"He coached on the Virgina staff for 3 seasons and was promoted to defensive coordinator after the ’08 season, but left before he fully took over the job to take the defensive coordinator position at Cincinnati, under his old boss. In 2009, Diaco had a tall task ahead of him when he had to replace all but one starter on defense. The task did not prove too tall however, as the Bearcats finished 3rd in the country in tackles-for-loss. He was one of the many reasons that the Bearcats went undefeated through the regular season on their way to a Big East Championship."
Is it Kirk or KOK?
- Thread starter LoewDog
- Start date
"He coached on the Virgina staff for 3 seasons and was promoted to defensive coordinator after the ’08 season, but left before he fully took over the job to take the defensive coordinator position at Cincinnati, under his old boss. In 2009, Diaco had a tall task ahead of him when he had to replace all but one starter on defense. The task did not prove too tall however, as the Bearcats finished 3rd in the country in tackles-for-loss. He was one of the many reasons that the Bearcats went undefeated through the regular season on their way to a Big East Championship."
MoseSchrute
Well-Known Member
The offense we run is all on Kirk. KOK gets too much blame.
MoseSchrute
Well-Known Member
That would be cool.
MoseSchrute
Well-Known Member
What other schemes would you say require execution at a lower rate?
FranklinHawk
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't you think though that there must have been some circumstance that caused KF/KOK to call the game the way they did on Saturday? I doubt KF just flips a coin before each game to decide whether he's gonna be Crazy Kirk or Comatose Kirk.
There are certainly times I don't get it either, but the coaches are certainly much closer to the situation and every aspect of the game at the very moment. Right or wrong I generally figure that affords them the benefit of a doubt.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't you think though that there must have been some circumstance that caused KF/KOK to call the game the way they did on Saturday? I doubt KF just flips a coin before each game to decide whether he's gonna be Crazy Kirk or Comatose Kirk.
There are certainly times I don't get it either, but the coaches are certainly much closer to the situation and every aspect of the game at the very moment. Right or wrong I generally figure that affords them the benefit of a doubt.
Well going away from the no-huddle on the first series after we crossed the 50 was mind-boggling. It was working VERY well up to that point, and then we stuffed it away until late in the game, and then we didn't execute it. I just don't get why we went away from it so fast when we WERE executing it.
Last edited:
Ian
Well-Known Member
Exactly, what happened here? The no-huddle was working but it looked like we took our foot off the gas at the 50. With a punishing back like Coker I say we line up quickly to get as many plays as we can for him to wear down their defense, but thats just me...would be nice if we gave a 2nd back some reps too (More Canzeri Please!!)..
Also, KOK has been and will always be the scapegoat for blame that should at least partially be on Kirk.
racerhawk
Well-Known Member
Agreed, for the most part...
We looked okay on the oline in the first quarter. As the game progressed, though, it seemed clearer that Iowa wasn't going to even try to throw the ball downfield. It seemed like PSU creeped and creeped on defense. Looked like they had 15 guys out there. We were never able to stretch the field. I'm not sure why we didn't really even try to throw the ball downfield.
ForeverHawk
Well-Known Member
It is KF. We have all witnessed what the no-huddle can produce in the PSU, ULM and Pitt games. Some even tried to say that KOK does not call the plays during no-huddle.....false. KOK could be very good if the lid was lifted!
It's not just the tempo. The offense incorporates virtually no misdirection and hardly any screen passes to slow down an over-pursuing defense. Teams should and do flow hard to the ball against us relentlessly. I think the big run Coker had Saturday where he leveled the safety was actually a trap play/counter type blocking, and we only ran it that one time! The team needs to "execute" to be successful, but it's hard to "execute" when the opponent can pin its ears back with zero fear of getting trapped/countered/screen passed/hard counted off-sides, etc. I think the staff needs to do a better job of putting the offense in a better position to execute. It's not just a matter of calling the plays and saying, "go execute". There needs to be some Xs and Os involved, particularly if the opponent is better than us man for man up front like PSU was on Saturday.
