Early grades for last nights beat down of Clones

[Westernhawk]

I'm not sure what to think, but we've played ISU in a ton of tight games. We've had a number of really solid teams that lost to them at home. They are relatively unknown with very little film and hard to game plan against. So my honest opinion is its one of those performances where it's definitely not our best game, but I don't think we were as bad as we thought we were either.

We came away with a win and the CyHawk. Our defense wasn't perfect, but did what our defense is known to do, and our passing game continued to show progress with Diaz again having another great performance. Sure there's work to do and I was hoping for a bigger win, but despite trailing the majority of the game it was one of those games where I never really thought we were going to lose and would find a way to win a close one which we did.

In a rivalry I have no problem winning the close one by a field goal. Sure blowouts are fun, but they don't sting nearly as much as the close ones do. So lets let it sting for the remainder of the year.

I have the same thoughts. I was overly hawktimistic at the beginning of the year, forgetting that Iowa is dead last in the big ten in terms of returning production, and something like 104th nationally in that same statistic.

Our lines, and our run game, have some work to do. I hope they will continue to develop, and that perhaps this challenge (turning what looked like a loss into a win), will help them grow and develop.

Young Iowa teams are often pretty rough this time of year. I seem to forget that every single year.

 

[Westernhawk]

I am not so glib as to just saw that "a wins a win." That is plainly not the case. If this was the score for NIU or next week, I would be pretty panicked. This was a rivalry game against a team we had no tape on that is comprised of mostly Power 5 caliber players. We lost this game last year under fluky circumstances because our QB was just not ready to run the offense yet. We avoided that trap this year.

What keeps me on the positive side of this review is that we say progress in special teams, QB play, the passing game, and team D. There is still a lot of improvements to be made, but I like the trendline.

That said, I was disappointed in the offensive play calling, run blocking, and RB. Lester called a poor game and I bet he would be the first to admit that.

The run game was worrisome.

 

[Grady]

Kicking game. To my surprise was very good
A
QB. No turnovers or sacks. Big play down field to Diaz was the difference maker. Not mobile and no threat to run. Didn’t spread ball around as he concentrates on Diaz
B-
RBs. Pretty much no factor. No where to run
C-
WRs. Diaz. A. Difference maker. Rest incomplete
Offensive line. Couldn’t open any holes. Didn’t give up a sack. Disappointing. Talent or scheme?
D-
Defense as hole. Buffington is good DBs were lucky as QB missed some receivers and couple drops. DL meh. No sacks no turnovers
C

Coaching. Iowa State had a good game plan and really had them ready. Iowa same old stuff. Couldn’t run the ball at all. This was a team with a totally new group. We will face a lot better
D-

Overall C. Not a great showing but did show resilience after getting down by 10

A lot on target here, but can't say Brown didn't spread the ball around -- I think RB Moulton had like 6 receptions himself.
A lot of the OLine struggles were because ISU had 11 guys within 8 yds of the LOS on almost every play -- no team will consistently be able to run the ball vs that scheme. The only antidote is to throw deep balls and complete them.

 

[Westernhawk]

A lot on target here, but can't say Brown didn't spread the ball around -- I think RB Moulton had like 6 receptions himself.
A lot of the OLine struggles were because ISU had 11 guys within 8 yds of the LOS on almost every play -- no team will consistently be able to run the ball vs that scheme. The only antidote is to throw deep balls and complete them.

This is the "forever" issue with Iowa's offense. Smart teams dare Iowa to pass. I recall Brohm's Purdue teams doing this to an extreme, and that it worked very well.

Kudos to Brown on hitting the long pass to Diaz, which was a huge difference maker in the game.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

The run game was worrisome.

Of all the things that worried me about the running game performance, its not the OL. This was an issue with play calling and the RBs missing some cutback lanes a few times. ISU was selling out to stop the run, which is why we had so many 1-1 deep balls available. Lester needed to throw them out of those 9 person boxes. That doesn't mean a 9 route every series. But, a 15 yard out was available pretty much anytime we wanted it. We needed a few more big pass plays or broken tackle long runs to back them out of the box some so our OL wasn't constantly having 1 more guy to block than we had to block them.

 

[Grady]

I am not so glib as to just saw that "a wins a win." That is plainly not the case. If this was the score for NIU or next week, I would be pretty panicked. This was a rivalry game against a team we had no tape on that is comprised of mostly Power 5 caliber players. We lost this game last year under fluky circumstances because our QB was just not ready to run the offense yet. We avoided that trap this year.

What keeps me on the positive side of this review is that we say progress in special teams, QB play, the passing game, and team D. There is still a lot of improvements to be made, but I like the trendline.

