Any Iowa D Changes

[pacoyal]

As much as we "know" that Iowa and Norm's D does not change. I was a little encouraged to see (as much as any Iowa fan can be encouraged to see our coach say that we gave up too much) that Kirk finally acknowledged how little the D was able to do for most of the day against an Indiana offense.

Yes, I know we are stuck in our ways. That being said with Kirk's comments, do ya'll feel there is a chance that we do what we actually need to do (blitzing more than we have)?

 

[CAARHawk]

No. I expect personnel changes.

 

[imported_ankle23]

As much as we "know" that Iowa and Norm's D does not change. I was a little encouraged to see (as much as any Iowa fan can be encouraged to see our coach say that we gave up too much) that Kirk finally acknowledged how little the D was able to do for most of the day against an Indiana offense.

Yes, I know we are stuck in our ways. That being said with Kirk's comments, do ya'll feel there is a chance that we do what we actually need to do (blitzing more than we have)?

why do you think blitzing will improve this defense? how many times did you count us blitzing today?

how about that dime package today? that's something out of the 'norm'. how'd that work out on 3rd and long?

regarding what Ferentz says about the defense, he has said that unit needs to improve many times this year if they are going to end up where they want to end up.

 

[RocknRollface]

why do you think blitzing will improve this defense? how many times did you count us blitzing today?

how about that dime package today? that's something out of the 'norm'. how'd that work out on 3rd and long?

regarding what Ferentz says about the defense, he has said that unit needs to improve many times this year if they are going to end up where they want to end up.

Because we cant get pressure and we cant stop a third down. Continually giving up long drives is the worst possible scenario. The other team eats up all the clock and your D is shot by the fourth quarter.

Blitzing will give up some big plays but it will also work half the time.

Either way you get off the field, get the offense back in, and your D atleast isn't worn out.

This D doesnt have enough size up front to make this scheme work. All they have is speed.

When we have Blitzed we have gotten to the QB fairly regularly, although they have had trouble tackling.

 

[imported_ankle23]

Because we cant get pressure and we cant stop a third down. Continually giving up long drives is the worst possible scenario. The other team eats up all the clock and your D is shot by the fourth quarter.

Blitzing will give up some big plays but it will also work half the time.

Either way you get off the field, get the offense back in, and your D atleast isn't worn out.

This D doesnt have enough size up front to make this scheme work. All they have is speed.

When we have Blitzed we have gotten to the QB fairly regularly, although they have had trouble tackling.

how many times did we blitz today, and how many times did it work?

You say blitzing works 50% of the time for us.

 

[olivecourt]

Because we cant get pressure and we cant stop a third down. Continually giving up long drives is the worst possible scenario. The other team eats up all the clock and your D is shot by the fourth quarter.

Blitzing will give up some big plays but it will also work half the time.

Either way you get off the field, get the offense back in, and your D atleast isn't worn out.

This D doesnt have enough size up front to make this scheme work. All they have is speed.

When we have Blitzed we have gotten to the QB fairly regularly, although they have had trouble tackling.

So a key part of your strategy is to get off the field by letting teams score more quickly? Got it. You know, I think I'll stick with Norm on this one.

 

[WayzataHawkeye]

No. I expect personnel changes.

Who?

I have to believe they get Alston on the field. Morris either sits or moves outside. Is realistic to think Derby can play this year? We are so desperate for more physical play perhaps it is worth the risk he would create in pass coverage??

I don't understand DL play enough to really evaluate but it seemed like Alvis took a step back today. After Binns and Daniels who do we have??

I thought Lowry looked good despite giving up one big play. Seems more physical than Hyde or Prater. That is the one group we seem to have decent options with.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

As always ... fans are too quick to try to solve problems with Xs and Os.

That's frankly NOT the problem with the Hawks.

The current problem with the Hawk D ....

- inexperience
- injuries
- poor tackling
- general inconsistency
- and, yes, while I don't want to give Jon too much credit ... but a number of the guys (particularly LBs) definitely could use another year of working with Doyle

 

[RocknRollface]

how many times did we blitz today, and how many times did it work?

You say blitzing works 50% of the time for us.

Not often, but I haven't rewatched it yet. Overall when we have blitzed we have gotten to the QB a good percentage of the time.

Today Morris came unblocked and just totally whiffed. Thats the only one I remeber off the top of my head today, although im sure there were a few more that didn't work.

 

[olivecourt]

FWIW, Northwestern is doing to Penn State exactly what they did to us, and Penn State had the Big Ten's #3 defense coming into the game. They have almost 450 yards and there are more than ten minutes left in the game.

