It's official: Hyde to safety

[cabse5]

Incidentally Wisco ran for 226 yards and could have run for more if they hadn't got cute. Why don't you head over to the Wiscy board because they could use some coaching critique after that game themeslves......they ran up the gut on TCU like a hot knife through butter. And then they stopped or went outside.....

Chad

Well, Chad, should I put a tic in your column? Do you think you made a 'good' come back, Hummm???


I realize you're a rookie poster and all, and normally I don't respond to posters who haven't thought out their post, but your post ticked me off because it's like a number of posters from this thread that only want to try to knock my posts down... Without thinking out their own posts. OK, you want to be closed-minded? Go right on.

BTW, since you don't like the TCU example, Chad, let me use the Pittsburgh Steelers example. Lots of Iowa fans wish Iowa was like the Pittsburgh Steelers.
Maybe I could use Green Bay's or Auburn's example??

For crying out loud, why don't we all try to find ways to make Iowa's football team elite - instead of this garbage ?

I don't expect to convert any diehard 'Parker traditionalists'. Maybe I can help illuminate the 'situation' to those who aren't diehard 'Parker traditionalists'?
Anotheredit: What does being a diehard 'Parker traditionalist' have to do with making Iowa an elite football team?

Finally, it's ultiimately Ferentz's decision which defense is run.
What does Ferentz say on this subject?
thirdedit: What I should ask is: Do you know what Ferentz has said on this subject?

 

[tm3308]

Well, Chad, should I put a tic in your column? Do you think you made a 'good' come back, Hummm???


I realize you're a rookie poster and all, and normally I don't respond to posters who haven't thought out their post, but your post ticked me off because it's like a number of posters from this thread that only want to try to knock my posts down... Without thinking out their own posts. OK, you want to be closed-minded? Go right on.

BTW, since you don't like the TCU example, Chad, let me use the Pittsburgh Steelers example. Lots of Iowa fans wish they were like Pittsburgh.
Maybe I couuld use Green Bay's or Aurburn's example??

For crying out loud, why don't we all try to find ways to make Iowa's football team elite - instead of this garbage ?

Yeah, 28 wins in 3 years is just absolute garbage

We'll pretend that that statement didn't highlight just how ridiculous your argument is. The defense could use a few minor tweaks (in certain situations), but the offense needs to start actually doing something against the Indiana's and Northwestern's of the world.

 

[HawkeyeMike23]

Well, Chad, should I put a tic in your column? Do you think you made a 'good' come back, Hummm???


I realize you're a rookie poster and all, and normally I don't respond to posters who haven't thought out their post, but your post ticked me off because it's like a number of posters from this thread that only want to try to knock my posts down... Without thinking out their own posts. OK, you want to be closed-minded? Go right on.

BTW, since you don't like the TCU example, Chad, let me use the Pittsburgh Steelers example. Lots of Iowa fans wish Iowa was like the Pittsburgh Steelers.
Maybe I could use Green Bay's or Auburn's example??

For crying out loud, why don't we all try to find ways to make Iowa's football team elite - instead of this garbage ?

You realize the coaching staff doesn't read these boards to look for coaching advice, right? You need to just let go of the idea that you can do anything to make Iowa football elite.

I've been telling the coaching staff for years that they should just get all 4 and 5 star recruits, but they still aren't doing it.

 

[cmhawks99]

Well, Chad, should I put a tic in your column? Do you think you made a 'good' come back, Hummm???


I realize you're a rookie poster and all, and normally I don't respond to posters who haven't thought out their post, but your post ticked me off because it's like a number of posters from this thread that only want to try to knock my posts down... Without thinking out their own posts. OK, you want to be closed-minded? Go right on.

BTW, since you don't like the TCU example, Chad, let me use the Pittsburgh Steelers example. Lots of Iowa fans wish Iowa was like the Pittsburgh Steelers.
Maybe I could use Green Bay's or Aurburn's example??

For crying out loud, why don't we all try to find ways to make Iowa's football team elite - instead of this garbage ?

That was such a convoluted mess I don’t even know what to say, so I’ll say this…I assume you are labeling these teams as “great” D’s in which case Iowa had a better statistical “D” than Auburn last year and Green Bay and Pittsburgh both had moments and games last year where they got gashed…………just like Iowa and here we are back full circle again.