That said, I was disappointed in the offensive play calling, run blocking, and RB. Lester called a poor game and I bet he would be the first to admit that.

Re Lester, there's not many plays that can be called successfully in ANY college offense when the opponent puts 11 guys within 8 yards of the LOS on almost every play, as ISU did. He wasn't going to call for variations of play-action deep bombs on every play, but that probably would have the most productive route.

 

[Grady]

This is the "forever" issue with Iowa's offense. Smart teams dare Iowa to pass. I recall Brohm's Purdue teams doing this to an extreme, and that it worked very well.

Kudos to Brown on hitting the long pass to Diaz, which was a huge difference maker in the game.

At Kinnick I don't think I've ever seen a team play BOTH their Safeties within 8 yds of the LOS like ISU did on almost every play. Crazy.

 

[dagdaj]

I am not so glib as to just saw that "a wins a win." That is plainly not the case. If this was the score for NIU or next week, I would be pretty panicked. This was a rivalry game against a team we had no tape on that is comprised of mostly Power 5 caliber players. We lost this game last year under fluky circumstances because our QB was just not ready to run the offense yet. We avoided that trap this year.

What keeps me on the positive side of this review is that we say progress in special teams, QB play, the passing game, and team D. There is still a lot of improvements to be made, but I like the trendline.

That said, I was disappointed in the offensive play calling, run blocking, and RB. Lester called a poor game and I bet he would be the first to admit that.

Agreed.
I said in a post earlier this week, I was afraid of this game. And that was before knowing that Rogers was involved in the SDSU defense in the game that will now be forever called the "2 Safeties, 1 Field Goal Cup".

There's been this radio silence in Ames. Sure, a few articles early on about a new coach and only having like 17 players or whatever. But, the most recent cases of high profile pro expansion teams I can think of. The Vegas Golden Knights making the Stanley Cup Finals in 2018 and STL City FC winning their conference and making the playoffs in 2023.

While it will never happen in baseball (WAY too hard because pitching is so important and the best pitchers are always going to be protected), I don't see why you couldn't do it in football. I dunno why. But it makes sense. You're building a team from scratch. You fill every position with the best complimentary player you can get. If you got a running QB, you get O-linemen who are perfect for it, even if they aren't "the best". They're just best suited for what you're building. You just absolutely tailor your team to the players you have at every step. You're not sorta 'stuck' with elements that you picked up 2 years ago when you were headed a different direction.

And I think that's why things were quiet from Ames. They were just putting their head down and doing what they needed to. Any media coverage more or less reflected that. It's not like team insiders are gonna come out and say anything other than that. That's boring content. So nobody reads it. Mix in the chip on their shoulder both from being dismissed by Big 12 projections, and that they're stuck in Ames when they could be somewhere cool.

Mix in the big chip and the fervor of the rivalry.

I was confounded by the play calling. But, if I'm honest, I don't know what else Lester could have done? Except for not trying the 5 yard tush push attempts. They went deep. They went short. They went safety valve. They threw to Moulton/runningbacks (which I've been wanting them to do for years). They didn't run the ball when it wasn't working....and being that they were behind a lot of the time, they had to do what was working. The lack of TE targets is strange. While there were a few key ones to TEs late, the limited early attempts weren't so great.

The running game was confounding. I gotta believe that between the TEs and Diaz, they should have been way more capable of messing up ISU's defense. Whether they throw to Diaz or not, he should be a weapon of chaos on every play. (And Moulton too). I don't know enough about xs and os, so I hope they weren't using him like that. Because I think he's good enough to mess with defenses and make defenses bend to a good OC's will.

 

[Westernhawk]

Of all the things that worried me about the running game performance, its not the OL. This was an issue with play calling and the RBs missing some cutback lanes a few times. ISU was selling out to stop the run, which is why we had so many 1-1 deep balls available. Lester needed to throw them out of those 9 person boxes. That doesn't mean a 9 route every series. But, a 15 yard out was available pretty much anytime we wanted it. We needed a few more big pass plays or broken tackle long runs to back them out of the box some so our OL wasn't constantly having 1 more guy to block than we had to block them.

This makes a ton of sense. We have to figure out how to make teams pay for that behavior!

 

[NorthKCHawk]

Re Lester, there's not many plays that can be called successfully in ANY college offense when the opponent puts 11 guys within 8 yards of the LOS on almost every play, as ISU did. He wasn't going to call for variations of play-action deep bombs on every play, but that probably would have the most productive route.

I mean, if that were the case why wouldn't every college defense is America just do this in every game? I disagree that there are not a lot of counter plays to this defense. Maybe not a lot we are good at, but Iowa has been facing loaded boxes since the beginning of time, and there are counters.

