Hindsight: Iowa's 4th quarter D versus Mizzou

H

homerHAWKeye777

Well-Known Member
Okay, first off, I recall/recognize that the players on D gave Norm a lot of credit for making the defensive adjustment in the 2nd half. However, that said, I still think that it was rather intriguing that Iowa pretty much used multi-DB sets through pretty much the ENTIRE 4th quarter against Mizzou.

Why I'm particularly intrigued is why Iowa doesn't do this more against pass-oriented spread teams.

As a point of reference:

Mizzou had 435 yards through the first 3 quarters (145 yards per quarter)
Mizzou had 77 yards through the 4th quarter

Is that not STRIKING?! Through the first 3 quarters they were averaging twice as many yards per quarter than they were through the 4th quarter. And, mind you, it's not like they weren't trying to run the ball in the 4th quarter either. Some of the difference might be accountable by the fact that Mizzou was trying to kill the clock some. However, that's not enough to account for the 2 to 1 ratio.

Another thing to note is that Greenwood was out for most or all of the 4th quarter. I wonder if having a veteran FS out like Greenwood made them less comfortable executing their base D. Maybe they also worked on the multi-DB sets more through bowl prep and had it available as a viable option to use against Mizzou. Again, this still begs the question, were they NOT more prepared to use such sets earlier in the season? If they weren't prepared to use such sets ... then why?

I can imagine that a legit part of the reason has to deal with injuries and inexperience. Through the regular season, they needed Morris to get more experience and confidence operating our base D. That was obvious. Furthermore, as I recall hearing, we had a bunch of DBs dinged through a hunk of the season ... particularly ones who were particularly experienced and/or talented.

Iowa will obviously not change its base D. However, given the Hawks are going to face off against a number of "spread" teams early in the season (Pitt and ISU being primary examples), I'll be curious how they counter such sets on D.
 
Mizzou went into the trademarked Ferentzian prevent offense for much of the 4th quarter as they were playing not to lose. Then, when they got behind, they couldn't get the O running on track again and they lost. The D also made some nice plays. After losing multiple games due to the Ferentzian prevent offense and the defense being a few inches out of position on key plays and having opposing offenses make miraculous plays, it was time for the football gods to return the universe to the mean. The Mizzou game was nothing more than that, a return to the mean.

The staff will have us back to the base 4-3 and same offense as usual just in time to start next season. It will keep us in most games, but they can't go out and prep those nickel and dime packages every week due to limited practice time. Additionally, when we have good LB packages (e.g., the year we had Angerer, Edds and Hunter all as upper classmen), the base 4-3 gives us a much better chance of beating the spread than digging down to the 3rd or 4th CB.
 
I believe the defense will also have to be much more unpredictable as they won't be able to count on getting pressure with just four people, or at least that is the way the early games shape up. There is some talent on the D-line, but we just lost three very, very good players.

I'm hoping Norm uses this fact to change things up, especially on third down. With the speed that has been recruited, going to dime and nickel situations, and also bringing a 5th player in the pass rush would make sense. For the first time in a long time, we are deep with man cover guys (prater, hyde, castillo, lowe, campbell, law. The last two are unknowns, but they have speed which is a huge plus.
 
WinOneThisCentury said:
I believe the defense will also have to be much more unpredictable as they won't be able to count on getting pressure with just four people, or at least that is the way the early games shape up. There is some talent on the D-line, but we just lost three very, very good players.

I'm hoping Norm uses this fact to change things up, especially on third down. With the speed that has been recruited, going to dime and nickel situations, and also bringing a 5th player in the pass rush would make sense. For the first time in a long time, we are deep with man cover guys (prater, hyde, castillo, lowe, campbell, law. The last two are unknowns, but they have speed which is a huge plus.
Click to expand...

Against, Mizzou, Morris blitzed twice ... at the very least. Man is he fast coming off the edge.