That wasn't very clearly thought out by you was it?!?!

Chad


PS....I am far from a rookie poster. Here maybe but no rookie for sure.

 

[ICHawk24]

Although I don’t like these boards much anymore, it is people like you that make it enjoyable. Quick poignant facts that others have missed and as a conglomerate we can usually ferret out the truth.

Sadly it has been my experience that closed minded types like the above are blind to it and stick with their presuppositions no matter how the truth really leads. Because that’s what they “needâ€￾ to be true. Someone has to be to blame always.

Chad

Thanks for the kind words.

 

[cabse5]

That was such a convoluted mess I don’t even know what to say, so I’ll say this…I assume you are labeling these teams as “great” D’s in which case Iowa had a better statistical “D” than Auburn last year and Green Bay and Pittsburgh both had moments and games last year where they got gashed…………just like Iowa and here we are back full circle again.

That wasn't very clearly thought out by you was it?!?!

Chad


PS....I am far from a rookie poster. Here maybe but no rookie for sure.

Chad, dude. I know you want to quickly get out that zinger because I dare criticize Parker's defense yet:

Remember to read some of my posts before you quote them in your reply with your zinger. If you reread my post, 2 of my posts before this one, you'll find I was clearly referring to the possible foibles of the 3-4 defense when it came to the running game. It's the running defense of Pittsburgh, Green Bay, and Auburn I thought Iowa's 3-4 could mimic. Using the Super Bowl as an example, I certainly wouldn't want Iowa to mimic Pittsburgh's pass defense.

Here's a question for you, Chad: What would you change in Iowa's defense to make it a better defense? To make Iowa an elite football team?

 

[tm3308]

Chad, dude. I know you want to quickly get out that zinger because I dare criticize Parker's defense yet:

Remember to read some of my posts before you quote them in your reply with your zinger. If you reread my post, 2 posts before this one, you'll find I was clearly referring to the possible foibles of the 3-4 defense when it came to the running game. It's the running defense of Pittsburgh, Green Bay, and Auburn I thought Iowa's 3-4 could mimic. Using the Super Bowl as an example, I certainly wouldn't want Iowa to mimic Pittsburgh's pass defense.

Here's a question for you, Chad: What would you change in Iowa's defense to make it a better defense? To make Iowa an elite football team?

I'd like more press coverage against the Northwesterns and Indianas. But the scheme works pretty effectively against everyone else. Other offenses try to beat us deep, which is why we consistently force a lot of INT's as well. NW and IU take what we give them.

But other than that minor tweak, I say leave it alone, it's worked for quite some time now.

 

[cabse5]

TM, it didn't work well against Mizzou It didn't work well against Arizona. Heck, it didn't work well in the final quarters against Michigan in 2010. It didn't work well against Michigan State in 2009 when State went ahead late in that game.

I'll repeat what I've said before: Iowa's defense traditionally doesn't do well against a 'advanced' passing offense.
Don't quote me stats from 2009. The majority of those 2009 opponents had subpar passing offenses.

 

[tm3308]

TM, it didn't work well against Mizzou It didn't work well against Arizona. Heck, it didn't work well in the final quarters against Michigan in 2010. It didn't work well against Michigan State in 2009 when State went ahead late in that game.

I'll repeat what I've said before: Iowa's defense traditionally doesn't do well against a 'advanced' passing offense.
Don't quote me stats from 2009. The majority of those 2009 opponents had subpar passing offenses.

Sub-par passing offenses? Want to know who the top passing offenses we faced in 2009 were? Northwestern, Indiana, Penn State, Arizona, and Michigan State. And we pretty well dominated those offenses (for the most part). Those teams were all ranked #48 or better in passing offense (NW, Indiana, and MSU were all in the top 35).

You picked out ONE play from the MSU game in 2009. ONE breakdown. Color me skeptical of the notion that ONE breakdown is some kind of crisis. Every defense has breakdowns in coverage, the best ones just have the fewest of them.

And you do realize that pretty much every defense is going to struggle a little against an 'advanced' passing attack? Unless they are allowed to get away with mugging receivers (see: Nebraska in the Big 12).

And as said, against Michigan, we prepared for Shoelace, NOT Forcier. Norm was also not at the game.