Yes you need to throw some 9 routes to try to make them pay. But, 10 yard outs work very well on 1-1 coverages. Fake hand off and then a quick slant will be there all day. Misdirection runs and QB keepers. In general, play action passes with max blocking and routes to the midcenter of the field should be open all day. How about trying a screen? there was always answers to every defense, but especially a defense selling out in the box leaving them wide open to passing over it.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

One more wrinkle. Bring back the slow mesh! You got safeties and LBs crashing down. Let them see Brown ride the RB for two seconds before pulling and passing.

 

[Westernhawk]

I mean, if that were the case why wouldn't every college defense is America just do this in every game? I disagree that there are not a lot of counter plays to this defense. Maybe not a lot we are good at, but Iowa has been facing loaded boxes since the beginning of time, and there are counters.

Yes you need to throw some 9 routes to try to make them pay. But, 10 yard outs work very well on 1-1 coverages. Fake hand off and then a quick slant will be there all day. Misdirection runs and QB keepers. In general, play action passes with max blocking and routes to the midcenter of the field should be open all day. How about trying a screen? there was always answers to every defense, but especially a defense selling out in the box leaving them wide open to passing over it.

You are absolutely right. You have to try to penalize teams for putting everyone near the line of scrimmage. I'm not sure if somehow we weren't expecting it this time around (limited film) but based on history we should always expect this...and we'll likely see it again this year.

There's a reason why this never happens in the NFL. I know, we aren't an NFL team but OMG we should burn them 4 or more times a game on this.

 

[BuiltLikeWilt]

I am not so glib as to just saw that "a wins a win." That is plainly not the case. If this was the score for NIU or next week, I would be pretty panicked. This was a rivalry game against a team we had no tape on that is comprised of mostly Power 5 caliber players. We lost this game last year under fluky circumstances because our QB was just not ready to run the offense yet. We avoided that trap this year.

What keeps me on the positive side of this review is that we say progress in special teams, QB play, the passing game, and team D. There is still a lot of improvements to be made, but I like the trendline.

That said, I was disappointed in the offensive play calling, run blocking, and RB. Lester called a poor game and I bet he would be the first to admit that.

also, our defensive backfield could have played a bit better, missed tackles.

 

[haydensly]

A lot of negativity about the game out there on this Board and the blogesphere. I am not in that camp.

A. We won.
B. Special teams was a huge question mark coming into the season, and STs is the reason we won that game.
C. We have a QB, such that he is. He still has a lot of deficiencies, but he played well enough in a rivalry game to win. He protected the ball, ran when he needed to, and delivered some nice throws. He is ahead of where Gronowski was a year ago at this time.
D. Yes, the D bent a good deal, but it did not break. 13 points and 250 yards is nothing to sneeze at, especially given that the offense was not doing a whole lot.
E. ISU is not as bad as we thought. That team will win some Big12 games.

This sums up pretty well how I feel about the game. I think a big reason a lot of Iowa fans are negative about this game is because we were favored by two touchdowns and it ended up barely being a win.

But look at some history with Jimmy Rogers. First, he was the D Coordinator at SDSU when we won 7-3 on two safeties and a FG. Another game that caught my attention was last year's Washington State team that lost to Ole Miss (a playoff team led by an offensive guru by the name of Lane Kiffin) by 24-21. A lot of those players followed Rogers to ISU. This guy knows how to coach. They had a good game plan and they mucked it up enough to give themselves a chance to win. Fortunately for us, they came up short. Credit to the Hawks for pulling this one out.

 

[Grady]

I mean, if that were the case why wouldn't every college defense is America just do this in every game? I disagree that there are not a lot of counter plays to this defense. Maybe not a lot we are good at, but Iowa has been facing loaded boxes since the beginning of time, and there are counters.

Yes you need to throw some 9 routes to try to make them pay. But, 10 yard outs work very well on 1-1 coverages. Fake hand off and then a quick slant will be there all day. Misdirection runs and QB keepers. In general, play action passes with max blocking and routes to the midcenter of the field should be open all day. How about trying a screen? there was always answers to every defense, but especially a defense selling out in the box leaving them wide open to passing over it.

There's a difference between playing both your Safeties 8 yds from the LOS and blitzing -- which I didn't see ISU do with their Safeties at all. You're right, perfectly thrown 10-yd outs would have been there, but Iowa has a history of rarely throwing them -- I suspect because of the risk of a pick-6.

Again, the Safeties weren't blitzing, so screens would have been minimally effective vs 11 in the box. Slants would have been throwing right into the vicinity of the Safeties 8 yds deep -- again, the key to ISU's defense was keeping 11 in the box, but not 'selling out' on blitzes.

