Brian Ferentz Looking for Answers on Offense
- Thread starter RobHowe
- Start date
Northside Hawk
Well-Known Member
Anyone for a cheery bomb?
Luftgekuehlt67
Well-Known Member
I think many of the ideas in this thread require a much better OL and WR corps, but there seem to be some common sense adjustments from AFA here.
Obvious statement perhaps, but you always have to remember anything that has occurred to a halfway decent OC has also probably occurred to a halfway decent DC. Especially so in conference games this far into the season. That's why you are always introducing wrinkles and trying to disrupt your tendencies, but there is a big difference between "disrupting tendencies" and "changing your whole offensive philosophy". Ultimately, you gotta stick within the parameters of how you're built (probably a bit more so with Iowa since we tend to be on the talent limited side of things, especially in offensive skill positions).
It's an 11 v 11 game and, at this level of athletes, windows of opportunity tend to be small and fleeting. Unless you've played, coached, or made a serious study of game film at this level, it's probably hard for us mortals to get our brains wrapped around it.
OC seems to be the #1 job fans think they could do a better job at than most professionals. There's a shitload that goes into it - by play, by drive, by game, by season - and, unless you're lucky enough to have a major talent differential, the reality is most of a good game plan is about picking at the margins and hoping to effect a fractional improvement in yards per play over the course of a game.
Of course, BF, like any OC, isn't above reproach...I just think there is only so much you can tell from the couch. There have been, over the course of the season and literally 100s of offensive snaps, maybe 2-3 plays that were straight up "huh? Why?" situations for me but, even in those situations, I think you have to be open to the possibility as a couch coach that there was something intelligent going on beyond your grasp.
Speaking specifically of BF, him being the coach's kid, it's really easy to fall into "let them eat cake" type fantasies. As in, he's some spoiled brat who's been undeservedly been given the keys to the offense and could care less if he puts it into the ditch. It's possible, but I tend to think not:
1. Firstly, BF didn't just fall off the turnip truck. He's a relatively young guy, but he's followed a long road under intense tutelage from a variety of esteemed mentors (not the least of which being his old man)
2. If you are inclined to doubt his passion, he's lived and breathed Iowa football for essentially his entire life at this point at an intensity level that even the most ardent HN dweller would probably find extreme.
3. There is no question he is essentially in a long term try out for the HC job. If not The HC Job, at least a HC job. Even if you subscribe to a theory that's he's purely self-interested, then you have to accept there is something like $5M/yr on the table to keep him interested and motivated.
All in all, I have serious doubts BF is, through negligence, carelessness, or just pure stupidity, leaving a bunch of points on the field any given week. I do understand, from a fan psychology standpoint, why he is an attractive target for venting frustrations onto.
I agree but we didnt have the pass protection and Petras didnt have the time of 3.5 seconds or more to see long routes open up and throw.
You can throw long on hard play action first downs when teams usually dont blitz or come with all out pass rush but with an incompletion you are behind the chains.
With teams like Purdue stacking the box the hawk offense especially the TEnds should be able to get open up the hashes against probably a single high safety.
Well with 5 wide receivers and 5 OLinemen and one QB you do not have a running back to so I would go with speading 5 wides for an obvious passing play and one of the receivers being Goodson or IKM because they are the best runners in space.
Otherwise BYU used to have the 4 wideouts and the one running back who could run a draw quick hitter or be in their for pass protection
I dont remember the hawks running much of any wildcat against Purdue.
The wildcat with Goodson, IKM, and Tracy or Jones puts 3 elusive runners in the backfield that can attack a wide window along the LOS.
The wildcat is a quick hitter if a hole appears ahead and it can even turn into an double option of Goodson faking the first handoff one direction and then Goodson and the other running back going the other direction in tandem to option the edge.
No flea flickers
no half rollouts with a shovel pass to someone trailing the play like so many teams use
Maybe the hawks will not see a pass rush like Purdue the rest of the season but I think Wisky will bring it, so maybe a draw or screen pass now and then
And we never saw the slant in the Purdue game after the first one worked so well.
The wildcat with Goodson, IKM, and Tracy or Jones puts 3 elusive runners in the backfield that can attack a wide window along the LOS.
The wildcat is a quick hitter if a hole appears ahead and it can even turn into an double option of Goodson faking the first handoff one direction and then Goodson and the other running back going the other direction in tandem to option the edge.
No flea flickers
no half rollouts with a shovel pass to someone trailing the play like so many teams use
Maybe the hawks will not see a pass rush like Purdue the rest of the season but I think Wisky will bring it, so maybe a draw or screen pass now and then
And we never saw the slant in the Purdue game after the first one worked so well.
lazyhawkfan
Well-Known Member
I say to avoid negative 1st down plays, just qb seak behind your all american center on first down. Hell run it all game until they consistently stop it. Rarely does it go for less than 4-5 yards when we do run it. When they start crashing the middle of the line, hit a quick pitch to goodson or hit a pop pass to laporta.
Ben Rumson
Well-Known Member
HaydenHawk56
Well-Known Member
How about go into a punt formation with Petras being the punter and having the wall of 3 guys in front of him.....then throw out of that formation....should give him plenty of space and protection. LOL
HaydenHawk56
Well-Known Member
How about having Petras use that drop back step motion that Hayden had his QBs use to get more time to scan the field? Of would that cause Petras to trip over his own 2 feet?