Mizzou is not somebody that we play with any kind of regularity, but they have a very similar offensive philosophy compared to IU and NW. So again, against that particular brand of passing attack, some tweak could be made. But no major overhaul, which is what you seem to be calling for.

It's as if you wouldn't be satisfied unless we were the very best in every single aspect.

 

[cmhawks99]

TM, it didn't work well against Mizzou It didn't work well against Arizona. Heck, it didn't work well in the final quarters against Michigan in 2010. It didn't work well against Michigan State in 2009 when State went ahead late in that game.

I'll repeat what I've said before: Iowa's defense traditionally doesn't do well against a 'advanced' passing offense.
Don't quote me stats from 2009. The majority of those 2009 opponents had subpar passing offenses.

What would I change………..the same things you would, win even more often than we do now which is a lot. Honestly it is completely and total pointless to have this discussion. You can’t easily compartmentalize a loss in a football game to encompass the defense. You see a loss and us struggling to get off the field on 3rd down or give up a game winning drive and you call foul. I see a team that historically gives up slow begrudging drives, picks a lot of passes and routinely holds ALL of their opponents below their averages. WELL below their averages….that is the definition of good defense. You want to throw the baby out with the bath water and even now you think I’m looking for zingers, when in reality I’m looking for someone to open their mind and see the truth.

I’d wager I watch more football than you, somewhere between 150 and 180 High school and college games a year. There are few defenses and coaches I’d put out on the field in pressure situations over Iowa. Last year we just didn’t get it done….part of that was going 8, 9, and 10 deep for Lb starters and I believe we played 11!

Part was very poor Offensives consistency as the year progressed and the affect it had on the D…..

Part was negative momentum and it just wasn’t our year………

Oddly enuff, and here is where short sighted people really lose sight, you use the Missouri game as a part of your “example†but the reality is if you took about 100 yards away from Gabberts’ passing totals and gave them 100 yards more rushing it would have made them tougher to defend and probably made for a different outcome, but the average fan is completely incapable of understanding game plans and “total†D! Ironically enuff they look at a loss and call it bad D or O, and in a way I get that. Cleary we didn’t play well enuff to win, but they then take a snap shot of about 10 or 15 games out of 120 and “use†that as their platform to call a D bad……huh?!?!? That’s called over-reaction to the simplest means, and it can be death to a business.

Brining this full circle with a life analogy. People are more and more incapable of breaking things down and seeing them for what they are…this is more of the same. Poor cognitive thinking skills and over reaction!

Chad

 

[Hawkeye11en1]

TM, it didn't work well against Mizzou It didn't work well against Arizona. Heck, it didn't work well in the final quarters against Michigan in 2010. It didn't work well against Michigan State in 2009 when State went ahead late in that game.

I'll repeat what I've said before: Iowa's defense traditionally doesn't do well against a 'advanced' passing offense.
Don't quote me stats from 2009. The majority of those 2009 opponents had subpar passing offenses.

We gave up 13 points to Arizona if you discount the blocked punt inside our 10, an INT return and a KO return. Didn't work? You sir, need help.

 

[cmhawks99]

We gave up 13 points to Arizona if you discount the blocked punt inside our 10, an INT return and a KO return. Didn't work? You sir, need help.

That’s how critics operate.....they grasp a couple things they think are wrong and then make sweeping generalizations.

Chad

 

[MoseSchrute]

The defense could use a few minor tweaks (in certain situations), but the offense needs to start actually doing something against the Indiana's and Northwestern's of the world.

I second this.

 

[hawkfan2679]

And as said, against Michigan, we prepared for Shoelace, NOT Forcier.

Can someone please explain to me this line of thinking? I think I've heard this on a couple different occasions now, that the reason Michigan started wasting our defense was because they brought in their backup QB. Are we incapable of in-game adjustments? Maybe the Norm not being there has something to do with this...although in 2009 when we prepared for Forcier and then Robinson came in, the same thing happened. Robinson ran left, ran right, and ran through our defense and if it wasn't for a late game gift (and some poor vision on an underneath receiver) Michigan has a chance to win that game late with a FG.

Forcier came in and started throwing it all over. Did we keep the same game plan we had for Robinson in place for Forcier and that's why he had the success he did? Just like in 2009...we were playing Forcier to pass and daring him to run and didn't really switch up when Robinson came in? Robinson is a rare talent who, while not as good throwing the ball, still presents a very dangerous threat both on the ground and through the air. If anything, Forcier should simplify things for us a smidge because he's nowhere near the runner that Robinson was.

