lets talk offensive scheme

[uihawk82]

O'Keefe was a chessmaster. You are going to be sorely disappointed with the 2012 offense. We just don't have the stable of guys you think we have.

Oh wow, you are really laying it on thick now. Yeah, the 2012 offense could be problematic with losing the top receiver and a really good rb, plus three off linemen.

But that is where some new wrinkles and schemes can help.

I really dont think KOK was a chessmaster of OC since we averaged 70th in the nation.

If the hawk offense was averaging 40th in the nation the last 10 years we would have a lot of happy campers on this site.

 

[okeefe4prez]

If the hawk offense was averaging 40th in the nation the last 10 years we would have a lot of happy campers on this site.

Oh really? What if we were 40th in the nation with an additional turnover per game on average and 3 minutes shorter time of possession? You can't just look at where we finished statistically, you need to look holistically. You don't just replace O'Keefe and Parker and get better. I'm worried this might be a non-bowl year - hopefully the schedule bails us out.

 

[CGHawk]

I might be wrong here, but I don't think our TE's had the best hands last season. However, I would like to see them be more involved, because it does make us harder to defend against. Hopefully those drops I am remembering were isolated incidents and it was better than I remember.

My biggest thing would be: Utilize our play-makers.

I think there were far too many times last year where I found myself saying "why aren't we hitting McNutt more?"

There were those games where McNutt had a mismatch on single coverage over and over and we didn't take advantage.

I don't know who our play-makers will be this year, but I hope that we utilize them better.

There are certain players that, when they get the ball, make good things happen more often than not. You have to find a way to get the ball to them. That might mean that you have to take a risk every now and then down field or use a screen play to get them the ball... but I just hope we do a better job of that.

And I'm not saying we didn't throw the ball to McNutt, because obviously we did, but we need to be more opportunistic when it comes to mismatches and our advantages over certain teams.

We normally tend to be very vanilla. Stick to the same gameplan for each game and rely on execution. We don't have the talent to do that every game.

We need to be the type of team that realizes: "hey, they have single coverage on our best receiver and the DB is 5 inches shorter than our guy. Let's take a chance and try the deep ball and keep hitting them with it."

There were times where I thought we did a good job of that last season, but there were too many times where I think we could have done a better job. Even if you try the homerun ball on first down and second down and it falls incomplete... why not try it on third if we have the advantage?

We just seemed too predictable with our run plays. It was clearly obvious at times that they were stacking the box and expecting the run, but we tried anyway. Why not try more play action and keep them on their toes?

Clearly this is all a matter of opinion and I'm not a football coach, but these are just some things I thought about throughout the season.

P.S. And for the love of all that is holy... please don't be afraid of scoring too many points on a team. I hate when we take the gas off the pedal too early and let teams back into the game. Get the opponent on the ground. Put your foot on his neck. Leave it there the rest of the game and don't let him breathe.

 

[IowaTeddy]

The best Iowa offense I've seen in my lifetime was when Iowa had their most athletic quarterback during that period: Brad Banks. Granted that was the best team for a lot of other reasons, and he was heisman candidate caliber. But with that said, I would like to see Iowa with a pass first-athletic quarterback that challenges defense with his ability to run. How many really good BCS teams this year (really good offenses) had an immobile quarterback? I can't think of very many. Not to say that Vandenberg and Stanzi (for example) are poor athletes because they are not. But they are not runners that can consistently pick up yardage on the ground, when plays break down.

However, I still want to see Iowa run a pro-style set, which they probably will for some time into the future. I put serious value in the fact that Iowa is capable of producing loads of NFL caliber offensive lineman. Honestly, do I anticipate Mitch Keppy or Ryan Ward or Reid Selby making an NFL roster as an OLineman, yes I do. I also believe Iowa is capable of a NFL worthy TE every year too. Based upon this, my vision of ideal offense for Iowa is:

1) A big, dominant OLine with size across the board and depth. See Wisconsin (they stole our recipe)
2)Two different style RBs, both getting carries. A bigger back that runs downhill and a smaller back with a great first step that hits the hole really fast. (Shonn Greene and Jewel esqe)
3) A bruiser lead blocking FB that can catch passes in the swing game. His blocking allows offense to run between tackles, isolation blocks etc.
4) A go-to TE with NFL written all over him. He can catch passes over the middle, break tackles and be a physical presence attached. Also a second TE that can give a power-double tight look, physical run blocker. (Moeaki and Myers maybe)
5) Two complimentary WRs, Mcnutt and DJK come to mind. Both are capable of demanding a double, both can catch short, sideline routes, take the top off the D etc.
6) Last but not least, a QB with enough size to have a commanding physical presence and avoid injury. He is a good enough runner to pick up first downs with his feet, athletic enough to incorporate some option looks into the offense. He has the arm to make all different throws well enough. He is cool enough to lead the offense. The QB does not need to be John Elway, he just needs to be really solid, and the beneficiary of everyone else being really good (see 2002). As for a comparison here...I guess I could say Brad Banks. But who knows

Pretty much I am modeling the ideal after the 2002 offense. Starts up front with a great Oline and that translates to a very successful running game, and plenty of options to stretch the D emerging from the presence of the run.

