You actually think those are their philosophies? lol....
Downfall of the Bend but don't Break Defense??
- Thread starter MelroseHawkins
- Start date
I would rather they not do either and so would they.
And so would I and so would every other fan.
Every reasonable defensive philosophy can work with ideal personnel and looks great when executed well. On the flip side, any defensive philosophy can look terrible without solid personnel and when it's not working. Overall I feel Iowa has a sound defensive philosophy in X's and O's although sometimes I feel like they are asking a bit much of their linebackers at times in coverage. My only complaint is that they are sometime reluctant to put the extra defensive back on the field in 3rd and long situations. However, they seem to focus more on fundamentals and mastering their base defense. I've noticed over the past few years that they have mixed in a blitz here and there so it's not completely vanilla. Personally that's how I think you want to operate a defense. I think having a couple of base defensive sets that you execute very well and get aggressive as a change of pace to keep the offense on their toes and that's what I feel like they do currently.
They haven't been reluctant in putting an extra DB in 3rd and long, in fact over the last 2 or 3 years, they almost always do. Just didn't have a lot of 3rd and longs against Miami, but they brought on Jackson and put King on the slot a couple times. And as far as blitzes, most don't know the difference between a 'run blitz' and a 'pass blitz' or when to run either. A pass blitz called at the wrong time, can give up 'huge' plays, which is why some of these 'aggressive' defensive teams (like everyone in the Big12) give up so many big plays. I love the way Iowa plays defense, especially since the inception of the Raider Pkg........
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
hawkinn3
Well-Known Member
The point of the defense is to prevent scoring. Aggressive defenses that blitz are prone to give up big scoring plays.
Iowa's defense makes the offense execute play after play after play if they want to score. The majority of the time they can't do it, most college QBs can't do that. MSU did it on the last drive and it sucked but I didn't read anyone complaining when we did it against nebby and got all those picks.
Iowa's defense makes the offense execute play after play after play if they want to score. The majority of the time they can't do it, most college QBs can't do that. MSU did it on the last drive and it sucked but I didn't read anyone complaining when we did it against nebby and got all those picks.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
In the MSU game MSU was better at being Iowa than was Iowa.
Against Nebby, Iowa took a lot of media heat, which I thought to be silly excepting the total yardage differential.
Is there some states that shows aggressive defenses give up more points per possession than conservative ones? It's true that aggressive defenses are more likely to give up a big play. But isn't it also true that aggressive defenses are more likely to rattle a qb and force mistakes?
I think the better the team, the more aggressive you want to be. You want as many possessions as possible. Think of how many upsets there would be if games were only 2 possessions long. Then think how few there would be if each team got 50 possessions per game. Kirk does his team a huge disservice by shortening games against inferior teams and it shows in his record against them.
Bingo... I thought it was that simple too... I almost half cringed when CJ and Smith hooked up for that long TD to start the 4th q. It was the first play of that possession and the D had been out there a ton already and after that they were right back out there... It was like man that's awesome we took the lead like that but I just had that bad feeling in my gut and sure enough...
Last year I likened this to Iowa playing chess, while many other schools are now playing high-stakes Texas hold-em.
Iowa is thinking of out-maneuvering you. They want to diagnose your strategy, devise a counter, and then count on their players to execute that counter. By the end of the game, this will hopefully win them the possession or two that makes the difference.
Many schools these days are just playing the odds. They don't worry so much about reacting to what their opponent is doing, they are just going to be ultra-aggressive and go for big plays. On defense, this equates to bringing tons of pressure. Although they will get burnt, they are counting on the positive plays (sacks, turnovers) outnumbering the big plays allowed, thus coming out on top as long as there are enough possessions. The other advantage of this is your defenders do not need to be as smart; they are not reading-and-reacting as much as just getting after it.
While many colleges have taken this approach, the pro game still strongly values players that can read, diagnose, and react. Pro QBs (at least the elite ones) are simply too good at figuring out what you are doing and knowing how to beat it. That is why pro teams value Iowa players so much.
I saw an article recently about the pro game explaining how "base" (7 LB/DL, 4 DBs) is no longer base in the NFL. This defense only accounted for about 30% of defensive snaps in the pro-game, while nickel (5 DBs) accounted for 51% of the snaps. They talked about how this was trickling up from the college game, where even more teams are using 5-6 DBs the majority of the time to combat spread offenses.