I just struggle with that line of thinking, that a QB switch could lead to such disastrous results for our defense.

 

[tm3308]

Can someone please explain to me this line of thinking? I think I've heard this on a couple different occasions now, that the reason Michigan started wasting our defense was because they brought in their backup QB. Are we incapable of in-game adjustments? Maybe the Norm not being there has something to do with this...although in 2009 when we prepared for Forcier and then Robinson came in, the same thing happened. Robinson ran left, ran right, and ran through our defense and if it wasn't for a late game gift (and some poor vision on an underneath receiver) Michigan has a chance to win that game late with a FG.

Forcier came in and started throwing it all over. Did we keep the same game plan we had for Robinson in place for Forcier and that's why he had the success he did? Just like in 2009...we were playing Forcier to pass and daring him to run and didn't really switch up when Robinson came in? Robinson is a rare talent who, while not as good throwing the ball, still presents a very dangerous threat both on the ground and through the air. If anything, Forcier should simplify things for us a smidge because he's nowhere near the runner that Robinson was.

I just struggle with that line of thinking, that a QB switch could lead to such disastrous results for our defense.

I dropped in Norm's absence for that very reason. I think we can all agree that our in-game adjustments weren't at the level that we're accustomed to in the games that Norm was watching on TV.

In regards to Shoelace in 2009: it was late enough in that game, and we had a big enough lead, that it really seemed like we were content to allow him to run. It ate clock in a situation where most teams would pass if they had the ability to do so. We made sure that they wouldn't get lucky over the top, and let Robinson milk away the clock for us.

We also had some new personnel that didn't face Forcier in 2009. And while Robinson is NOW a threat through the air (not elite, but you have to respect him), he wasn't in 2009. VERY erratic. Forcier is a totally different kind of QB. The contrast in styles is what made that switch so important. Most teams' backup isn't really all that different from the starter in terms of style of play.

 

[Hawkfromnorwalk]

Christ Cabse5 has a lot of sand in his vagina.

 

[hawkfan2679]

I'm going to partition this up...one topic at a time!

I dropped in Norm's absence for that very reason. I think we can all agree that our in-game adjustments weren't at the level that we're accustomed to in the games that Norm was watching on TV.

I'm speaking specifically about UM 2010 now, just so I won't be misunderstood...I think it's overly simplistic to say that Parker not being at the Michigan game was the reason Forcier had so much success. Yet I can't figure out why very little changed...it's hard to believe that Wilson or Parker wouldn't change up the plan much at all when a completely different style of QB entered the game. I don't know if we're giving Norm too much credit (in that he NEEDS to be there for even the most obvious changes) or too little credit (in that he NEEDS to be there for even the most obvious changes!!).

In regards to Shoelace in 2009: it was late enough in that game, and we had a big enough lead, that it really seemed like we were content to allow him to run. It ate clock in a situation where most teams would pass if they had the ability to do so. We made sure that they wouldn't get lucky over the top, and let Robinson milk away the clock for us.

There was about 8 minutes left when Robinson got the ball (Mich down 9), cut through our defense like a sieve, and scored with more than 3 minutes to go. It wasn't quick strike, but we didn't put up much resistance. Michigan still had at least 1 TO remaining, if I recall correctly. I suppose you could put some of this on the offense, because they did nothing with the ball trying to run out the clock on their possession, but Michigan was within striking distance of a FG (I still can't believe Shoelace missed that underneath receiver on that ill-fated INT to Greenwood). I know it's a 'What if?' but what if RichRod decides that Forcier has had enough a series earlier...? I'm glad he didn't because what Robinson did to our defense (in a hurry) was reminiscent of what Pat White did to teams in the Big East when RichRod was there. Pat White right, Pat White left, mix in some Devine/Slaton, Pat White TD...all rushes. ::shudder::

We also had some new personnel that didn't face Forcier in 2009. And while Robinson is NOW a threat through the air (not elite, but you have to respect him), he wasn't in 2009. VERY erratic. Forcier is a totally different kind of QB. The contrast in styles is what made that switch so important. Most teams' backup isn't really all that different from the starter in terms of style of play.