 

[IowaTeddy]

Brandon Weeden, for example, was pretty immobile. But offensively speaking, that's an entirely different comparison altogether. QBs that fit my idea of the athlete reminiscent of Brad Banks..aka an athletic quarterback that we haven't had since:
Russell Wilson, Oregon QB (also maybe a bad comparison), Persa, Martinez, Jordan Jefferson, ...go ahead and laugh, Steele Jantz,

I'm not talking about Cam Newton, just the type of QB that makes us so frustrated when watching the Iowa Defense "bend" between the 20s.

 

[CGHawk]

Teddy- I would love to have another Brad Banks, as I'm sure everyone else would too. Unfortunately, it is hard to come by a QB of that nature that would choose Iowa and our offensive scheme over an Oregon or a spread style offense.

I'm going to piggy back on your thoughts a little and say that I would love to see us open up our offense more and allow our playmakers to shine more on offense.

I think KF's strategy is amazing for getting guys ready for the NFL on the defensive side of the ball and on the OLine.

I could be wrong, but it seems that each guy is expected to do the job without help. I.e.- lack of blitzes show just how good our Dline players. They don't get help from tons of blitzes like dlinemen on teams that blitz every play.

The NFL scouts recognize this and are able to see the individual ability/dominance of each player more easily.

So for defense this should be great for recruiting.

On offense we are not a team that is going to go for big plays or utilize a reggie bush type player to their full potential.

We are a team that grinds it out. We will take a running back like coker that does not really have a chance to take it to the house on any given play. Coker grinds it out and wears the defense down throughout the course of the game. More of a north and south runner than a guy that makes guys miss and then uses breakaway speed for a big run.

Unfortunately a team that grinds it out isn't "sexy," for lack of a better term, and I think that makes it more difficult to recruit dynamic/playmaker type of guys out of high school.

I actually don't mind grinding it out on offense and I don't think anyone else would either as long as it translates into W's. However, it is common belief that our offense has been letting us down the past few years.

I think the staff needs to maybe evolve our current offensive gameplan/scheme. Open it up and not expect our defense to play outstanding. Instead... Expect that we need to score every possession and not just be ok with punting the ball away and play the field position game and hope that the D stays strong and bails them out.

I'm excited about this recruiting class and I'm excited about the changes. (even tho I think Norm was about as good as they come)

It will be interesting to see if Ferentz allows the new O-Coordinator to open things up more and be open to a change in our approach on offense.

I'm also excited Parker, although, I'll admit that I wasn't at first, but I am now that I have had time to think about it and look at the facts.

 

[hogeye]

Foval, since I know this is what you're digging for, here is you're cliche-ridden response:

I want to see more trickeration. I also want to see us spread the field more and distribute ball more. I also want to see 4 and 5 wide more often. We also need more schemes and motions and other things that make fans feel all giddy.

 

[Foval21]

Foval, since I know this is what you're digging for, here is you're cliche-ridden response:I want to see more trickeration. I also want to see us spread the field more and distribute ball more. I also want to see 4 and 5 wide more often. We also need more schemes and motions and other things that make fans feel all giddy.

i honestly wasnt looking for that just peoples honest opinion like we had with the defensive scheme thread.

 

[hogeye]

We've had these conversations on here now over and over. There is already a primary thread with the discussion, yet here we spawn of topic #583945 on it. I understand, to a large degree, it's the nature of the message board. But part of the problem revolves around people that are married to the idea that we need schematic changes.

Here is my response, in part, from another thread on our main issue:

I get tired of these cliche argument being thrown around...we need more "wrinkles", "tweaks", "spice" and every other ambiguous terms being thrown out of frustration because our offense isn't the vaunted spread option run and shoot pass happy score board orgasm that everyone thinks it needs to be.

The challenges we've faced recently are honestly more talent-centric and lack of execution than they are anything else.

One of the biggest challenges we face that all you people think will be solved by adding "new formations" for new "twists" and "wrinkles" is quite frankly a talent and development issue at the QB position. Period. That simple.

JVB, serviceable. Stanzi, serviceable. JC, fail. Tate, developed nicely. Chandler, serviceable. Banks, developed nicely. We've had mostly marginal QB play or slightly better over the course of the KF era. We could argue where these QB's actually relate to one another indefinitely, but again...the main point is our over QB play has been lacking.

If I could change one thing about the offense and nothing else it would be QB development and that would translate into more success in most of the areas we've seen issues offensively.

 

[big10fan]

We've had these conversations on here now over and over. There is already a primary thread with the discussion, yet here we spawn of topic #583945 on it. I understand, to a large degree, it's the nature of the message board. But part of the problem revolves around people that are married to the idea that we need schematic changes.

