Brian Ferentz Looking for Answers on Offense

uihawk82

Well-Known Member
How in the world did we only muster 6 yds of total offense in the 3rd quarter against Purdue?

I cant remember the exact plays we ran but I am sure it was a combination of negative yardage, and incomplete passes, along with poor execution. Iirc Purdue got the 3rd qtr kickoff and used up some time, then the hawks had two 3 and outs while Purdue marched on long drives eating the clock.

Purdue out Kirked Kirk by holding on to the ball etc.

Our offense is challenged enough for some reasons that we cannot have negative plays and simple miscues.
 

trj

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.

How often is Iowa in 12 personnel? Spitballing here I would say 20-30% of the time. Unless BF is specifically scheming something up with those formations I don’t know that can work throughout a game.
 

hawkfan2679

Well-Known Member
How often is Iowa in 12 personnel? Spitballing here I would say 20-30% of the time. Unless BF is specifically scheming something up with those formations I don’t know that can work throughout a game.
Less this year than in years past, it would seem. But we historically run a ton of 12 personnel...and even if its 25% and we run 60 plays, that's 15 plays (6-9 passes) by which to play with. It wasnt intended to replace anything...just a little addendum to what's already there.
 

AreWeThereYet

Well-Known Member
Less this year than in years past, it would seem. But we historically run a ton of 12 personnel...and even if its 25% and we run 60 plays, that's 15 plays (6-9 passes) by which to play with. It wasnt intended to replace anything...just a little addendum to what's already there.
I made a comment that I hoped Lachey isn't seriously dinged up and makes it back at TE. I believe Lachey was out for the Purdue game. Playing 12 personnel works a lot better if you have proven productivity in both TE. I believe Miamen is currently the #3 tight end. Not sure if he has played much.
 

hawkfan2679

Well-Known Member
I made a comment that I hoped Lachey isn't seriously dinged up and makes it back at TE. I believe Lachey was out for the Purdue game. Playing 12 personnel works a lot better if you have proven productivity in both TE. I believe Miamen is currently the #3 tight end. Not sure if he has played much.
Yep...fair point. The above all assumes Lachey is there.
 

AFAcademyHawk

Well-Known Member
Yep...fair point. The above all assumes Lachey is there.
Lachey is a second-year player and looks like it sometimes in blocking ... But he is an absolute matchup nightmare because he is fast enough to run past LBs but has the size to "block out" safeties on seam routes. He is like a faster version of Scott Chandler. Similar to LaPorta, he does a good job of using his hands to reel in the ball whole shielding the defender with his body. He has some extra height on LaPorta and is every bit as fast.

Just a complete steal from Columbus (pedigree doesn't hurt either). Luckily OSU had filled themselves up on four star tight ends in his class.
 

dahlhawk

Well-Known Member
Damm, I feel like the dumb kid in chemistry trying to follow this, I was a guard. Wait I was the dumb kid in chemistry, thanks for dredging up all those bad memories guys.....
 

Scott Leclair

Well-Known Member
2 weeks of prep and this is is answer? He has no business as a P5 OC. Let alone HC at Iowa. He is so predictable a 10 year old can predict him. He ran the ball on all but 2 or 3 1st downs today. Those 3 resulted in a sack or incomplete pass. Dude is so unoriginal it hurts to watch anymore
 
Top