I
Ian Pike Hammer
Guest
to the short side of the field. Can someone explain that to me please?
SpiderRico
Well-Known Member
Boundary side has fewer defensive players. That’s pretty much the thought process.
Ask Fred Russell
Most defenses, including Iowa, will align their strong side outside linebacker (most defenses call it a Sam backer) to the field. Therefore offensive strategy has been to put their offensive strength into the boundary and outnumber the defense and run the ball there. It’s all a numbers game and leverage.
MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
Well, in actuality, how much space going laterally towards the sideline does a team really need. The short side still has plenty of real estate even though the long side has more. It isn't like you are wanting an extra 20 yrds of real estate laterally before a player can turn up field. You don't want a player wasting that much time running laterally.
There's more space when down on the field than what it looks like on TV. It looks deceiving.
There's more space when down on the field than what it looks like on TV. It looks deceiving.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
It works on occasion, but the ROI on this play is pretty poor. Sure there are fewer players to that side, there's less area to cover.
The biggest problem is every defense knows exactly what's coming when the Iowa QB comes up...counts the players left and right and then audibles. Run into the boundary. It makes the top 5 most maddening things about KFz. (yes, there's a top 5 best things too....so don't go Mary on me)
The biggest problem is every defense knows exactly what's coming when the Iowa QB comes up...counts the players left and right and then audibles. Run into the boundary. It makes the top 5 most maddening things about KFz. (yes, there's a top 5 best things too....so don't go Mary on me)
Kirk Ball isn't known for "keeping them guessing."
WinOneThisCentury
Well-Known Member
If Tristan Wirfs or Brandon Sherff are lined up on the short side of the field...yes run that way. I'm not sure Iowa is running too many "sweeps"...if we mean, "why run outside zone" to the short side...the above may be a part of the answer.
It's usually about formations and how the defense aligns to those formations...typically the defense is adjusting to the wide side of the field and maintaining leverage there...it presents opportunities to seal the edge on the other side and kick out a corner and you can make something happen.
It's usually about formations and how the defense aligns to those formations...typically the defense is adjusting to the wide side of the field and maintaining leverage there...it presents opportunities to seal the edge on the other side and kick out a corner and you can make something happen.
The thing is, I guarantee Iowa tracks yards/play for every possible situation. They know exactly how many yards they get per play based upon position on the field, running to field or boundary, running to or away from #s advantage, down and distance, etc.. The rest of us are just guessing based upon a few plays that stand out in our minds. If it was really a consistently poor ROI, they would stop doing it. Coaches may be stubborn, but they are not idiots.
I think the Jordan Canzieri highlight reel is a good example of the value of OZ into the boundary.
The 2nd TD on the video is OZ to the boundary, reaches endzone from 16 yards out:
"But that isn't a sweep," some may say. True, but nor are most runs into the boundary. But if OZ gets clogged up and bounced, guess what it looks like?
Early on the video you see a few more TD from goal-line running OZ to boundary.
Here is Wadley with a OZ for TD into the boundary:
You also see some examples of Iowa making things look like OZ to boundary and taking advantage of a D that thinks they have things figured out.
For example, running IZ to boundary and setting up a natural cutback. Or running counter to field, where QB opening and RB 1st step is to boundary, but then run goes back in the other direction:
Here is faking zone to boundary, and Zone counter to field:
Or to keep them guessing, here is Zone counter to the boundary:
If you watch those highlight videos, you will see a ton of TD runs to the boundary, both OZ and other (here is ISO to the boundary):
https://youtu.be/KvyX74cGkgo?t=333
trj
Well-Known Member
2015 and before I would 100% agree with this. I think the Iowa staff has adjusted, the argument becomes is it 10 years too late?
I disagree. Kirk and Brian have many strengths. However, on a scale of 1-10 in game play-calling is about a 2-3. If they actually keep "track of the numbers" as closely as you suggest and still run the same tried and true 2-3 yarders with those popular 6 yard pass completions when it is 3rd and 7 thrown in, it would be very sad indeed. Creativity about a 2-3. Individual player development, 8-9. Team development about a 6. Longevity 10. Contract manipulation 10. Beating teams they should beat, 8. Rising up to win the big games when opportunity knocks, 3. Touting another "bowl invite" 10.
My two cents from isolation FWIW.
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
This is really the crux of the problem. I think Brian has recognized it and made some nice adjustments, but it remains an issue.
The past 4-5 seasons in particular show defenses attacking the LOS at the snap based upon the slant. The obvious intent is to blow up the zone blocking and penetrate the gaps, and it has been extremely effective.
I still don't get why it has taken the coaches so long to see the obvious. I can't count how many times I've yelled at the TV to fake the handoff and hit a receiver moving into the vacated portion of the field (a smart way to do this is have the TE on the strong side fake his block then slip behind the LBs). Do that a few times and teams will think twice about selling out.
You have to make aggressive defenses pay for the aggression otherwise you will be in a world of hurt.
#Wisconsin2017
It is difficult to jettison a playbook that gets you, usually, to 7-5 every year.
Why risk it? Risk is the key word. You usually have to take on more risk to be what you have not yet been.
chucktownhawk
Well-Known Member
It's just closer to the bathroom or snack bar
earlkoppelman
Well-Known Member
Yup?
I
Ian Pike Hammer
Guest
And cheerleaders?
