Defending the Spread

W

WinOneThisCentury

Well-Known Member
I really hope KF and Norm look at all the film at the end of the year and decide our defensive strategy against spread teams doesn't work. If you look at the Indiana, NW, Missouri games, all we did is wear out our defense by the fourth quarter. I know our offense has to step up and score more points, but you can't have your defense on the field that long and often.

Missouri had something like 86 offensive plays, and the NW and Indiana games were similar. With good or great QB's, you are going to see long drives (12-15 plays) and successive drives will simply wear you down. I get that the points scored weren't excessive in those games, which means our red zone defense was good as we needed to shorten the cushion...I say shorten the cushion from the get go. With the talent on our defensive line, blitz packages are almost assured to be effective as the offense line is doing all they can to keep the four guys out of the backfield.

I guess I'd rather see us putting pressure on the offense and have them dealing with constant pressure and blitz packages, rather than watch a guy with an NFL arm have a field day throwing darts all over. How many 3 and 18s were there in the Missouri game and Gabbert had all day to throw, and picked up every one? Not blitzing in that situation was simply wrong.

I not bagging on the coaching, I'm just hoping they make some adjustments because the spread isn't going anywhere.
 
The philosophy of giving the guys a lot of uncontested catches and then make the tackle is where we are missing something. The base 4-3 is okay if we have enough studs at LB and I think you're fine running just the straight up D like 75% of the plays, but then you should mix in things like a zone blitz and send the ends to the outside to take away a slant or have a CB attempt to jump a route like 25% of the time just so the QB can't get too comfortable in his reads. We do mix it up and we saw Clayborn jump back into lanes every now and then this year, but I think we need to just do some things to make it unpredictable. You let the QB get a little comfortable for 4 or 5 plays, then give him the same pre snap read and do something totally different on the next play to try to bust up the rhythm. I think we need to stick to our base D because of limited practice time and it gives us the best chance of beating teams that try to play Big Ten style of football, but we have to just make a few changes around the edges for spread teams and the D will be fine. A spread team is going to score some points and if we're going to give up a TD, I'd rather have it be on a 5 play 65 yard drive where we took a chance at a turnover or momentum changing play rather than a 14 play 65 yard drive where we sat back and allowed the offense to dictate everything they wanted to do and run our defense out of gas.
 
When I first saw the thread title I thought it was some degenerate gambler defending the Las Vegas spread of Mizzo at - 2.5 - with a "I told you so"
 
I agree with OK4P and would add this. We need to sub more on D, I know we think our 1s are better than our 2s even if they are tired but I disagree. Watching Clayborn pull up whenever the play went away from him tells me something is wrong. I know he has to be tired rushing the passer 50 times a game and when the play goes to the other side of the field is the time to take a play off. So if he is not going to in the play anyway why not have a sub in the game who will at least hustle after the ball and be in position if there happens to be a fumble. I am not asking the sub to beat a double team and get a sack, just hustle and be in the play.

The coaches have to re-evaluate this style of play. The reason we fall apart in the 4th quarter is because our D is on the field for 80 plays. Yes we make the other team execute for 15 plays to score on us but we also make our defense play their guts out for 15 plays, that takes a toll by the 4th quarter.

Our style of play contributes to wearing out our defense. To me a good defense is one that can get off the field on 3rd down, we give up more first downs than any team I have ever seen. It’s like we just say OK drive to the 10 yard line and then we will try to stop you. So when we need a big play from our defense they have already been on the field for over 10 plays and are gassed.
We need to keep fresh players on the field and not worry so much about them making a mistake. If we are running such a simple defense why can’t college athletes figure it out, even the subs. The subs I saw played very well (Morris, Miller, Bernstien).

I just hope Hyde’s miracle play doesn’t mask our failure to cover the spread like Tate’s miracle masked our lack of execution in the 2 minute offense.

I have been very critical this year out of frustration, this was supposed to be our year. Kirk is still a great coach and we will be fine next year because we will be back to low expectations. I just hope our coaches learned from this year and make improvements.
 
I think they've changed slightly going into a few more Nickle situations especially in this last game than ever before, and they did seem to especially at the end of the game, but like you I'd like to see more of a roation in the second quarter rather than waiting til the end of the game, especially getting bernstine in there and with the hit he put on the WR, no reason not to pull out one of the LB's more often or even go to a three man rush, we weren't putting that much pressure on the QB anyway becaue they usually get rid of the ball so fast, so why not get another defensive back in the game and help fill the zone gaps because a LB just cannot be expected to cover those quick outs or slants that we constatly give up.
 
