's not the reason Iowa lost, but in that case Iowa did bring in an extra DB with no better results.

The second-to-last Northwestern drive we blitzed and played man coverage on multiple occassions. One time even bringing a corner blitz. It didn't matter. Persa ended up hitting Ebert in the end zone with Greenwood trailing him right as Sash was crashing into him.

My point is that the staff tried darn near everything they could throw out there on the last two drives. It just wasn't good enough. We could have played some 3-4 I suppose but by that time Tarpinian was out with an injury so not sure we could have lined up effectively in a 3-4.

Everyone dislikes losing. But sometimes you lose because you just were not as good, not because the scheme sucked or you didn't gamplan properly. Lots of chatter here that Persa "knew what were were going to do." Big deal, most times a QB has a good idea of what the defense is going to do. And for all of that, NU went 8 straight drives from their first TD to their last two with 6 punts, a missed FG and an interception.

Yes, the defense couldn't do it at the end, but didn't we also "need it" during the middle portion of the game when the Iowa offense put together only two good drives and got us out to a 17-7 lead. The game was lost by Iowa not taking advantage of stopping Northwestern on 8 straight possessions. Do some more scoring and the last two Northwestern possessions don't matter.

There's plenty of examples of teams that lose when their talent level drops off. Oklahoma lost games last year when Bradform and Gresham were out and they had to play Landry Jones. Is Stoops an idiot for not changing his scheme, or just a genius when Bradford is playing QB. Same for Mack Brown. Amazing that Texas' offense was superb when Vince Young and Colt McCoy are playing QB and not as good with Garrett Gilbert in there. Should Texas dump their scheme? And would it even matter?

It gets back to the question, what exactly should Iowa be doing from a schemes perspective? Going to the shotgun spread-zone read offense is a non-starter. And what would be gained by putting 9 men at the LOS and playing man everywhere on defense? We don't have the personnel to pull that off.

Losing stinks, and I'm sure no one cares more than the players. The defense has not been as good as advertised or hoped for, but if there's one place for blame this year it's special teams. Period. Gave up 15 points directly or missed out on at Arizona, then left 4 points on the field against Wisconsin (blocked PAT and mishandled FG snap), and another 7 when Wisky runs the fake punt. You are never going to be perfect on ST, but just average in those games gives Iowa a win.

This is a reasonable post.

I don't agree completely with it...but I appreciate the tenor. I know, for example, the casual fan doesn't seem to realize we blited A LOT Saturday (and played a ton of nickel). My issue is that, we blitz predictably, from too far away, & we rarely 'roll up' the coverage in concert with the blitz. We also rarely, if ever, give different looks - pre-snap - to confuse a QB. Or jump from a blitz look -pre-snap - & fade back into the base defense. 90% of the time, our simple approach works (and I'll bet it will again this week)...yet, I'd like to see us have a few more 'tricks in the bag' for the times when it clearly isn't working.

KF made the comment that 'hopefully your scheme ACCENTUATES the strengths & weaknesses you have'...I think, in the case of last week's game (and IU, the week before) it was exactly the opposite.

Both games were decided having our LB's & Corners (against their WR's & Backs) being the focal point of the matchup...That's too bad, because the unquestioned strength of our defense is the front 4 & the Safeties...

 

[deanvogs]

Re: I hear you, but what is it that you think...

should be done that hasn't been done/tried already? We hear calls that we need to play nickel more. Well, on the last NU possession, Castillo was in the whole drive as the nickel back, we took out a LB. He proceeded to whiff on tackling Persa at the line of scrimmage on a 22-yard run and then get completely turned around by Trumpy out of the backfield for another long-gainer. Not picking on him, as he's not the reason Iowa lost, but in that case Iowa did bring in an extra DB with no better results.

The second-to-last Northwestern drive we blitzed and played man coverage on multiple occassions. One time even bringing a corner blitz. It didn't matter. Persa ended up hitting Ebert in the end zone with Greenwood trailing him right as Sash was crashing into him.

My point is that the staff tried darn near everything they could throw out there on the last two drives. It just wasn't good enough. We could have played some 3-4 I suppose but by that time Tarpinian was out with an injury so not sure we could have lined up effectively in a 3-4.

Everyone dislikes losing. But sometimes you lose because you just were not as good, not because the scheme sucked or you didn't gamplan properly. Lots of chatter here that Persa "knew what were were going to do." Big deal, most times a QB has a good idea of what the defense is going to do. And for all of that, NU went 8 straight drives from their first TD to their last two with 6 punts, a missed FG and an interception.

Yes, the defense couldn't do it at the end, but didn't we also "need it" during the middle portion of the game when the Iowa offense put together only two good drives and got us out to a 17-7 lead. The game was lost by Iowa not taking advantage of stopping Northwestern on 8 straight possessions. Do some more scoring and the last two Northwestern possessions don't matter.

There's plenty of examples of teams that lose when their talent level drops off. Oklahoma lost games last year when Bradform and Gresham were out and they had to play Landry Jones. Is Stoops an idiot for not changing his scheme, or just a genius when Bradford is playing QB. Same for Mack Brown. Amazing that Texas' offense was superb when Vince Young and Colt McCoy are playing QB and not as good with Garrett Gilbert in there. Should Texas dump their scheme? And would it even matter?

