2 telling defensive stats

Imlivingthedream said:
http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/natlRank.js...&div=IA&dest=O

http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/natlRank.js...&div=IA&dest=O

while the defense wasnt bad, their inability to get off the field on 3rd down, get tackles for loss, or get turnovers hurt this year.
Click to expand...


I've always wondered about what is missed by looking at the defensive stats at face value. By that, I'm referring to saying our defense is good because of the stats yards and points given up. Those stats don't take into account style of play. We don't give up a lot of yards/points because we play a cover-2 soft zone and don't blitz often. This often results in drives that consume a lot of the clock. I think points per posession would make more sense when evaluating a defense.
 
3rd down was EXTREMELY frustrating all year. One of the things that I look at as far as the differences in this year's offense and defense compared to next year are 2nd down for the O and 3rd down for the D. It seemed like, at least through the first 7 or so games, that the offense was routinely in 2nd and 6 or better. Just really firing off the ball hard and getting a good chunk of yards on first down. The D was routinely in 3rd and 3 or shorter, and failed to get off the field. It's one of the reasons I'm not a member of the "Fire KOK" contingent.
 
MidnightBlueSix said:
The D was routinely in 3rd and 3 or shorter, and failed to get off the field. It's one of the reasons I'm not a member of the "Fire KOK" contingent.
Click to expand...

The D was routinely in 3rd and 3's , etc... because the defensive philosophy is to play a 4-man rush soft zone. They are willing to concede a lot of the 5-6 yard routes to ensure that they don't give up the 15-20 yarders. Problem is, if quarterbacks complete 50+ percent of passes, which most do, there is a good chance they will have a 3rd and short if they throw on 1st and 2nd. While the defense may have ranked well for giving up points, it sure seems like we gave up a large number of sustained scoring drives that ate up a lot of time and kept the offense off the field.

I can't think of one NFL team that runs as vanilla of a defense as we do, and for good reason. It raises red flags when your defensive coordinator said the spread offense should be made illegal. His defense isn't suitable for stopping it and he is unwilling to adapt.
 
MidnightBlueSix said:
3rd down was EXTREMELY frustrating all year. One of the things that I look at as far as the differences in this year's offense and defense compared to next year are 2nd down for the O and 3rd down for the D. It seemed like, at least through the first 7 or so games, that the offense was routinely in 2nd and 6 or better. Just really firing off the ball hard and getting a good chunk of yards on first down. The D was routinely in 3rd and 3 or shorter, and failed to get off the field. It's one of the reasons I'm not a member of the "Fire KOK" contingent.
Click to expand...

True.

And while it's a side note, but did you notice that more often than not, the Hawkeye offense was never really in a 3rd and short situations themselves? I mean, maybe we were, but I just remember feeling like in a lot of our games, we would be in some obvious 3rd and long passing situations.

Our defense had a clear hole at the LB position that opened up a large swath of field for our opponents. And that is what they exploited...taking the shorter stuff underneath and continually sitting on 2nd and <5 or 3rd and 2, etc. That, combined with the fact that when the defense did get off the field, they were soon back out when the offense went 3 and out... did not bode well for us, IMO.
 
edr247 said:
True.

And while it's a side note, but did you notice that more often than not, the Hawkeye offense was never really in a 3rd and short situations themselves? I mean, maybe we were, but I just remember feeling like in a lot of our games, we would be in some obvious 3rd and long passing situations.

Our defense had a clear hole at the LB position that opened up a large swath of field for our opponents. And that is what they exploited...taking the shorter stuff underneath and continually sitting on 2nd and <5 or 3rd and 2, etc. That, combined with the fact that when the defense did get off the field, they were soon back out when the offense went 3 and out... did not bode well for us, IMO.
Click to expand...

I don't think the defense was as good as most people seem to believe or the offense was as bad as most assume. Yards and points scored/given up are not good indicators in my opinion. When you consistently give up 4-5 yard passes you don't allow the opponent the time to accumulate a large quantity of either. It effects the offense because we don't get the number of possessions as many of the offenses ranked higher than us in those categories.

Subjectively, I think the defense hurt us more than the offense did this year. When your defense is on the field that long you not only wear your players out (ex: Clayborn & Ballard), but you don't give your offense many opportunities nor the chance to establish consistency and get into rhythm.
 
Going into this year, I thought once we got a lead late we would be in great shape. Our d-line could just tee off on QBs and we could turn 7-10 point leads into 17-21 point leads. However, it turned out forcing to pass every down just made it easier for them to score. With the defense we play, any decent offense should be able to pick up a first down in four plays with no problem. We give them the four-five yard passes all day, how you don't adjust to try to take this away at some point makes no sense.
 
Agreed with everyone posting on this thread how do we send this thread to all these jokers that disagree with all the stats and insight!
 
