Hindsight: Iowa's 4th quarter D versus Mizzou

[big10fan]

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.

Especially when we are depleted at LB.

 

[cabse5]

So we were depleted at LB last year. DC, try something, anything, that uses our strengths. Realize zone pass coverage doesn't work against all offenses.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

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.

A failing in your remark is that you have to remember that our Hawks are a COLLEGE football team and NOT a NFL team. The point being that our coaches CANNOT ignore their duties to also TEACH the players. The Ferentz philosophy is to do things the "RIGHT WAY." I can respect that. A big part of what is meant by that is that is that the players need to be fundamentally sound first ... and they need to be able to play fast. As guys do more and more things "right" ... thus increases the playbook that they're allowed to execute.

The REWARDS that the players and fans reap from this approach is an Iowa squad that does a great job of producing NFL-ready talent. Furthermore, when the squad is buying what the coaches are selling, the team is capable of competing with ANYBODY! As is evidenced by the fact that the Hawks haven't lost by more than a score since 2007 ... I think that there is a fine precedent that supports what the coaches are doing.

My remarks in this thread are not intended to undermine the philosophy of the staff. I understand their approach and, by and large, I agree with it. However, what perplexes me is that we don't sometimes take advantage of seeming depth in the secondary ... particularly when it would seem strategically sound to do so. Of course, in defense of the coaches, from what I gather, guys like Lowery and Miller were dinged and Bernstine had still been working to play more consistently. As a result, we may not have had the depth at the time that I believed we had.

However, if we had the depth ... then the question remains why the coaches didn't feel like the level of execution wasn't good enough with our nickel/dime packages.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

So we were depleted at LB last year. DC, try something, anything, that uses our strengths. Realize zone pass coverage doesn't work against all offenses.

As I alluded before ... it may have been that we didn't have the personnel to pull off the level of man coverage that we were able to do when we had Spievey and Fletcher. Furthermore, as I mentioned before, we had a number of DBs dinged too.

 

[cabse5]

Maybe I'm trying to allude that Iowa coaches should react to situations:
Coaches, if you don't have the athlete(s) to pull off your favorite scheme(s), use schemes that might work with the athletes you have - that might be somewhat effective for the situation, then go out and recruit the athlete(s) you need for your favorite schemes.

You might find a different scheme , like TCU's D scheme, might be as effective.

React, be flexible, and prepare.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

Maybe I'm trying to allude that Iowa coaches should react to situations:
Coaches, if you don't have the athlete(s) to pull off your favorite scheme(s), use schemes that might work with the athletes you have - that might be somewhat effective for the situation, then go out and recruit the athlete(s) you need for your favorite schemes.

You might find a different scheme , like TCU's D scheme, might be as effective.

React, be flexible, and prepare.

And how fluent are you concerning the offensive schemes that TCU had to play against? How familiar are you with the personnel that TCU has? Heck, you may not realize it ... but whether also pragmatically figures in what schemes work better than others.

It would seem to me that your remarks are seemingly ill-informed.

Iowa still needs to be able to stop the run ... so that tends to lead us to insert more of an extra safety in our formations that call for an extra DB.

However, remind me of our depth at safety .... yeah, that's right, it was one of the spots where we had the LEAST depth. Furthermore, Miller got dinged and wasn't up to playing for several games.

As for at CB, Lowe and Lowery were both dinged at various junctures of the season ... and from most reports Bernstine wasn't good to go either. Thus, that left us with Castillo as our primary option to turn to at CB. I think that Castillo is a perfectly good CB ... but he hasn't yet distinguished himself as a lock-down corner either.

My main question has been directed more to folks who might have been better aware of the health-situation of our guys in the secondary. That would have been able to point to whether we would have been able to implement nickel/dime packages at other junctures through the season.

Anyhow, many of the things that TCU does isn't all that dissimilar to what we do. Not unlike them, Iowa doesn't place an emphasis on making their LBs too huge. Rather, Iowa places plenty of emphasis on the LBs being quick/fast enough to excel in coverage ... and as a result Iowa's LBs are typically in the ball-park of 220-240 lbs. It wasn't that long ago when LBs were often even bigger ... between 240-250. Also, Iowa places an emphasis on our LBs being able to "play fast" ... and that is precisely what TCU does too.

 

[cabse5]

Nah, I'm not buying that. Iowa's D and TCU's D are certainly not the same.
TCU's 3-4 front seven provides 1 more linebacker to cover a TE,RB or slot receiver.
Linebackers could also rush the passer.

TCU is better equipped to handle opponent's speed than Iowa - Its more flexible to handle varied offenses.

This is where the two passing Ds are completely different: Iowa uses the pass rush of its front four as the first line of pass defense - 'bad' things certainly happened last season with little pass rush pressure. TCU uses the aggressive pass coverage of its pass coverers as the first line of pass defense.

Having 1 less D lineman, the 3-4 is probably going to create less of a pass rush and not be as stout against the run.
This is where aggressive pass coverage is necessary.
I don't remember how TCU limited Wisky's rushing in the Rose Bowl. You're probably right. More men will probably need to be in the box. Of course, a team could develop a monster like Auburn's Fairley.

Were Iowa players dinged up? Certainly. Did it matter? Not really - it's football - next man in. If there isn't a 'quality' next man in for a fav scheme, it's time to change schemes to take advantage of the skills available. That's called coaching. Try something different. At least... try to figure it out.

I don't believe this year was a 'perfect storm of injury' for Iowa's defense. This year might have been a 'perfect storm of opponents solving Iowa's cover two zone'. Heck, even traditional running power Wisky effectively used a spread offense against Iowa's pass defense.
Year after excruciating year, Iowa's tendency is to use a passive zone even against B1G spread passing teams like NW, Purdue, and Indiana.

I guess the quality of Iowa backups weren't great last season.
Who was at fault? IMO, some blame has to be laid on coaches. Recruit 'em up then coach 'em up.
(1) A coach can recruit more athletes if he uses the skills of those athletes.
(2) Coaches who use multiple defensive schemes will be able to 'solve' different types of offenses, confuse offenses, and make the defender more rounded - more NFL ready.

That is all Homer.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

Were Iowa players dinged up? Certainly. Did it matter? Not really - it's football - next man in. If there isn't a 'quality' next man in for a fav scheme, it's time to change schemes to take advantage of the skills available. That's called coaching. Try something different. At least... try to figure it out.

Are you kidding? "Next man in" works when you have a few injuries ... however, did you NOT observe that the ENTIRE group of LBs who were slated to start ended up going down to injuries?

Iowa wouldn't have been able to pull off a TCU-like 3-4 look with our 3rd and 4th string LBs.

You could argue that Iowa should have "itched where it scratched" and opted to blitz the crap out of our opponents in order to compensate for our deficiencies. However, how would that have helped our young/inexperienced players improve and develop? The fact is that it wouldn't.

Had Iowa executed our "same old, same old" and ended up having our a$$es handed to us ... that would have suggested that there was something wrong with what we were doing strategically. However, when you're in each game and the players have the opportunity to win the game .... it's on the players, NOT THE SCHEME!

And, quite frankly, many "bigger name" teams have sucked worse when absorbing the sort of adversity Iowa was contending with. Instead, Iowa lost a handful of games by a measly margin. That's definitely something that fans can and should be disappointed about ... however, trying to play the "blame game" isn't the solution.