The only way to beat that D was play-action and throw deep against 1-on-1 CB coverage -- which Iowa tried several times but not nearly often enough, and when they did, Brown was only what, something like 1 out of 4?

That type of Defense is not usually effective vs other college teams because most of them have a more advanced and successful deep passing game. Iowa doesn't. Yet.

My biggest concern vs Michigan is they often have their Cornerbacks play press man-to-man Defense, with 2 Safeties playing zone behind them. I have no idea how Iowa will beat that look.

 

[Grady]

also, our defensive backfield could have played a bit better, missed tackles.

Yep. Not much mention of this, but a fairly important key to the game. Lutmer, Watkins and the #5 Safety all came up hard on run plays and whiffed -- which led to probably an additional 30+ yds of rushing for the Clones. Bad stuff that's gotta get cleaned up. Lutmer looked rusty during much of the game, which was surprising. On the other hand, LB Buffington is the real deal -- great eyesight and amazing speed to get to where he wants to go.

 

[Westernhawk]

There's a difference between playing both your Safeties 8 yds from the LOS and blitzing -- which I didn't see ISU do with their Safeties at all. You're right, perfectly thrown 10-yd outs would have been there, but Iowa has a history of rarely throwing them -- I suspect because of the risk of a pick-6.

Again, the Safeties weren't blitzing, so screens would have been minimally effective vs 11 in the box. Slants would have been throwing right into the vicinity of the Safeties 8 yds deep -- again, the key to ISU's defense was keeping 11 in the box, but not 'selling out' on blitzes.

The only way to beat that D was play-action and throw deep against 1-on-1 CB coverage -- which Iowa tried several times but not nearly often enough, and when they did, Brown was only what, something like 1 out of 4?

That type of Defense is not usually effective vs other college teams because most of them have a more advanced and successful deep passing game. Iowa doesn't. Yet.

My biggest concern vs Michigan is they often have their Cornerbacks play press man-to-man Defense, with 2 Safeties playing zone behind them. I have no idea how Iowa will beat that look.

Really great analysis. I agree that we need to test teams deep more frequently. You noted that Brown was only 1 of 4 on deep balls like this, but that 1 was likely the play of the game and set up our only touchdown. 2 or 3 of those types of completions each game would be massive, I believe.

I think Iowa's running game is gonna have to do something against Meatchicken.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

My biggest concern vs Michigan is they often have their Cornerbacks play press man-to-man Defense, with 2 Safeties playing zone behind them. I have no idea how Iowa will beat that look.

You run right at the 7 man box. That's how you beat that.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

There's a difference between playing both your Safeties 8 yds from the LOS and blitzing -- which I didn't see ISU do with their Safeties at all. You're right, perfectly thrown 10-yd outs would have been there, but Iowa has a history of rarely throwing them -- I suspect because of the risk of a pick-6.

Again, the Safeties weren't blitzing, so screens would have been minimally effective vs 11 in the box. Slants would have been throwing right into the vicinity of the Safeties 8 yds deep -- again, the key to ISU's defense was keeping 11 in the box, but not 'selling out' on blitzes.

The only way to beat that D was play-action and throw deep against 1-on-1 CB coverage -- which Iowa tried several times but not nearly often enough, and when they did, Brown was only what, something like 1 out of 4?

That type of Defense is not usually effective vs other college teams because most of them have a more advanced and successful deep passing game. Iowa doesn't. Yet.

My biggest concern vs Michigan is they often have their Cornerbacks play press man-to-man Defense, with 2 Safeties playing zone behind them. I have no idea how Iowa will beat that look.

Respectfully, their safeties cannot be both back in pass coverage and crashing the line hitting our backs in the backfield. What I mostly saw was what most people call run blitzes. The safeties were within 8 yards and if they read run they were crashing the line. Typically, DBs first steps at the snap are back. These guys were playing LB technique leaning in and anticipating the run. Any sort of decent play action left the CBs 1-1 and the middle of the field wide open. Slow mesh, play action, waggle boot, or max protect double 9s. There were a lot of counters to the defense. I stand by my statement that Lester called a bad game. Hope he/they learned something.

 

[Grady]

This was pretty informative. Ben Bruns, former center for ISU knows ball. After his homeirstic comments are out of the way he offers some good football insight.

I agree that ISU was surprisingly uncreative using their QB, who is arguably a better runner than passer. As Bruns noted, they used almost no misdirection vs Iowa's young LB corps -- seemed liked they were content to play straight ahead power football vs power football for the most part, which made things a lot simpler for the Hawks. I suspect with a lot of new players they wanted to keep it simple to avoid turnovers, which they did.