This defense was only giving up 32% of third down trys to opposing offenses through the first 6 games. When the offense went AWOL in the Indiana game and onwards the defense started to give up 50% of third downs to opponents. I wonder why that was?
 
smoot27 said:
I don't think the defense was as good as most people seem to believe or the offense was as bad as most assume. Yards and points scored/given up are not good indicators in my opinion. When you consistently give up 4-5 yard passes you don't allow the opponent the time to accumulate a large quantity of either. It effects the offense because we don't get the number of possessions as many of the offenses ranked higher than us in those categories.

Subjectively, I think the defense hurt us more than the offense did this year. When your defense is on the field that long you not only wear your players out (ex: Clayborn & Ballard), but you don't give your offense many opportunities nor the chance to establish consistency and get into rhythm.
Click to expand...


And you dont think the offense going 3 and out and converting less thafn 45% of their third downs through the last 4 games had anything to do with the defense getting worn out? Because they were forced to keep going back out onto the field, everytime the offense turned the ball over or went 3 and out. Did you even watch the games? The defense was the only thing that kept Iowa in the Northwestern game they would have steam rolled us if our d didnt shut them down for 3/4ths of the game.
 
True FromFry....the KOK offensive debacle is well documented...you gotta figure under a KOK coached offense stats will equal out over the long haul...and lookie there we finished about where we always do under KOK 50+.
 
Although I will say this Oregon's offense is on the field allllllot less than Iowa's yet they are undefeated I believe.
 
edr247 said:
True.

And while it's a side note, but did you notice that more often than not, the Hawkeye offense was never really in a 3rd and short situations themselves? I mean, maybe we were, but I just remember feeling like in a lot of our games, we would be in some obvious 3rd and long passing situations.

Our defense had a clear hole at the LB position that opened up a large swath of field for our opponents. And that is what they exploited...taking the shorter stuff underneath and continually sitting on 2nd and <5 or 3rd and 2, etc. That, combined with the fact that when the defense did get off the field, they were soon back out when the offense went 3 and out... did not bode well for us, IMO.
Click to expand...


The offense did have some 3rd and shorts, but they were kinda rare because we were so often in 2nd and <5. That lead to a lot of 6 yard carries for first downs, or missed passes to give us 3rd and 4 or 3rd and 5. What makes this so frustrating is that for half of the year, the defense wasn't worn out because the offense wasn't getting a ton of 3 and outs. Then, the offense quit playing around 4th quarter MSU and the defense started to look a lot more average because they were on the field so much.
 
seepig said:
Although I will say this Oregon's offense is on the field allllllot less than Iowa's yet they are undefeated I believe.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Their offense is on the field a lot less than us because they have a lot more 2 or 3 play scoring drives than we do. If we suddenly discovered ways to pick up 60 yards per play on a routine basis, our offensive stats would be a lot more comparable.
 
It's not irrelevant but is somewhat apples to oranges because Oregon is playing from a 20 point lead most of the time so when their D gives up a 4th quarter drive the game was already on ice. To say that my post is irrelevant is BS. Because they score in 2-3 plays means then that the D isn't on the field alot more?! My point was the D not the O.
 
FromFry2Ferentz said:
And you dont think the offense going 3 and out and converting less thafn 45% of their third downs through the last 4 games had anything to do with the defense getting worn out? Because they were forced to keep going back out onto the field, everytime the offense turned the ball over or went 3 and out. Did you even watch the games? The defense was the only thing that kept Iowa in the Northwestern game they would have steam rolled us if our d didnt shut them down for 3/4ths of the game.
Click to expand...

Sure the offense was horrible that game and its been mediocre the whole season, but to give our defense credit for that game defies logic. We gave up 9 of 16 3rd Downs and allowed Persa to complete 32/43 passes for a 7+ yd avg. and over 300 yards. That is poor defensive efficiency. They were also incompetent coming up with a late stop as usual.
 
You guys want to continue to blame the offense. It's been proven that (a great) defense wins championships. Alabama had one in 2009. Ohio State had one in 2002?
Niether team had a good offense - Alabama's was close to Iowa's in 2009 but tOSU's was awful.

Great offenses never guarantee championships. Arizona Cardinals of 2007-2009.
Any Oklahoma State team under Gundy.

Finally, Iowa's offense could not be as productive as Wisconsin against teams like Northwestern and Indiana because of Iowa's defense which gave away a lot of TOP.
 
cabse5 said:
You guys want to continue to blame the offense. It's been proven that (a great) defense wins championships. Alabama had one in 2009. Ohio State had one in 2002?
Niether team had a good offense - Alabama's was close to Iowa's in 2009 but tOSU's was awful.

Great offenses never guarantee championships. Arizona Cardinals of 2007-2009.
Any Oklahoma State team under Gundy.

Finally, Iowa's offense could not be as productive as Wisconsin against teams like Northwestern and Indiana because of Iowa's defense which gave away a lot of TOP.
Click to expand...


Totally agree with the first 3 quarters of the post, however have to disagree with you on the final statement about Iowa's offense being as productive as Wisconsin vs. teams like NW and IU.

Iowa's offense is not capable of putting up Wisconsin type numbers for two primary reasons. Iowa has a history of taking it's foot of the gas petal once a decent sized lead is established and this staff would not run up a score the way Wisconsin does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top