OP "constant pressure" comment, I kind of disagree with that. I believe many NFL teams blitz too much. I'm not looking for constant pressure, just do some more and be less predictable.
I remember a play on the 4th quarter TD drive by Mich in 05 where I was 100% that Henne would have all the time in the world to throw if we didn't blitz and he would find an open WR. I believe he had at least 5 full seconds and it was a big play.

Make your opponent spend some time preparing for your blitz more. Show blitz more pre snap and make them think it may actually come. It seems as if we could make some small investments in this area pay off for us.

The whole "attacking defense" blitzing all the time thing is overrated, but just adding a little more spice to our D could really help.
Very nice comments above by OK4P and kchawkeyes
 
I think Iowa has to find a way to defend these spread offenses better. I wish I had a better idea, I would share it. But I don't, they just have to do a better job of getting off the field when they force 3rd and longs, or 4 th down. The last few games Iowa allowed those downs to get converted time and time again. In al those games, those big play conversions, proved to be the killer that lost games. I think until Iowa does something different, this all Iowa will ever see late in games.
 
KCHawkeyes said:
I agree with OK4P and would add this. We need to sub more on D, I know we think our 1s are better than our 2s even if they are tired but I disagree. Watching Clayborn pull up whenever the play went away from him tells me something is wrong. I know he has to be tired rushing the passer 50 times a game and when the play goes to the other side of the field is the time to take a play off. So if he is not going to in the play anyway why not have a sub in the game who will at least hustle after the ball and be in position if there happens to be a fumble. I am not asking the sub to beat a double team and get a sack, just hustle and be in the play.

The coaches have to re-evaluate this style of play. The reason we fall apart in the 4th quarter is because our D is on the field for 80 plays. Yes we make the other team execute for 15 plays to score on us but we also make our defense play their guts out for 15 plays, that takes a toll by the 4th quarter.

Our style of play contributes to wearing out our defense. To me a good defense is one that can get off the field on 3rd down, we give up more first downs than any team I have ever seen. It’s like we just say OK drive to the 10 yard line and then we will try to stop you. So when we need a big play from our defense they have already been on the field for over 10 plays and are gassed.
We need to keep fresh players on the field and not worry so much about them making a mistake. If we are running such a simple defense why can’t college athletes figure it out, even the subs. The subs I saw played very well (Morris, Miller, Bernstien).

I just hope Hyde’s miracle play doesn’t mask our failure to cover the spread like Tate’s miracle masked our lack of execution in the 2 minute offense.

I have been very critical this year out of frustration, this was supposed to be our year. Kirk is still a great coach and we will be fine next year because we will be back to low expectations. I just hope our coaches learned from this year and make improvements.
Click to expand...

People keep forgetting that 1) Clayborn was pretty much NEVER 100% after the chop block by the Wiscy OLineman; 2) We lost Edds and Angerer to graduation THEN had to go 10-deep at LB> Look at two-deeps or ANY posts from August that mentioned Tanner Miller as one who would get playing time this year. As well, I think Bernstine is only just now getting back to full form.

While we can complain all we want about LBs in coverage (although I defy ANYONE to tell me how to cover teams that go 5-wide without getting LB help), they did an okay job the other night. But with the youth in the LB corps this year, calling out blitzes was going to be few and far between. There is only so much they can learn when thrown into the fire so much earlier than expected.

While I cringe when we play "spread" teams, I also feel confident that Norm and staff can handle it. But they can't handle it if we get too short-handed.

I guess my biggest worry will always be "depth". Our staff CAN get stud recruits, and they CAN turn "nobodies" into "stars". But our depth will rarely match that of OSU, PSU or Michigan in "typical" years, not even mentioning a Florida, Texas or USC.

That is why I have always argued that a Boise State, TCU or Utah would find the sledding in a major conference more difficult, i.e., with increased competition week-in/week-out, they would invariably face more injuries and thus, depth problems.
 
We need more blitz packages. You have to pressure the QB. We don't need to be Arizona or anything but we need to have a couple handful of blitz packages and use them periodically during the game. We never blitz two guys, and we never bring pressure up the middle. The double A-gap blitz is a staple in the NFL.