 

[SeattleHawkeye]

As always ... fans are too quick to try to solve problems with Xs and Os.

That's frankly NOT the problem with the Hawks.

The current problem with the Hawk D ....

- inexperience
- injuries
- poor tackling
- general inconsistency
- and, yes, while I don't want to give Jon too much credit ... but a number of the guys (particularly LBs) definitely could use another year of working with Doyle

But when you have these issues, isn't coaching adjusting your x's and o's to accommodate? Play to your strengths and away from your weaknesses? I'm not sure what they can or should do, but I do know that if something isn't working, we should change it. I think this was a bigger issue at PSU, but maybe your post above implies that aren't x's and o's changes that will result in performance changes...And you may very well be correct.

 

[RocknRollface]

So a key part of your strategy is to get off the field by letting teams score more quickly? Got it. You know, I think I'll stick with Norm on this one.

And by getting sacks and forcing punts and turnovers. Lots of teams play a gambling style defense.

Honestly, how else do you expect to hang with MSU, Michigan, and Nebraska?

At some point you have to come to grips with the reality and act accordingly.
You cant just close your eyes and pretend that things are different than they are.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

But when you have these issues, isn't coaching adjusting your x's and o's to accommodate? Play to your strengths and away from your weaknesses? I'm not sure what they can or should do, but I do know that if something isn't working, we should change it. I think this was a bigger issue at PSU, but maybe your post above implies that aren't x's and o's changes that will result in performance changes...And you may very well be correct.

The simple answer ... in the pros, yes .... on the college level with a group of guys who still need to learn a ton, no.

Iowa's identity is based on producing NFL caliber players. If Iowa attempted to take such "short cuts" ... it could maybe make the difference in a game or two ... maybe backfire in another.

The offshoot is that if we try to rely too much upon "schematic" band-aids ... the development of the players, in general, will take a hit.

The question then is ... is the trade-off worth it. For some fans ... maybe. The problem is that those same fans seem to always place themselves in a fantasy world where all it will take is a few schematic changes ... and then all of a sudden Iowa will be a perennial national championship contending team. Sorry ... but that is laughable.

I agree that a rebuilding year like this one is full of very frustrating moments. However, for every year or two that we have like this ... we tend to have another 3 where we're capable of competing with ANY other team in the nation. I think that fans forget that. Furthermore, I really believe that a lot of Hawk fans really take what they have for granted. The sort of success that Iowa has been having for nearly a decade now is NOT A GIVEN. A bad year at Iowa is a good year for a good many other programs.

 

[NickM]

I am convinced at this point that you cannot defend four and five receiver sets playing two deep safeties without an exceptional d line. We are way too paranoid about getting beat deep against teams that don't even look to throw downfield.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

I am convinced at this point that you cannot defend four and five receiver sets playing two deep safeties without an exceptional d line. We are way too paranoid about getting beat deep against teams that don't even look to throw downfield.

We don't play 2-deep coverage all the time either.

Also, the thing that has hurt us the most, most recently, has be more closely related to the fact that our LBs are still developing when it comes to how they are in coverage. There is still plenty for them to learn about their pass-drops and plenty for them to learn about reading things more quickly and taking better breaks to the ball and/or pass-catcher.

I don't know how many times our LBs have "just missed" making a tackle for little gain against a RB and/or WR only for the play to turn into a decent to big gainer.

Those are some of the sorts of things that our guys need to clean up on.

And, of course, there's also the issue of having guys shed blockers better and all that too ...

 

[NickM]

We either play two deep or cover four, and the two safeties bail out big time once they recognize pass. Teams are able to get easy matchups on linebackers or they just flood one side. On third and ten instead of bringing pressure to force the qb to throw quickly we give then time to run intermediate and crossing routes across the field to the first down marker. It's not just a lack of talent.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

We either play two deep or cover four, and the two safeties bail out big time once they recognize pass. Teams are able to get easy matchups on linebackers or they just flood one side. On third and ten instead of bringing pressure to force the qb to throw quickly we give then time to run intermediate and crossing routes across the field to the first down marker. It's not just a lack of talent.

And yet with Angerer and Sash being known for roaming throughout the "center field" ... opposing Os were much more cautious about throwing the ball over the moddle ... and that includes most crossing routes.

We're obviously not enjoying a great year talent-wise on the DL ... not to say that the talent is bad either.

However, the D has plenty of ground to make up when it comes to coverage. And as other posters have pointed out .... even a pretty darn talented CB like Prater isn't always helping us out with some of the mistakes he's made.