Anyhow, the issue doesn't have as much to do with "being unpredictable" as much as it has to do with forcing the opposing O to be MORE predictable. I think that Clayborn stated it really well after the Wisky game ... we just weren't winning the battles on 1st and 2nd down ... and that then allowed the opposing O to be more unpredictable. Unfortunately, when the O has more options ... it makes them that much more difficult to defend.
 
okeefe4prez said:
The staff will have us back to the base 4-3 and same offense as usual just in time to start next season. It will keep us in most games, but they can't go out and prep those nickel and dime packages every week due to limited practice time. Additionally, when we have good LB packages (e.g., the year we had Angerer, Edds and Hunter all as upper classmen), the base 4-3 gives us a much better chance of beating the spread than digging down to the 3rd or 4th CB.
Click to expand...

The bigger reason why the coaches seem to prefer to stick with the 4-3 D is because when the LBs are competent in coverage, it gives us the best chance to SHUT DOWN the run while still slowing the pass.

In 2010, we had pretty good luck shutting down (or at least slowing) the run ... however, we just got eaten alive by the short to mid-ranged passing game. And, a lot of that had to do with the fact that we were stuck playing 3rd and 4th string LBs through significant portions of the season.
 
1. This thread should have been titled "Hyde-sight: Iowa's 4th quarter D versus Mizzou".

2. Completely agree with your thinking and questions.
 
changing defense in the 4th quarter is a pretty good thing - doesn't give a QB much time to adjust - gets into his head. coaching staff not playing the run as Iowa didn't play all those dbacks early on.

good mental game.
 
homerHAWKeye777 said:
The bigger reason why the coaches seem to prefer to stick with the 4-3 D is because when the LBs are competent in coverage, it gives us the best chance to SHUT DOWN the run while still slowing the pass.

In 2010, we had pretty good luck shutting down (or at least slowing) the run ... however, we just got eaten alive by the short to mid-ranged passing game. And, a lot of that had to do with the fact that we were stuck playing 3rd and 4th string LBs through significant portions of the season.
Click to expand...

Throw in the fact that Iowa was working with a D-Coordinator by committee approach. This means you will only get a vanilla base defense, because nobody would be in position to make a unilateral decision to make a huge change. Try this, next time you have to decide to go to the movies with the wife, try to get her involved in the decision on which movie to see and don't just let her get her way. No way you decide this with enough time to be ready to line up and defend a sideline check spread formation.

Norm came back and control went to one person. He realized that Morris might be more effective using his athletic ability in a more controlled space, coming off the corner than having to cover the entire middle of the field. Pretty basic actually.
 
Last edited:
CAARHawk said:
Throw in the fact that Iowa was working with a D-Coordinator by committee approach. This means you will only get a vanilla base defense, because nobody would be in position to make a unilateral decision to make a huge change. Try this, next time you have to decide to go to the movies with the wife, try to get her involved in the decision on which movie to see and don't just let her get her way. No way you decide this with enough time to be ready to line up and defend a sideline check spread formation.

Norm came back and control went to one person. He realized that Morris might be more effective using his athletic ability in a more controlled space, coming off the corner than having to cover the entire middle of the field. Pretty basic actually.
Click to expand...

Morris was still back in coverage through most of the reps.

Just as imported_ankle23 also stated ... changing up D late in the game is also pretty basic strategically too. Of course, that also relies on the ability of the D to execute consistently. Furthermore, when you have a DB-heavy formation ... you have to make sure that you can contain the run with so few hats in the box. That means that you either have uber-confidence in the 5 or 6 guys in the box OR you simply don't respect the opposition's running game.

I'm just a bit more surprised that we didn't try to make such changes at the end of more games.

Of course, just as you indicated, the DC-by-committee issue probably factored into it too.
 
Any idea why Iowa doesn't just switch to lighter, more athletic linebackers in its base set? It seems like this would be a compromise between doing what Iowa has always done and also adapting to the fact that about half the teams Iowa plays anymore run some form of spread.

Although, now that I think about it, if they wanted to switch to linebackers like that, putting a player like James Morris at middle linebacker would be a good place to start.
 
