KXNO Morning Show

[deanvogs]

Remember, I'm only calling for these slight tweaks against IU and NW. They don't run many deep routes against anybody, especially NW. By taking away the deep passing game, you're taking away something that they don't really utilize in their gameplans anyway. Against pretty much every other team we face, I like our scheme a lot. I'd just like to see slight adjustments against these two teams, who run the kind of offense that is built around beating our defense.

I know it is frustrating to see these close games. Lets face it though it was close because the offense didn't convert in the Red Zone. If you want the Defense to adjust what they were doing how about the Arizona or Wisconsin when we couldn't stop them, and they actually scored 30+ points......

If you want to complain when the D works and holds the opponent to 21 or under, I just don't get that......I know, I know you are only talking about tweaks. The problem is there is no guarantee that what you are suggesting will work. I trust the game plans that the defensive coaches come up with, rather than your "tweaks". Nothing personal, they have a track record I can see and trust......

 

[ColoradoHAWKEYE]

I still agree with the Offense being the area that needs tweaks, like rushing and jamming the RB's in the RedZone. However, TM is correct in that we can still stand to mix it up a bit better in games vs. spread O's (and final drives), which I think we did do... once. Which is putting a full blitz pkg in on a play (or was it 2?) on the final drive. In that situation, Offenses are panicking and pressing anyways. AZ and Wisky both stopped our last drives short with that extra 8 in the box pressure.

 

[tubahawk]

The only issue I had w/ the D was a pretty obvious one, they couldn't get pressure out of the 3 man front and got ate up for first downs everytime they went to it. It wasn't working and never worked the entire game. You want to be upset about the defense there ya have it. Went to the 3 man front way too often considering it was a disaster.

This plays into what tm3308 is saying. IU and NW run a lot of three stop drop, 5-12yrd pass routes. The plan is to get rid of the ball before the pressure gets to you.

Iowa's defense is set-up to give up the 5-10 yrd pass. It's not the fault of the front three when they only have 3-5 seconds to get to the QB. MSU (with the exception of maybe two times) could take the 5 yard slant whenever they wanted it. We give teams those plays, then tighten up in the red zone where we don't have such a deep field to protect. tm 3308 is simply throwing out the theory that against teams that aren't deep threats we tighten it up before we get to the red zone. KF and Norm have built a program on playing the percentages. I don't think what tm3308 is suggesting contradicts that philosophy.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

+1

I think you are spot on with why we don't dramatically change up the philosophy of our back 7.

As you know, I was very "anti"-Hyde earlier this season. But the fact is, our depth is lacking, and he is doing some learning-by-experience. And for the most part, he is doing a creditable job.

Adding the LB injuries to that mix only hinders us further. We simply can't play a ton of different schemes for the back 7. The DL is a different story, as we have seen 3-man AND 5-man fronts at times. But the back 7 is simply playing for solid, as-mistake-free-as-possible football. With some growing pains.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

I don't think TM is calling for a defensive philosophical overhaul (I could definitely be wrong), and everybody recognizes forcing a college team to run 10-15 plays offensive drives are challenging. I think the point is that if an offense is going to run short routes and throw underneath most of the game, why not shorten the CB's cushions from 7 to 3-5 yards? I think that's the biggest difference not having Spievey this season, as I'm fairly certain he played fairly tight D by Ferentz/Norm standards. And so it's clear, I'm certainly not advocating any sort of defensive overhaul, as the results speak for themself, but I would like the CB's to play a couple yards tighter (ala Spievey). I think Greenwood and Sash are veteran enough to cover over the top, and sometimes it's easier to jam WR's inside coming from a shorter distance (cushion).

You just HAD to throw Spievey into the mix, huh?

But that is yet ANOTHER difference, in that Spievey was as good an open-field tackler as there was in college football last year.

I DO share tm's concerns with IU/NW passing games and our inability to slow them down when "crunch" time is at hand. But again, both have running games off either the option or by design that can hurt a D that overcommits/overpursue or does NOT stay in their "lanes".

I think our bigger concern last week, oddly enough, is that just when we needed a prolonged TD drive, we got a 3-play, quick-strike TD that left IU with a lot of time and a Hawkeye D that had only rested 3 plays.

 

[tm3308]

You just HAD to throw Spievey into the mix, huh?

But that is yet ANOTHER difference, in that Spievey was as good an open-field tackler as there was in college football last year.

I DO share tm's concerns with IU/NW passing games and our inability to slow them down when "crunch" time is at hand. But again, both have running games off either the option or by design that can hurt a D that overcommits/overpursue or does NOT stay in their "lanes".