I'd like to see us man-up more often on third and shorts and then bring pressure. Make the QB's thrown it quick and play tight. I also agree with more situational subbing. I don't see what third and long can't be an automatic nickel package. Why don't we have a nickel package. Bernstine could be the nickel back, guard slot WRs, play decent in run support, and blitz some. Kind of as a hybrid DB/Lb. Our WILL Lb is likely to be average next year. I'd rather have Bernstine in the game playing in 3 and 7 or more than Dibona, Kirksey, ect...

We don't need to abandon what we do, we just need to add a few things.
 
IMO, Iowa needs to come up with a different philosophy and play more nickel and dime packages against the spread. The number of plays the defense has to stay on the field defending the spread is killing them come the 4th quarter.

For example, Iowa scores to go up 7 - 0 against Missouri and then on the ensuing possession, Iowa holds Missouri to 3 points, but it was a 17 PLAY DRIVE. I thought Iowa's defense looked gassed again as the game wore on and much of that is due to drives like Missouri's first drive. Yes Iowa is making teams settle for 3 early, but generally they are 10, 13, 15, 17 play drives.

Come the fourth quarter it seems that Iowa's defense couldn't hold them to 3 and instead were giving up TD's, much in part because Iowa's defense was gassed.
 
albertyoungisgood said:
OP "constant pressure" comment, I kind of disagree with that. I believe many NFL teams blitz too much. I'm not looking for constant pressure, just do some more and be less predictable.
I remember a play on the 4th quarter TD drive by Mich in 05 where I was 100% that Henne would have all the time in the world to throw if we didn't blitz and he would find an open WR. I believe he had at least 5 full seconds and it was a big play.

Make your opponent spend some time preparing for your blitz more. Show blitz more pre snap and make them think it may actually come. It seems as if we could make some small investments in this area pay off for us.

The whole "attacking defense" blitzing all the time thing is overrated, but just adding a little more spice to our D could really help.
Very nice comments above by OK4P and kchawkeyes
Click to expand...


I wouldn't suggest the blitzing thing all the time either. My frustration with the Missouri game was that we had them behind the chains numerous times with good defensive plays on first and second down. We then let them off the hook by allowing Gabbert to convert the 3rd down because he sat back there with absolutely no pressure. Beat us once like that, well ok, but beat us 3-4 times, then shame on our defensive calls. This allowed those long drives. You have to change it up at some point.

I guess I'm a little tired of the Iowa being Iowa thing and that's what we do. Great, we run a very good base defense, but against good QB's and good offensive lines, you better have some wrinkles. One of the only blitzes we did, Morris hammered Gabbert and Gabbert was a little different after. Are we so afraid of the big play????
 
All I know it that the few times the Hawks went to man coverage, they defended Mizzou much, much better. When they blitzed, generally good things happened. Seems like a trend to me???
 
PatrickAdamovicz said:
IMO, Iowa needs to come up with a different philosophy and play more nickel and dime packages against the spread. The number of plays the defense has to stay on the field defending the spread is killing them come the 4th quarter.
Click to expand...

I think that in most years we are better at first string LB than we are in terms of depth at CB, which will be the guys coming in on nickel or dime packages. Take 2009 for example, I would much rather see Edds, Angerer and Hunter all on the field instead of just Angerer with Castillo and Hyde as the dime backs. Plus, when they called those blitzes on Tuesday night and it was Morris coming in off the slot guy, I would much rather see a LB laying the QB out instead of a 180 pound defensive back. I know we got gashed a bit by the run game, but remember, the experience that Edds got as a freshman and sophomore when he got beat a bit was exactly what helped him develop that 6th sense for the ball that put him in spots to make key deflections and interceptions in clutch situations last year.

The growing pains suck, but when the product is final after some reps, that base 4-3 can be downright salty and ready to play power teams like Wisconsin one week and spread teams like Purdue the next week without missing a beat. I know it's frustrating after a year like this one, but the LBs need reps against the pass so they are ready when they have to line up against a team like Wisconsin that will try to grind the ball but also exploit the pass defense with the tight end off of play action. I have a feeling that this year could have laid the foundation for some pretty promising defenses in the coming years based on the reps the young guys at LB got.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top