After watching the film. (Steve Deace observation)

[DP5555]

Clayborn is facing double a triple teams on most plays where he has a decent attempt at a sack (2nd and 3rd and longs). If you watch him closely you'll see that he's playing his heart out and that's all anyone can ask. It has to be difficult to decide what moves to make and when to make them when you have no idea whether 1,2, or even 3 guys might be keeping their eyes on him. He isn't a tank he can't just roll over everyone... especially not when they're diving at this knees.

I have to admit, it's EXTREMELY frustrating to me to watch our defense consistently give up the 5-10 yard hook or out route. I swear if a team was actually patient enough to just do that all the way down the field they probably could. Yes, I understand we're a bend but don't break defense and that is just a part of it. However, mixing a little press coverage in there wouldn't necessarily change the dynamic of the defense. It's pretty amazing how few times I've seen pass interference penalties against any of our dbacks this year.

 

[olivecourt]

There is a substantial portion of plays where our d-line doesn't even rush the passer. They take a step back and put up their hands, trying to take away passing lanes especially over the middle. Someone who knows more about football can weigh in on this, but my guess is that this is partly a response to our lack of experience at the linebacker spot-- making it tougher for QBs to throw lasers over the middle is going to make the LBs job much easier.

Yes, sacks are nice. But they are not the goal of the game. Purdue is tied for fifth in the nation with 27 sacks, but they're also giving up almost 28 points a game.

 

[ICHawk24]

Indiana averaged 4.8 yards per pass attempt on Saturday. That number is very low.

TCU leads the nation in allowing 4.8 on the season.

Hawkeyes are tied for 12th at 5.9.

Hawkeye fans just can't see the forest for the trees. Indiana had a poor day offensively Saturday. Yet most fans think they killed us with the pass, when reality says otherwise.

cfbstats.com - 2010 National Team Leaders

 

[olivecourt]

Clauss sums up the effectiveness of the D pretty well in MMQ:

"Late in the game, Chappell started to get chirpy with one of his teammates. He seemed to be getting frustrated and I think a lot of that has to do with him being used to throwing for more yards and more big plays. He hadn’t done much until late. He had hit some throws but he hadn’t gotten many yards out of them. He was frustrated, but to his credit he put together the drive at the end. But it’s tough for opposing quarterbacks against our defense. It’s like putting all day, sometimes you want to break out the driver and he seemed frustrated."

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

I think that another issue is the following ....

- Edds was a Ferentz-era all-time best LB at LEO ... particularly in coverage.
- Angerer was arguably a Ferentz-era all-time best LB at MIKE ... particularly in coverage.
- Spievey was a Ferentz-era all-time best at CB.

It's common knowledge that if you force the QB to hold onto the ball just a bit longer ... then that gives the DL more time to get pressure on the QB.

While I'm not displeased with Hyde and I love the potential of our FR LBs ... it's a no-brainer that our DL is having to play with a little less support from the back-seven in coverage. For as good as the front four is ... they still can't do it all. In fact, in some respects, they're probably playing a bit too "tight" ... and putting a bit too much on their shoulders. They need to take care of their responsibilities, have fun, and just get after it. They're definitely a hard working group.

 

[JonDMiller]

I've said it 18 times already...but I think the coaching staff has really dropped the ball in ALLOWING opposition offenses to scheme away from them like this.

Could you explain exactly what you mean with this? If it's in jest, my apology for not reading into that.

 

[SpecialKHawk]

The strategy of our defense is 'bend but don't break'. The key is to not give up 'big plays' which put points on the board with very little time coming off the game clock. Instead force a team to execute 10-15 plays if they are going to score and hopefully give up only a FG at worst. It makes a lot of sense. Kicking a large number of FG's keeps the other team in the game. It takes 3 FG's to trump a single TD.

That's exactly what happened with the IU game. On offense we had 5 scoring opportunities, converting 4 but only for a total of 12 points. This allowed IU to hang around and with two TD scoring drives negate 4 FG scoring drives. Fortunately they dropped the last TD pass.

We have beaten a number of teams by preventing quick scores and simply forcing FG's on defense. A great example of this that comes to mind was our big upset of Penn St 2 years ago. They drove up and down the field numerous times in the first half but we forced a number of FG's which allowed us to 'hang around' despite the statistical imbalance. Suddenly, we get a TD or two in the second half and we are back in the game. Momentum shifts and Murray nails an FG at the end.

The opposite side was this year's Wisconsin game. We gave up 4 long scoring TD drives. If we had forced FG's on 2 of the 4 we would have won despite all of the other mistakes - that simple.

I really understand our concept and appreciate it. Does it work all the time? No. Does it drive us bonkers at time? Yes. But statistically it bears itself out over time.

This is the anit-Oregon answer. How did OSU dismantle this 'high-scoring' Oregon fraud in the Rose Bowl? Grind it out offensively finishing drives with TD's and not giving up quick scores on defense. This shortens the game, limits opportunities and frustrates the hell of out those offenses.

The approach; don't settle for FG's on offense and force FG's on defense.