PJHawk
Well-Known Member
Diaco has already publicly laughed at that suggestion. Besides that why do you think the other Parker has hung around this long?
hawkIhoops
Well-Known Member
I hate to say it but KOK is not always the cause of an ineffective offense. The coaches gameplan the week prior includes determining which area of an opposing team's offense and defense can be exploited. Or if we have any glaring weakness that we have to address (ie weak pass protection, new starter in the secondary, etc.) The coaches then design an attack on both sides of the ball, this slight variation (or large in some cases) is implemented in practice. Nothing fundamental is changed as there is no time to effectively do that - ie changing from a pro-style offense to a triple option. It then, finally, comes down to the player's ability to execute the game plan. If we don't have the manpower, injuries, flu, crabs, etc. we lose. If the opposing team game plans better, we lose, if they execute their game plan more effectively, we lose.
As all this applied to the PSU game- our game plan wasn't executed effectively enough and PSU's defensive scheme worked well and was executed well and they got lucky bounces. Ours was working to some small degree in the fact that we were in the game late, had not given up anything big, and had a chance to win.
With all of this said, the one team we consistently do not game plan well for and conversely, they game plan well for us is NW. And it seems everyone else is catching up.
As all this applied to the PSU game- our game plan wasn't executed effectively enough and PSU's defensive scheme worked well and was executed well and they got lucky bounces. Ours was working to some small degree in the fact that we were in the game late, had not given up anything big, and had a chance to win.
With all of this said, the one team we consistently do not game plan well for and conversely, they game plan well for us is NW. And it seems everyone else is catching up.
briankaldenberg
Well-Known Member
There's lots of schemes that increase the chance of success. They still require execution of course, but you can get away with missing a block here and there.
- Offenses that take defenders out into space eliminating the need to make a perfect block on them.
- Offenses that operate out of shotgun almost all the time. Less footwork for the QB, can get the ball out fast, better vision of field.
- Offenses that run play action without forcing the QB to turn his back to the defense
- Offenses that incorporate the QB as a run threat on read draws.
- Offenses that use the entire width of the field by spreading the field instead of cramming 8 and sometimes 9 players into the box.
- Offenses that use pre-snap backfield motion i.e. Oregon, Auburn, Pittsburgh, even Wisconsin is doing this now.
- Offenses that keep the defense on their toes with unpredictable play calling.
The list goes on and on.
Last edited:
Cover3
Well-Known Member
Is there a "like" button on this site??? Seriously, though, I agree on all points. It's not magic, and we still might have only scored three points, but it's hard to swallow not even TRYING a screen on a day where we took several sacks, or a double move when their safeties were laying out our mid-range crossing routes, etc.
It's much easier to accept the 'execution' reason when you empty the playbook and we still get shut down. I would have been okay with a bowl loss last year if Gabbert continued shredding after we went nickel, but he didn't. That's a perfect example of what this staff CAN do when they feel it's imperative. Often, however, they feel that we should keep butting our head against the wall into the fourth quarter of a 6-3 game to see if the wall will fall apart on its own (rather than trying to find a way around it).
***I have some serious second thoughts about that analogy I made at the end there, but I'm keeping it because it's early in the thread. (Iowa staff logic)***
zhawkzrule
Well-Known Member
Its combination of KF and KOK, exactly as other posters noted, I'm tired of the we did not execute. We could not execute because the game plan and play calling was garbage. Obviously mistakes happen, dropped passes, etc, and those are on the players etc. But we are so slow to adjust the play calling in game situations. Just as others noted, we dont try to exploit another teams weakness at all, just try to establish a run game and be balanced. Its proven in all the losses and near loss against PITT that is not working but KF rarely adjusts except in an extreme situation as PITT. Against PSU, the no huddle worked at first as we moved the ball, but went away, gave their D time to set up and they were able to continue to pressure us all day, again without us doing any kind of mis direction, screen, etc.
I hope they realize with this offense the no huddle is our best bet to keep the pressure on the D and move the ball, we need to downfield more and keep the TE's involved, as Jon mentioned in another article, the TE had disappeared from the offense.....
I hope they realize with this offense the no huddle is our best bet to keep the pressure on the D and move the ball, we need to downfield more and keep the TE's involved, as Jon mentioned in another article, the TE had disappeared from the offense.....