I think our bigger concern last week, oddly enough, is that just when we needed a prolonged TD drive, we got a 3-play, quick-strike TD that left IU with a lot of time and a Hawkeye D that had only rested 3 plays.

I expected a hurry-up, but everything worked out alright. I figured that when we got to midfield quickly with a lot of time left, we'd kind of settle in and run a more typical offense. But it's neither here nor there.

 

[JAHayes23]

This plays into what tm3308 is saying. IU and NW run a lot of three stop drop, 5-12yrd pass routes. The plan is to get rid of the ball before the pressure gets to you.

Iowa's defense is set-up to give up the 5-10 yrd pass. It's not the fault of the front three when they only have 3-5 seconds to get to the QB. MSU (with the exception of maybe two times) could take the 5 yard slant whenever they wanted it. We give teams those plays, then tighten up in the red zone where we don't have such a deep field to protect. tm 3308 is simply throwing out the theory that against teams that aren't deep threats we tighten it up before we get to the red zone. KF and Norm have built a program on playing the percentages. I don't think what tm3308 is suggesting contradicts that philosophy.

Not really, we didn't seem to have problems getting pressure in 4-man fronts, but we got no pressure or push w/ a 3 man front, the issue was quite simple really. Their 5 couldn't block our 4, but they had no problem just blocking 3. If you use a 3 man front, you have to bring one of the LBs to fill, or create pressure. Running a 3 man front w/o a blitz again, just isn't smart football.

 

[tm3308]

Not really, we didn't seem to have problems getting pressure in 4-man fronts, but we got no pressure or push w/ a 3 man front, the issue was quite simple really. Their 5 couldn't block our 4, but they had no problem just blocking 3. If you use a 3 man front, you have to bring one of the LBs to fill, or create pressure. Running a 3 man front w/o a blitz again, just isn't smart football.

That's why I was thinking maybe tighten up the outside coverage. We obviously needed to rush 4, which leaves 3 linebackers. The reason we went to 3 DL was so that we could get an extra defender. But that defender doesn't help much when there's no pressure. By tightening up on the outside, I would think that would lessen the stress on the linebackers in pass coverage, which would hopefully eliminate the need for a 4th LB, which in turn would allow us to rush 4 to create pressure.

I'm not saying it WOULD work, but I'd like to see it at least attempted.

 

[JAHayes23]

That's why I was thinking maybe tighten up the outside coverage. We obviously needed to rush 4, which leaves 3 linebackers. The reason we went to 3 DL was so that we could get an extra defender. But that defender doesn't help much when there's no pressure. By tightening up on the outside, I would think that would lessen the stress on the linebackers in pass coverage, which would hopefully eliminate the need for a 4th LB, which in turn would allow us to rush 4 to create pressure.

I'm not saying it WOULD work, but I'd like to see it at least attempted.

Honestly, I would just like to see the 3 man front scrapped. We are a 4 man cover 2 team, we've had success all these years doing nothing fancy, just playing sound disciplined football w/in the scheme, and I'm a dance w/ the girl you came w/ sorta guy. To me the IN game was a classic example of coaches outsmarting themselves.

 

[dchawk75]

This idea that IU marched down the field unabated against this overly simplistic defense is patently false. They were faced with a 4th and 10 at the 19 which is exactly what this defense is designed to dictate. The fact is our guys screwed up deep on the last play; it was not a function of too soft a cushion giving up a first down unnecessarily. There was good pressure on the QB and even with the screw up in deep coverage, Chappell had to make a great pass under big time pressure to even get it to a wide open receiver. The mistake was in the failure of the safety to pick up Belcher not in the defensive scheme we were in when the play unfolded. If we instead played the receivers tighter, these types of mistakes would be much more frequent.

 

[tm3308]

This idea that IU marched down the field unabated against this overly simplistic defense is patently false. They were faced with a 4th and 10 at the 19 which is exactly what this defense is designed to dictate. The fact is our guys screwed up deep on the last play; it was not a function of too soft a cushion giving up a first down unnecessarily. There was good pressure on the QB and even with the screw up in deep coverage, Chappell had to make a great pass under big time pressure to even get it to a wide open receiver. The mistake was in the failure of the safety to pick up Belcher not in the defensive scheme we were in when the play unfolded. If we instead played the receivers tighter, these types of mistakes would be much more frequent.

Indiana did struggle to move the ball as well last week compared to how they've done the past several years. Both IU and Northwestern have had success moving the ball on us recently (7 of the past 10 games they gained at least 390 yards). This is just an opinion I've held for some time now, and the final drive just got me on that kick again (they did move it very efficiently until the final 4 downs, with Chappell going 5-7 for 41 yards before 3 incompletions and the drop).