Accuracy is not really his thing is it?
Recruit and then use more kids like Brandon Smith.. We criminally under used him in the redzones I thought... Granted 6'3 215 lb guys like him don't grow on trees either but there's a lot of bigger receivers out there that can go win jump balls. That Ankeny kid we just got that plays baseball he's like 6'4. If we can get that 6'5 kid of Kevin Kasper that'd be a huge help.
But yes when you call most all of your passing plays within 12 yards of the LOS it makes the defensive coordinators jobs a heck of a lot easier. You have to stretch the field early and sometimes often if that's how the defense is dictating things.
hawkfan2679
Well-Known Member
Long post alert.
First off...exactly to the above quote.
Secondly...I'm going to throw something out here, only because it's been something I've been thinking about when it comes to helping Petras out.
Legend:
Y: LaPorta
H: Lachey
X: Wide out (Tracy is #1 X, but anyone who runs this spot)
Z: Slot WR (Ragaini is #1 Z, but anyone who runs this spot)
12 personnel
...........................................H..T..G..C..G..T............................................Y
..................Z......................................Q..................................X
........
...........................................................T
12 personnel
.....H......................................T..G..C..G..T..Y.........................X
.............................Z.........................Q
.......
.........................................................T
Hopefully the format turns out. This is a personnel grouping that we already use a ton, but I don't know that I've ever seen us use this formation. The defining characteristic in the first one is that the Y is outside our X receiver, who is off the ball. The 2nd formation is different because the H is outside our Z and we're unbalanced to the X/Y side of the formation (to the right on the diagram above).
Here's where I think this could help our offense without wholesale changes:
* Personnel grouping would lend itself to more of a "normal" defensive structure, such as a regular 4-3/3-4...unless it's 3rd and long most teams probably aren't going to match our 12 personnel group with a nickel/dime personnel grouping of their own.
* Putting a TE wide forces the defense to dictate some of their coverage responsibilities. For example, if they put a LB/S out there wide on him, we know we're going to get man coverage or at least some form of man coverage. If a CB stays over the top of him, we might still get some man coverage, but if a CB is out there on the TE, that means we have our X (in the 1st diagram) or our Z (in the 2nd diagram) matched up on a safety 1 on 1. Additionally, if the CB stays over top of the TE, we're probably more likely to get zone coverage but the safety alignment will give some of that away.
* There is nothing in our 1 back offense that we can't run. We can still run our zone plays to either side, we still have our jet sweep options (with both receivers, depending on the formation) and depending on the alignment of the Z in the 1st alignment or the X in the 2nd alignment (w/ nasty splits) we have crack opportunities, which can lead to fake crack play action down the line.
* Quite frankly, both LaPorta and Lachey CAN be matchup nightmares depending on who they have covering them. I think both are 6'4"+ and both of them can move (side note...looked up some HS track info and Lachey's 200 time as a HS junior would have him finish 6 meters ahead of a HS Soph Tyler Goodson were they to have raced each other). If you try to cover either of these guys man to man with a safety or LB, I feel like we could win some of those matchups just due to their size/ability to box out a smaller defender.
* The 2nd formation is unbalanced, which means that the Y is unable to release for a pass. But in assisting identify the coverage, this formation (much like some our existing formations) allows us to protect the passer with at least 6 and then adding in a RB would be 7 man pro.
* If we wanted to run our zone boot stuff, we don't have the flexibility in these formations to run them with the H/Y receivers, but we could still motion our X/Z guys into the backfield wing position and have them drag behind the LOS into the flat, a job usually reserved for LaPorta (or Pottebaum). We could have them kick a DE as well, although we're certainly not going to get the same level of physicality that we would with a TE-type.
* And, if we wanted to take advantage of defenses who get their safeties a little too nosy in the run game, i.e. something more than a 7 man box, we can throw the uncovered/bubble stuff and we've got a bigger blocker out there with the ball in the hands of one of our X/Z receivers.
There it is. Feel free to rip it apart as necessary.
Last edited:
AreWeThereYet
Well-Known Member
I'm hoping Lachey makes it back at TE. He was starting to be a regular feature both blocking and receiving. Having tight ends who can block and release on either side complicates things for teams trying to blitz. If it's essentially just LaPorta at TE for the entire game, it kind of limits what you can do in both the blocking and passing game.
HuckFinn
Well-Known Member
Hawk fan, I carefully read your detailed examination. Even though I have played football at the high school and college (briefly) levels, and coached at the large high school level, (Kennedy, CR, your explanation would take a lot more study in order to fully appreciate. As a fan, I don’t focus as much on formations, coverages, etc., but still enjoy reading posts by those who know enough about them to contribute to the conversation. So. Thanks. I will read it through a couple more times and use a pencil and paper!
Ben Rumson
Well-Known Member
I'm so sick of this 2nd guessing. Do you guys not know just what great lengths and sleepless nights Brian sits up to accomplish a goal like that! You act as if it was minus 6 yards for the quarter! Geez!!!!!
First one you only have 6 on the line. So would be a penalty for illegal formation
dahlhawk
Well-Known Member
Is this a resume? I'll fax it to Brian asap. This format is more, "run the damm ball" and "throw the damm ball" type of forum.
On your 2nd formation the Y can go out for a pass because he is on the end of the line and is not covered up.