I think this is already covered above, but the fact that the styles are so different is all the more reason a wholesale shift in the defensive philosophy should have taken place. I'm not talking about rewriting the gameplan...I'm talking about changing the calls. We play a painfully conservative game against NW...UM with Forcier at QB is not too far away from what NW does on the offensive side.

 

[cmhawks99]

I'm going to partition this up...one topic at a time!



I'm speaking specifically about UM 2010 now, just so I won't be misunderstood...I think it's overly simplistic to say that Parker not being at the Michigan game was the reason Forcier had so much success. Yet I can't figure out why very little changed...it's hard to believe that Wilson or Parker wouldn't change up the plan much at all when a completely different style of QB entered the game. I don't know if we're giving Norm too much credit (in that he NEEDS to be there for even the most obvious changes) or too little credit (in that he NEEDS to be there for even the most obvious changes!!).



There was about 8 minutes left when Robinson got the ball (Mich down 9), cut through our defense like a sieve, and scored with more than 3 minutes to go. It wasn't quick strike, but we didn't put up much resistance. Michigan still had at least 1 TO remaining, if I recall correctly. I suppose you could put some of this on the offense, because they did nothing with the ball trying to run out the clock on their possession, but Michigan was within striking distance of a FG (I still can't believe Shoelace missed that underneath receiver on that ill-fated INT to Greenwood). I know it's a 'What if?' but what if RichRod decides that Forcier has had enough a series earlier...? I'm glad he didn't because what Robinson did to our defense (in a hurry) was reminiscent of what Pat White did to teams in the Big East when RichRod was there. Pat White right, Pat White left, mix in some Devine/Slaton, Pat White TD...all rushes. ::shudder::



I think this is already covered above, but the fact that the styles are so different is all the more reason a wholesale shift in the defensive philosophy should have taken place. I'm not talking about rewriting the gameplan...I'm talking about changing the calls. We play a painfully conservative game against NW...UM with Forcier at QB is not too far away from what NW does on the offensive side.

Honestly you just as well ask yourself why in seemingly game after game after game.........Neither team can do anything and then all of a sudden they are all up and down the field in the 4th quarter or last 6 minutes. It happens time and time again and yet everyone seems powerless to fix it. NFL, college, hall of fame coach, great players etc........It is that simple and that convoluted all at the same time.

And no its not as simple as "prevent, prevents teams from winning"!!

I've watched a lot of football over the years...I'll wager it is somewhere near 800 games in just the last 5 years alone and I have seen bad offenses gash good defenses and teams go from moving it up and down the field to incapable of getting first downs 2 or 3 different times all in the same game.

I distinctly remember thinking when Robinson went down we'd have been better off with him in the game, and viola I was right. If memory serves the announcers said the same. Quite frankly when you spend an entire weak game planning for a Denard Robinson it throws EVERYTHING off. It's not an Iowa thing its a football thing.

The one thing I can't stress enuuf to people is life is all about effort, focus, momentum and determination. It has very little to do with talent. Football is more of the same. Iowa has lots of talent anymore. But things got away from us last year just like it has a lot of very talented teams. The difference between 8-5 and 11-2 is very, very small and the difference between 11-2 and 13-0 is even smaller, yet bigger all at the same time. A lot of things have to go your way. Auburn didn't have more NFL talent than Iowa, nor did Oregon yet there they were and no it wasn't all coaching. If you don't believe me check in this year, or last when Texas and Florida both tanked.

Sometimes it all goes away in a hurry and it is hard to get back.....I know people want, even need it to be more than that, but it isn't!

On a side note Tate Forcier was a very good QB and in my opinion gave UM the best chance to beat an Iowa. He is also a QB who can play in pretty much any system. In my mind he was a more athletic version of Drew Tate, and its good for us he transferred.

Chad

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

I think this is already covered above, but the fact that the styles are so different is all the more reason a wholesale shift in the defensive philosophy should have taken place. I'm not talking about rewriting the gameplan...I'm talking about changing the calls. We play a painfully conservative game against NW...UM with Forcier at QB is not too far away from what NW does on the offensive side.

The contrast in styles is HUGE. If you following the comments of ANY major college coach, they'll always say the same thing. It's hard as hell to prepare for 2 QBs ... particularly when they have strongly contrasting styles.

