Iowa's Defense: Fast Starts

[JonDMiller]

removing the Arizona game, because the defense's first time on the field was on th short porch set up by the blocked punt, the defense has gotten off to fast starts.

Here are the first possessions for Iowa's opponents in the other four games:

EIU: 3 plays, -13 yards
ISU: 3 plays, 3 yards
BSU: 3 plays, 5 yards
PSU: 3 plays, 7 yards.

Now, here are the number of three and outs Iowa's starting defense has recorded this year in those four games:

EIU: 5 of 8 opponent possessions
ISU: 5 of 9
BSU: 5 of 10
PSU: 6 of 14

That is 21 of 41 possessions where Iowa's starting defense has forced a three and out..51% of the time in those four games.

 

[Mac50702]

Lets just hope the trend continues against Michigan.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

I know the offense has typically done pretty well to start games so far this year, but I find it interesting that Ferentz always likes to take the ball first when we have such a good defense. Why doesn't he defer to the 2nd half and put our defense on the field first, if that really is the strength of the team? Forcing a quick punt (or maybe a turnover) would set the early tone in our favor and should also get our offense better starting field position, barring a good kickoff return.

I'm sure KF has his reasons for doing this, but I guess I've just always been a believer in starting the game off by putting your best on the field right away and getting off to a fast start. But as long as the offense continues to play well, move the ball and get us on the board first, I can't complain. That hasn't always been the case in past years, though.

I just thought it was interesting that we always start on offense since we clearly seem to be a defensive-oriented program.

 

[OPHawkJDGolfer]

I understand removing the AZ game from the first drive analysis due to the blocked punt/short field, but would be interested to see the 3 & out stat for AZ and can't think of a similar good reason to flush that game from the analysis.

 

[OPHawkJDGolfer]

Looks to me like 2 of 12, including the Binns pick, not including AZ's last possession when they were milking the clock.

 

[JonDMiller]

I understand removing the AZ game from the first drive analysis due to the blocked punt/short field, but would be interested to see the 3 & out stat for AZ and can't think of a similar good reason to flush that game from the analysis.

I dint expect many three and outs before that game started due to the accuracy of Foles. I expected more field goals. In the end their offense put together one legit td drive

 

[Rawkhawk73]

I dint expect many three and outs before that game started due to the accuracy of Foles. I expected more field goals. In the end their offense put together one legit td drive

Jon,

No offense, but to disregard the two long field goal drives is somewhat disingenuous.....especially considering we needed the ball back on those two long drives to make our comeback. Field goals are okay when you're close or ahead.....they're not okay when you're behind by double digits and both those drives ate up 5+ minutes of possession time. In addition, I think you need to assign 4 points to the defense after the blocked punt.....even Ferentz acknowledged that the defense probably should have held them to a field goal.

To just say "their offense put together just one legit td drive" doesn't come close to telling the whole story.

 

[OUTofTOWNHAWK]

I dint expect many three and outs before that game started due to the accuracy of Foles. I expected more field goals. In the end their offense put together one legit td drive

Do you think this could also be the case at Michigan? Im thinking that Michigan will have a hand full of turnovers against our defense but will have quite a few first downs. I guess we will know more after their game this weekend.

 

[Sirhouseman]

I know the offense has typically done pretty well to start games so far this year, but I find it interesting that Ferentz always likes to take the ball first when we have such a good defense. Why doesn't he defer to the 2nd half and put our defense on the field first, if that really is the strength of the team? Forcing a quick punt (or maybe a turnover) would set the early tone in our favor and should also get our offense better starting field position, barring a good kickoff return.

I have often thought this as well, but I think (and maybe this is what KF thinks) that if our offense can get a score, that just adds to the pressure on the opposing offense when our D takes the field knowing that it's job is to protect a lead. Iowa doesn't take a lot of chances, but it does afford them some.

 

[JonDMiller]

Jon,

No offense, but to disregard the two long field goal drives is somewhat disingenuous.....especially considering we needed the ball back on those two long drives to make our comeback. Field goals are okay when you're close or ahead.....they're not okay when you're behind by double digits and both those drives ate up 5+ minutes of possession time. In addition, I think you need to assign 4 points to the defense after the blocked punt.....even Ferentz acknowledged that the defense probably should have held them to a field goal.

To just say "their offense put together just one legit td drive" doesn't come close to telling the whole story.

They put together one legit touchdown drive.

It's not like I am speaking a foreign language here. People cite 'bend dont break' all of the time. The defense has areas that can be exploited by accurate and patient QB's. That is why Foles worried me before the game. Even then, Iowa's defense held him at bay IMO. I was very pleased with their effort. Given his accuracy and patience, I expected fewer three and outs in that game than in any game this year.

You are making it appear as if I don't think Iowa is going to give up drives in the game where the other team strings together 8 or more plays. I expect that a few times a game. But I expect most of those drives to end in field goals...which is what has happened.