Iowa @ ISU an Even Matchup?

[hawkdrummer1]

To be successful without a good defensive line or offensive line, the skill players better be REAL good.

Iowa shows up, runs the ball right at them. Forcing them into a run stop defense. LB's and DBs move up to cover up for the D'line and that opens up the play action pass and vertical pass. Pressure on the QB. Contain the edge. Keep their offense on the bench. W for Iowa.

Somebody with superior football savvy help me out on this...it's something I've never quite bought into.

You can only score once in a possession...whether it's an 18 play grinder or you bolt downfield in 8 snaps. So how exactly does holding onto the ball to "keep the other offense off the field" give you an advantage. And don't say "it keeps the game close", because that can work against you just as well as for you. We have plenty of evidence of that. Is it based on the assumption that first defense to get tired usually loses the game?

 

[HawkeyeDenis]

Somebody with superior football savvy help me out on this...it's something I've never quite bought into.

You can only score once in a possession...whether it's an 18 play grinder or you bolt downfield in 8 snaps. So how exactly does holding onto the ball to "keep the other offense off the field" give you an advantage. And don't say "it keeps the game close", because that can work against you just as well as for you. We have plenty of evidence of that. Is it based on the assumption that first defense to get tired usually loses the game?

Keeping the opponents offense off the field is basic football strategy. The more times your team has the ball the more chances to score. Limit the other team to 3 and outs and your offense moves the ball consistently. The defense will tire out. And a tired defense reacts slower.

In the case of this post, Iowa vs ISU. ISU's offense had trouble against Iowa's defense last year. Hence their offense will be on the bench more than their defense. Iowa didn't have that much trouble moving the ball last year. Iowa gets more shots at the end zone.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

Keeping the opponents offense off the field is basic football strategy. The more times your team has the ball the more chances to score. Limit the other team to 3 and outs and your offense moves the ball consistently. The defense will tire out. And a tired defense reacts slower.

In the case of this post, Iowa vs ISU. ISU's offense had trouble against Iowa's defense last year. Hence their offense will be on the bench more than their defense. Iowa didn't have that much trouble moving the ball last year. Iowa gets more shots at the end zone.

Again, the same number of possessions = the same number of chances to score. If you don't score...whether you have the ball 2 minutes or 10 is largely irrelevant. Points win the game. There are no "riding" points in football. Unless the ultimate strategy is to tire out the opposing defense and eventually punch the ball into the endzone. But wouldn't a tired offense also execute less effectively?

 

[deanvogs]

Again, the same number of possessions = the same number of chances to score. If you don't score...whether you have the ball 2 minutes or 10 is largely irrelevant. Points win the game. There are no "riding" points in football. Unless the ultimate strategy is to tire out the opposing defense and eventually punch the ball into the endzone. But wouldn't a tired offense also execute less effectively?

Offensively it is much less taxing. You sub out your RB, TE and WR. Most D don't sub out their starting LB and secondary. On your OL you fire off the ball for run plays, but you drop back and just block for pass plays. At the same time the DL is getting pushed or trying to push on run plays, and is trying to chase down the QB on passing plays. This is kind of football 101 Drummer, and I'm surprised that it even needs to be explained to you.

 

[CP87]

Again, the same number of possessions = the same number of chances to score. If you don't score...whether you have the ball 2 minutes or 10 is largely irrelevant. Points win the game. There are no "riding" points in football. Unless the ultimate strategy is to tire out the opposing defense and eventually punch the ball into the endzone. But wouldn't a tired offense also execute less effectively?

The offense knows where it is going, the defense has to chase. I think that makes a different in a given snap wearing the D out more than the O.

 

[deanvogs]

Keeping the opponents offense off the field is basic football strategy. The more times your team has the ball the more chances to score. Limit the other team to 3 and outs and your offense moves the ball consistently. The defense will tire out. And a tired defense reacts slower.

In the case of this post, Iowa vs ISU. ISU's offense had trouble against Iowa's defense last year. Hence their offense will be on the bench more than their defense. Iowa didn't have that much trouble moving the ball last year. Iowa gets more shots at the end zone.

The high powered offenses try to tire defense by running play after play quickly. Power offenses try to do it cumulatively over a game.

 

[HawkeyeDenis]

Hawkeye Drummer it seems like you've read about football but never played it. Watch the defensive linemen at the end of a long drive. Trying to get into a backfield is physically more tiring than trying to keep someone out.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

Hawkeye Drummer it seems like you've read about football but never played it. Watch the defensive linemen at the end of a long drive. Trying to get into a backfield is physically more tiring than trying to keep someone out.

No guys, I get it. But there's more than one approach today. I played in the 3 yards and a cloud of dust era where what you say was a given and everybody did it. Time of possession is a pretty key indicator.

While those principles are still valid, there are a variety of offensive approaches today. Not all of the classic assumptions are certainties. I was interested in how others saw it.

 

[AdamHawk]

No guys, I get it. But there's more than one approach today. I played in the 3 yards and a cloud of dust era where what you say was a given and everybody did it. Time of possession is a pretty key indicator.

While those principles are still valid, there are a variety of offensive approaches today. Not all of the classic assumptions are certainties. I was interested in how others saw it.

The power offense has never been the 'only' way to run a successful offense. It's merely one of the several options. There is a reason it has stood the test of time and that is because it's proven to be successful. Iowa's offense has had a ton of success over the years of wearing down defenses and pulling away late in the game.

 

[westender]

Again, the same number of possessions = the same number of chances to score. If you don't score...whether you have the ball 2 minutes or 10 is largely irrelevant. Points win the game. There are no "riding" points in football. Unless the ultimate strategy is to tire out the opposing defense and eventually punch the ball into the endzone. But wouldn't a tired offense also execute less effectively?

First call for Kirk on the call in show, will be listening to see if you are asking.

 

[HawkeyeDenis]

No guys, I get it. But there's more than one approach today. I played in the 3 yards and a cloud of dust era where what you say was a given and everybody did it. Time of possession is a pretty key indicator.

While those principles are still valid, there are a variety of offensive approaches today. Not all of the classic assumptions are certainties. I was interested in how others saw it.

ok gotcha