As for a "radical" change in defensive philosophy ... I think that you're forgetting that college ball is neither high school ball nor pro ball. In the high school game, you can flip through schemes like nobody's business because the level of execution by "average" high schoolers is pretty mediocre across the board. In the pro game, you have professionals who understand the game so intimately that switching schemes is no big deal because they already know their responsibilities and can execute them at a high level.

In stark contrast, in the college game, you often get a really wierd mix. For the most part, players can usually execute the base schemes of their program really well ... however, they typically have difficulty executing much else with great consistency.

Thus, when you look at making MAJOR modificatins against Michigan when you're already well into the 3rd quarter ... that is incredibly hard to do. Heck, if you don't recall, Iowa actually attempted to blitz Forcier and get more pressure on him .... however, in doing so, Hyde got burned due to a recognition error ... and gave up a big TD pass play.

You cannot forget that Prater was still ironing out his game and Morris was even more of a newbie. Your kidding yourself if you believe that we could have successfully pulled off a huge wholesale change in scheme at that juncture.

Lastly, Robinson had dinged earlier in the season and Forcier had proven that he had improved his accuracy. Thus, he had developed into an even better precision passer. The problem for Forcier was that he simply didn't fit Rich Rod's scheme as well as Denard did. All the same ... when you combine the quality of Michigan's WRs with Forcier's passing ability ... and further add in the fact that the Wolverines were desperate and were taking a TON of chances ... that ended up putting a huge amount of pressure on our pass D.

 

[hawkfan2679]

The contrast in styles is HUGE. If you following the comments of ANY major college coach, they'll always say the same thing. It's hard as hell to prepare for 2 QBs ... particularly when they have strongly contrasting styles.

As for a "radical" change in defensive philosophy ... I think that you're forgetting that college ball is neither high school ball nor pro ball. In the high school game, you can flip through schemes like nobody's business because the level of execution by "average" high schoolers is pretty mediocre across the board. In the pro game, you have professionals who understand the game so intimately that switching schemes is no big deal because they already know their responsibilities and can execute them at a high level.

In stark contrast, in the college game, you often get a really wierd mix. For the most part, players can usually execute the base schemes of their program really well ... however, they typically have difficulty executing much else with great consistency.

Thus, when you look at making MAJOR modificatins against Michigan when you're already well into the 3rd quarter ... that is incredibly hard to do. Heck, if you don't recall, Iowa actually attempted to blitz Forcier and get more pressure on him .... however, in doing so, Hyde got burned due to a recognition error ... and gave up a big TD pass play.

You cannot forget that Prater was still ironing out his game and Morris was even more of a newbie. Your kidding yourself if you believe that we could have successfully pulled off a huge wholesale change in scheme at that juncture.

Lastly, Robinson had dinged earlier in the season and Forcier had proven that he had improved his accuracy. Thus, he had developed into an even better precision passer. The problem for Forcier was that he simply didn't fit Rich Rod's scheme as well as Denard did. All the same ... when you combine the quality of Michigan's WRs with Forcier's passing ability ... and further add in the fact that the Wolverines were desperate and were taking a TON of chances ... that ended up putting a huge amount of pressure on our pass D.

Homer - I mentioned specifically that I wasn't talking about changing the entire gameplan. **Edit - My mention of "wholesale shift in philosophy" pertained to the calls being made, not a wholesale scheme change...my apologies.**

When it comes to playing wide open, spread offenses, we play one of the most sterile defensive schemes around (just ask Dan Persa). It wouldn't be a stretch to say that planning for a guy like Denard Robinson is a deviation from the norm; however, when he gets put out of the game due to injury and his backup comes in, a guy who more fits the mold of what we're used to seeing from the teams in the B1G, it's remarkable how much success he had against our defense because I would have expected our defense to tweak ever-so-slightly more towards what we would run were we planning NW or Purdue. I really don't look at that like a MAJOR modification.

Hypothetically speaking, if we were only planning for Forcier that game (Denard Robinson didn't exist), do you really think the defensive gameplan would have looked that different than what we play vs. NW's spread or the Purdue spread? I think you would have still seen WR being covered by LB's, you would have still seen our cover 4 BBDB, and you probably would have still seen huge cushions on the outside. If anything, blitzing Forcier was not the best idea because that, too, is a departure from the norm.