As Icke said, Iowa has done a lot more nickel and dime the last few years. It will be interesting to see if they get even more creative with personnel packages this year with an experienced back end, along with relative inexperience at WLB and DE. It is not really in their nature, but it seems like they have the tools to potentially pull it off.
As Icke said, Iowa has done a lot more nickel and dime the last few years. It will be interesting to see if they get even more creative with personnel packages this year with an experienced back end, along with relative inexperience at WLB and DE. It is not really in their nature, but it seems like they have the tools to potentially pull it off.
MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
Nice post. It seems to me there may be a shift of teams going back to the pro-style attack. Seems I keep hearing when talking about new coaches that they are shifting to that. Wonder if the trend is changing back.
WinOneThisCentury
Well-Known Member
I know...the defense didn't work at all last year when winning 12 straight games. Do I want the 2009 defense every year, yes...do I want 12-0 more...well, yes. I think what people are struggling with is that we identify Iowa Football with strong defensive teams that border on dominant in good years. What we all saw on Saturday left a very bad mental picture...great defense starts with dominant run defense...hence the queezy feeling. Let's give them another game...we should be better with 8 back on defense...let's see how things go with Jewel in the middle.
Last edited:
AreWeThereYet
Well-Known Member
During the first half Iowa's defensive front was aggressive enough to force a number of turnovers. They did that without blitzing or bringing in a special passing down package. I suspect during the second half with a large lead, the priority was shifted to gap control to stop the run and forcing the opposing QB to beat the coverage. Having Jewell and Hesse out no doubt made things seem a lot more deliberate that it might have otherwise have been.
I didn't realize at game time how much man coverage the the corners were in. It makes me wonder if they eventually plan on trying some things while either corner is in man coverage.
I didn't realize at game time how much man coverage the the corners were in. It makes me wonder if they eventually plan on trying some things while either corner is in man coverage.
koralakers
Well-Known Member
I am shocked we win as much as we do, employing this defense. Drives me insane. Yes, we can make average QBs look like Montana. Here is a perfect example of how rediculous this defensive scheme can be...
our 2005 Dfense....2 FOUR-YEAR starters at CB (Antwan Allen/Jovon Johnson), 2 pre-season ALL-AMERICAN LBs (Hodge/Greenway), a stout D-line, and yet, we were like 114th out of 119 D1 teams at stopping teams on 3rd down!
Hodge and Greenway COMBINED for TWO SACKS for 10 Yards THE ENTIRE 2005 SEASON! Any sane coach would have UNLEASHED them to destroy opposing QBs and their passing game. Instead they sat back in soft zones, trying to chase around little quick WRs getting picked apart.
That stacked 2005 team was 61st in Total Defense! By way of comparison, Iowa State was 32nd!
That IA team was SECOND in total team tackles out of 119 teams for the season (= on the field the second most in FBS--every play your defense is on field = 1 tackle (unless a TD is scored))
I could go on. Still bitter.
our 2005 Dfense....2 FOUR-YEAR starters at CB (Antwan Allen/Jovon Johnson), 2 pre-season ALL-AMERICAN LBs (Hodge/Greenway), a stout D-line, and yet, we were like 114th out of 119 D1 teams at stopping teams on 3rd down!
Hodge and Greenway COMBINED for TWO SACKS for 10 Yards THE ENTIRE 2005 SEASON! Any sane coach would have UNLEASHED them to destroy opposing QBs and their passing game. Instead they sat back in soft zones, trying to chase around little quick WRs getting picked apart.
That stacked 2005 team was 61st in Total Defense! By way of comparison, Iowa State was 32nd!
That IA team was SECOND in total team tackles out of 119 teams for the season (= on the field the second most in FBS--every play your defense is on field = 1 tackle (unless a TD is scored))
I could go on. Still bitter.
trj
Well-Known Member
No doubt. Clearly, Phil Parker is a Norm disciple his influence is evident. However, Phil is his own guy he is adapting or trying to adapt to the way the game is played today......I say that with the 22 play MSU drive being the most frustrating ever.
All those stats are crazy but that last one sticks out the most. Like I said earlier, if we had the raider package back then, we would have been a lot better off. Playing a soft "wait for the offense to make a mistake" defense is not a good idea when you have a stacked defense.