 

[hawkfan340]

Clayborn is NOT getting double and triple teamed on every play, not even most plays. He is not playing as well this season. Still good, but he is not dominating 1 on 1 like last year.

Wow, completely disagree. Okay, not on every single play. But on every passing play that isn't rolled directly away from him, he is. The one exception was with Carimi and even then, on probably half of their passing plays, Carimi was getting help. No one else has even tried to build a pocket without putting two guys on Clayborn.

 

[hawkfan340]

I think that another issue is the following ....

- Edds was a Ferentz-era all-time best LB at LEO ... particularly in coverage.
- Angerer was arguably a Ferentz-era all-time best LB at MIKE ... particularly in coverage.
- Spievey was a Ferentz-era all-time best at CB.

It's common knowledge that if you force the QB to hold onto the ball just a bit longer ... then that gives the DL more time to get pressure on the QB.

While I'm not displeased with Hyde and I love the potential of our FR LBs ... it's a no-brainer that our DL is having to play with a little less support from the back-seven in coverage. For as good as the front four is ... they still can't do it all. In fact, in some respects, they're probably playing a bit too "tight" ... and putting a bit too much on their shoulders. They need to take care of their responsibilities, have fun, and just get after it. They're definitely a hard working group.

This is the best post I read describing the "lack of pressure" by our D-line. Their performance has been just as good as last year (and actually much better when you consider our run defense and lack of experience with LBs).

 

[Xerxes]

I find it a bit surprising that people are choosing this particular time to vent frustrations about Iowa's defense. Other than the 2nd and 24 stiuation they gave up in which there is no excuse, they played pretty well the entire game.

The gave up a TD drive and allowed a WR to get wide open on the last play and got lucky he dropped it but to hold Indiana to 13 is acceptable.

Michigan abused them in the air, Wisconsin abused them on the ground when it counted and in the air pretty much at will. Thats when the frustration should have boiled over.

 

[homes]

The strategy of our defense is 'bend but don't break'. The key is to not give up 'big plays' which put points on the board with very little time coming off the game clock. Instead force a team to execute 10-15 plays if they are going to score and hopefully give up only a FG at worst. It makes a lot of sense. Kicking a large number of FG's keeps the other team in the game. It takes 3 FG's to trump a single TD.

That's exactly what happened with the IU game. On offense we had 5 scoring opportunities, converting 4 but only for a total of 12 points. This allowed IU to hang around and with two TD scoring drives negate 4 FG scoring drives. Fortunately they dropped the last TD pass.

We have beaten a number of teams by preventing quick scores and simply forcing FG's on defense. A great example of this that comes to mind was our big upset of Penn St 2 years ago. They drove up and down the field numerous times in the first half but we forced a number of FG's which allowed us to 'hang around' despite the statistical imbalance. Suddenly, we get a TD or two in the second half and we are back in the game. Momentum shifts and Murray nails an FG at the end.

The opposite side was this year's Wisconsin game. We gave up 4 long scoring TD drives. If we had forced FG's on 2 of the 4 we would have won despite all of the other mistakes - that simple.

I really understand our concept and appreciate it. Does it work all the time? No. Does it drive us bonkers at time? Yes. But statistically it bears itself out over time.

This is the anit-Oregon answer. How did OSU dismantle this 'high-scoring' Oregon fraud in the Rose Bowl? Grind it out offensively finishing drives with TD's and not giving up quick scores on defense. This shortens the game, limits opportunities and frustrates the hell of out those offenses.

The approach; don't settle for FG's on offense and force FG's on defense.

I agree. Iowa clearly counts on their opponents not being able to put together 4 or 5 long scoring drives. A penalty, an incompletion, a turnover will negate most college teams from sustaining multiple 10-15 play drives. Play field position, make the opponent go 80+ yards to score, and more times than not, they won't be able to do it. Wisconsin, excepted, this year, and Iowa still almost won that game. It's like sabermatics for football.

 

[JonDMiller]

Michigan is putting up yards against everyone. They r quite unique. Wisconsin has the best offensive line in college football imo and the best in the big ten since Iowa line in 2002

Sometimes the other team makes plays and has good players too

 

[busabus114]

That and you can almost make the argument that the D line won the game on the last play of the game. They all got a big jump and were right in his face....forcing him to throw it higher and making the receiver stretch for it and pull it in. If they weren't in his face that pass may very well have been right at his chest for an easy catch.

It was right in his chest anyways

I would argue that Belcher won the game on that last play

 

[JonDMiller]

It was right in his chest anyways

I would argue that Belcher won the game on that last play

There were two huge drops on successive plays...Greenwood let an interception go right through his hands...both of them, on the play before. Game would have been over. Indiana had a drop on the next play.

 

[busabus114]

There were two huge drops on successive plays...Greenwood let an interception go right through his hands...both of them, on the play before. Game would have been over. Indiana had a drop on the next play.