It gets back to the question, what exactly should Iowa be doing from a schemes perspective? Going to the shotgun spread-zone read offense is a non-starter. And what would be gained by putting 9 men at the LOS and playing man everywhere on defense? We don't have the personnel to pull that off.

Losing stinks, and I'm sure no one cares more than the players. The defense has not been as good as advertised or hoped for, but if there's one place for blame this year it's special teams. Period. Gave up 15 points directly or missed out on at Arizona, then left 4 points on the field against Wisconsin (blocked PAT and mishandled FG snap), and another 7 when Wisky runs the fake punt. You are never going to be perfect on ST, but just average in those games gives Iowa a win.

I nominate this for POST OF THE YEAR, great job Dodger!!

I just want to pull my hair out with the people who want more blitzes, or nickel....Watch the freaking NW game, we did those things, and got burned badly when we did.

Typically when we lose it is about execution, our schemes always give us a chance to win the game. If we don't win, everyone wants to blame schemes, and I don't get it. Sure if you want to question clock management, and specific calls during the game, well yeah, fair game, b!tch away!!! If you really think we win more games by playing a Rich Rod Michigan style defense, your freaking nuts. If you think this teams wins by putting Stanzi into the shotgun and throw it 40-50 times, you are freaking nuts.

 

[DodgerHawki]

Fair points...

This is a reasonable post.

I don't agree completely with it...but I appreciate the tenor. I know, for example, the casual fan doesn't seem to realize we blited A LOT Saturday (and played a ton of nickel). My issue is that, we blitz predictably, from too far away, & we rarely 'roll up' the coverage in concert with the blitz. We also rarely, if ever, give different looks - pre-snap - to confuse a QB. Or jump from a blitz look -pre-snap - & fade back into the base defense. 90% of the time, our simple approach works (and I'll bet it will again this week)...yet, I'd like to see us have a few more 'tricks in the bag' for the times when it clearly isn't working.

KF made the comment that 'hopefully your scheme ACCENTUATES the strengths & weaknesses you have'...I think, in the case of last week's game (and IU, the week before) it was exactly the opposite.

Both games were decided having our LB's & Corners (against their WR's & Backs) being the focal point of the matchup...That's too bad, because the unquestioned strength of our defense is the front 4 & the Safeties...

I don't know enough about football to determine if we could be doing more pre-snap to confuse the offense. My guess is that we probably could. I would agree we don't time our blitzes well. Morris seems to have a knack for it, and Tarpinian definitely did in the limited time he was able to play this year (ISU and Arizona).

But I'm not sure how you change the focal point of the matchup against Northwestern and Indiana. They do spread you out and force defenses to cover and tackle in space. The front 4 caused havoc for Persa throughout the game, we had 3 sacks, forced an intentional grounding and only Persa's ability saved another 3-4 sacks. My view is that rushing 4 and covering with 7 does accentuate the strengths (such as they are) of this Iowa defense. That gives us the best chance for success.

 

[tm3308]

I don't really advocate for more more blitzing, as that requires a little too much overhaul. And since I really only want to see the tweaks against the teams that run offenses designed to beat our defense, blitzing doesn't do anything but make it tougher, because the underneath routes are left even more open.

Man coverage isn't what I necessarily advocate for (that's something where you absolutely have to have the players to do it), though if we had a couple guys like Amari I'd be perfectly fine with it.

I'd just like to see us play a straight Cover 2. Don't put the corners 10 yards off the LOS. Put them within 5 yards, put pressure on the receivers, and keep the corners in the flats. Northwestern and Indiana don't go deep unless they're playing somebody like Towson (which makes it like taking candy from a baby). They go underneath (against us, that's ALSO like taking candy from a baby). By taking away that underneath stuff, even for just a second or two, we give our D-Line a chance to do what they do best. The way it is right now, Persa can get rid of it quickly because his receivers are open immediately.

I don't want total overhaul, believe me. What we do works against seemingly everyone else because nearly every team's passing game likes to stretch the field vertically, which means we tell them: be patient and take the short stuff, or try to do what you want to do and suffer the consequences (interceptions). But IU and NW work in reverse, they WANT to go short.

 

[lightning1]

I don't like the way that sounds, either. That sounds like we don't make shifts in our philosophy to suit our strengths on defense, and we just stick with it. When the right players are in place, it's great. When they're not?.....(See Klink matched up on Bates)

I think that is exactly what he meant and I think thats how its coached.
I think the offensive and defensive systems dont vary much from year to year, in spite of the different personel strenths. A minor shift in run/pass % not withstanding.
Its a low risk approach. I am not condemning or condoning it. I do think some obvious shifts in the defense are logical. Such as:

Last season we had great LB coverage in the passing game. They made plays and forced INTs. It gave the DL enough time to get after the QB.

This year, we have a great DL and a injury riddled LB group. Opposing QBs have been picking our LBs apart with short passes before our DL can get to them. This is where I would make a change. Play press coverage and bring the LBs up towards the LOS. Force opposing QBs to have to hold onto the ball for an extra second or two. Give our DL a chance to make plays. Force the QB into INTs with happy feet.
We will be open to WRs getting behind us but their QBs will take a beating in the process.
Our DL is the strength of this D. Give them a chance to be disruptive.