Good point Hawksel. TCU's D is a good example of lots of tweeners playing with toughness and correct spacing. Not highly recruited guys either, so a good model for development. And coaches are always looking to grow, meeting up with coaches from other schools and sharing info. If I'm a college D coach I'm heading down to Ft. Worth to glean insights...
 
#48 Troy Johnson.
Watch the tape. Gabberrt knew where he was every play, and he got abused.
Big heart, slow feet.
He's a Hawkeye, but he wasn't Edds or Nielsen.
 
I don't understand why we can't install at least a nickel package during the preseason. It wouldn't even have to be that complex of package or have that much variation. Just a package we can run in on third and longs or play a fair amount of time against spread teams. Line up a DB over the slot WR giving us more flexibility in pass coverage.

We are comfortable installing the 3-4 package, but we are not comfortable installing a nickel package. A kid like Bernstine or Hitchens would make a great nickel back in that they can line up over slot WR's while still having enough physical presence to hold their own on draws or suprise edge running plays.
 
drew003 said:
I don't understand why we can't install at least a nickel package during the preseason. It wouldn't even have to be that complex of package or have that much variation. Just a package we can run in on third and longs or play a fair amount of time against spread teams. Line up a DB over the slot WR giving us more flexibility in pass coverage.

We are comfortable installing the 3-4 package, but we are not comfortable installing a nickel package. A kid like Bernstine or Hitchens would make a great nickel back in that they can line up over slot WR's while still having enough physical presence to hold their own on draws or suprise edge running plays.
Click to expand...

We use nickel and dime sets situationally throughout the season. That is NOT the issue. The bigger surprise, in my mind, is that we don't use such sets MORE OFTEN against pass-oriented teams.

To some end I can understand it in terms of personnel and injuries ... however, this year we were pretty deep at CB and yet we didn't seem to tap such sets as frequently as we've used them in the past. Of course, part of that could also be attributable to the fact that we used such sets more several years back when we had Fletcher and Spievey ... those guys were physical enough to handle press coverage without getting beaten very often.
 
Defense did mix it up just enough against Mizzu for the win. Not having Norm all season made a big difference.
 
homerHAWKeye777 said:
We use nickel and dime sets situationally throughout the season. That is NOT the issue. The bigger surprise, in my mind, is that we don't use such sets MORE OFTEN against pass-oriented teams.

To some end I can understand it in terms of personnel and injuries ... however, this year we were pretty deep at CB and yet we didn't seem to tap such sets as frequently as we've used them in the past. Of course, part of that could also be attributable to the fact that we used such sets more several years back when we had Fletcher and Spievey ... those guys were physical enough to handle press coverage without getting beaten very often.
Click to expand...

Why didn't we use the nickel and dime packages more? That's the biggest question I'm hoping the Iowa coaching staff is asking themselves. I get wanting a team to have to drive the length of the field to beat you...and not giving up the big play for points. However, in the case when competing against established, accurate passers who run a short route oriented offenses, or variations of the spread (Indiana, NW, Missouri and even OSU), you can't sit back and give them what the offense was designed to take. They will sustain drives and all you do is wear down your defense. It's the most frustrating thing about Iowa Football in my opinion.

The teams that beat NW blitz and force them to have to make plays down the field. And they blitz on first down trying to get them into 2nd and 3rd and long situations. The defense needs to do some dictating about what they will allow and take, dare I say it, some calculated gambles.

You can't argue with the success we have had on defense...and I'm not saying all is messed up. I just don't believe you can't approach teams like Missouri and NW, with that defensive philosophy the entire game. If Gabbert doesn't make two absolutely bonehead plays (interception in the end zone / Hyde return), we lose.
 
The real boneheads are Iowa coaches and fans who are 'proud' of Iowa's defense because it remains in the base 4-3 scheme throughout the season.

The real boneheads are Iowa coaches and fans who are 'proud' of Iowa's pass defense because it's mainly zone passing coverage - bend but don't break. I've got news for you. There's plenty of break in Iowa's passing defense: Whether it's a long shot for, for example, Michigan State (2009), or sustained drives for, for example, Mizzou.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top