I agree...I wasnt calling out the defense

Just pointing out that Belcher gave us the W with that drop....d backs drop balls, good wr usually dont

Out of the two plays Iowa was much much luckier

 

[Stiles]

Yeah, I disagree with him in some ways and did so on the phone with him around midnight Saturday. When you know going in that a team has a quick release offense, and your head coach tells the media on Tuesday and then again on pregame radio show not to expect many sacks, you shouldnt be surprised. they got some pressure on him at times real quick, mostly from the inside. They also did some inside twists to confuse the center a bit, as Clauss pointed out.

The guys were doing their work. Clayborn was getting blocked by the T, chipped by the TE at times, and they were sending a third blocker at him with the RB who was cutting at his legs.

The guy ain't freaking superman.

Something that keeps getting lost is that Chappell had his second worst passing day of the season from a rating standpoint, with the game AT ohio state being the worst..that Iowa held him nearly 100 yards below his average...that they got their hands on six passes..that they held Indiana under their rushing yards per game average of 97...that they held Indiana to one touchdown and 18 points below their season scoring average.

Somehow, and I don't really know how, all of that is getting lost. To focus on the last play of the game where someone got open and dropped a ball is hardly an accurate way to analyze a 60 minute performance. To not factor in a team's offensive philosophy and how quickly they get rid of the ball and criticize the defense for not getting a consistent pass rush is hardly an accurate way to break down this game.

Thank you, thank you. I am so glad the at least the owner of the site is reasonable, unlike most of you.

 

[mehawk]

Iowa is going to see a lot of the same quick pass plays from Northwestern on Saturday. Just so everyone knows...we're probably not going to see a lot of sacks!

One thing I'd like to see them do if they don't get to the QB though is to take a look in the backfield to see when he's going to throw, jump up, and bat more passes down. I think this could be a more effective technique against teams like Indiana and Northwestern.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

This is the best post I read describing the "lack of pressure" by our D-line. Their performance has been just as good as last year (and actually much better when you consider our run defense and lack of experience with LBs).

The 2010 D reminds me a lot, thus far, of the '08 D. Particularly good against the run ... and awfully disruptive ... however, not getting the sack numbers that one would probably expect.

 

[SeattleHawkeye]

Could you explain exactly what you mean with this? If it's in jest, my apology for not reading into that.

What I think he means is that if the opposing O is throwing quicker passes and not giving the DL an opportunity to get pressure, the coaches should move the DB's and LB's into tighter coverages and force quicker, tougher (usually) throws. The soft zone IA plays is ideal for O's that will use short routes and quick throws, and is very challenging for DL to get sacks if the opposing O has a patient QB and coaching staff (b/c they can run those all day). That being said, usually if you move your DB's into tighter coverages, there's a much larger chance for big plays by the O, namely fades, quick slants w/ the WR's hitting seams, or the DL not getting quick pressure and suddenly your DB's are covering longer than normal. I think MSU would've been an opportune time to move the CB's up from their normal depth on the WR's, but it's tough to complain w/ the results. Not that it wasn't known before, but IA's D has been basically the same vanilla scheme for many years, being fairly successful. Posters are correct - the bend but don't break can be unbelievably frustrating to endure, but it challenges teams to have 10-15 play drives, which most colleges offenses can't do.

As for Clayborn, he was blocked multiple time Sat. by a RB, 1:1. Usually in those situations they slid Chappell away from Clayborn, but more importantly Chappell got the ball out of his hands quickly, as have most QB's this year facing IA. I will say I saw AC get cut early in the game by a RB, w/ a OT waiting to hit AC as soon as he got up - it was almost an illegal high-low. I don't know if the intent is to send an early message, but it wouldn't surprise me, and is a good plan as long as they're staying legal and not hi-lowing AC.

 

[JonDMiller]

What I think he means is that if the opposing O is throwing quicker passes and not giving the DL an opportunity to get pressure, the coaches should move the DB's and LB's into tighter coverages and force quicker, tougher (usually) throws. The soft zone IA plays is ideal for O's that will use short routes and quick throws, and is very challenging for DL to get sacks if the opposing O has a patient QB and coaching staff (b/c they can run those all day). That being said, usually if you move your DB's into tighter coverages, there's a much larger chance for big plays by the O, namely fades, quick slants w/ the WR's hitting seams, or the DL not getting quick pressure and suddenly your DB's are covering longer than normal. I think MSU would've been an opportune time to move the CB's up from their normal depth on the WR's, but it's tough to complain w/ the results. Not that it wasn't known before, but IA's D has been basically the same vanilla scheme for many years, being fairly successful. Posters are correct - the bend but don't break can be unbelievably frustrating to endure, but it challenges teams to have 10-15 play drives, which most colleges offenses can't do.

If that is the thought process, and if people find the micro hard to endure, take solace in the repeated macro results...and wait until the game ends. It's worked far more often than it has not. Since 2002 through 2009, Iowa has the 15th best winning percentage in all of FBS, and 12th if you count just the BCS conference schools. Scoreboard.

Iowa does change its scheme a bit against teams that get rid of it quick...that's when they use the 3-4 or have gone nickel through the years, though they don't do it much. This year, they are down on the number of healthy and capable backers.