Here is my response, in part, from another thread on our main issue:

i think you're wrongly labeling this thread as a negative one. will probably be an agree to disagree situation. is there really anything new under the sun that we haven't covered before on a message board? also, i don't see too many folks actually calling for any schematic changes. i do whole-heartedly agree that execution plays a drastic roll in the losses of the last couple years.

lastly - i'm always looking to learn. i have a D background and really enjoy the X's and O's breakdowns. hopefully we'll see more of that here on the board. i really do enjoy following the Hawks and want them to succeed. could we still succeed if we did the exact same things, absolutely. but, it will require better players than we currently have. and if we can't get those players on campus, i sure hope that Kirk would be willing to change things up to play to our strengths.

 

[latrans]

I will limit my comments here, but I would like to see the offense skinny down the playbook and focus more on execution. It was pretty obvious in certain games the past two years the players were bogged down with too much playbook and they were failing at fundamentals. A skinnier playbook with more reps for each play in practice will keep the offense humming along.

To this I would add that an offense that scores more points than its opponent more often would be a much appreciated change.

 

[big10fan]

i think Kirk said in his presser last week that football hasn't really changed since he's been here. in some ways he's correct, but in others he's very wrong. you still need to stop the run and be able to run to be consistently successful. but, with the rule changes over the last 10 years that drastically help the passing game, you have to take advantage of that.

i agree that we really need to address QB development. specifically on how to make accurate audibles, be able to identify the blitz and hot routes, and learn to go through progressions. the game now is a QB game, and you are successful if you have a good one, and its almost impossible to be successful if you have a bad one. i hope whoever our new QB coach is actually has some experience doing just that. no knock on KOK, i actually think he did a pretty good job in some areas, but it just seems like that wasn't his specialty.

 

[hogeye]

i think you're wrongly labeling this thread as a negative one.

I didn't label it a negative one. I am simply pointing out the facts that:

- Foval likes to continually debate this conversation in 734 different threads
- All he's ever really interesting in is seeing more people homer on to his cliche ideology, and
- There was already a thread with a great discussion about offense going on

We get the point, Foval wants to see more trickeration, formation and schematic magickery.

 

[okeefe4prez]

I didn't label it a negative one. I am simply pointing out the facts that:

- Foval likes to continually debate this conversation in 734 different threads
- All he's ever really interesting in is seeing more people homer on to his cliche ideology, and
- There was already a thread with a great discussion about offense going on

We get the point, Foval wants to see more trickeration, formation and schematic magickery.

Scheme wins ball games, not players. Hell, the Colts had one of the better offensive schemes in pro ball and they didn't miss a beat when Manning was on the IR.

 

[hogeye]

Scheme wins ball games, not players. Hell, the Colts had one of the better offensive schemes in pro ball and they didn't miss a beat when Manning was on the IR.

True. We have seen a ton of examples...Michigan under Rodriguez, Nebraska under Callahan...the problem is, those teams get SO good their coach is up and gone.

 

[Foval21]

i think you're wrongly labeling this thread as a negative one.

I didn't label it a negative one. I am simply pointing out the facts that:- Foval likes to continually debate this conversation in 734 different threads- All he's ever really interesting in is seeing more people homer on to his cliche ideology, and- There was already a thread with a great discussion about offense going onWe get the point, Foval wants to see more trickeration, formation and schematic magickery.

i started this thread because of the defensive scheme thread and how good it turned out. hoping this would end up the same.

what do you believe trickeration is? because i am starting to think you dont know much about football if you think that is what i am talking about.

scheme isnt the end all be all but scheme is about taking what you have and putting it in the best position to excel. we have some skill players that i believe could be put in better position to excel if it was schemed better. the colts struggled because their scheme was built around peyton manning's skills and when he couldnt play they didnt adjust the scheme much and expected their qbs to do the same things. good that they fired that staff in my book.

 

[hawkIhoops]

I have to laugh at a skinnier playbook. Are you suggesting they take out page 2 and just use page 1? Our lack of creativity is our achilles' heel. The team needs to open it up by playing more than one RB, throwing to RB's out of the backfield (screens), making TE's an integral part of the offense and throwing down the field, even for effect, to keep guys from cheating up to the line.

It was our skinny playbook that had teams jumping routes, sitting in zones where they knew we would run guys through and stacking the box against our slow developing and predictable running plays. Stale is the operative word here.

 

[IowaTeddy]

Ultimately, none of us know the offense nearly as well as we think we do. None of us have spent the amount of time around the game that KOK has.

What any knowledgable fan can say is this: It comes down to execution. Many of the comments on this blog are true. We have a simple offense, nothing overly flashy, physical running backs, play 5-step play action game, etc. etc.

With that being said, if Iowa wants to be great (any given year), the offense has to be very good (not great). And for the offense to be very good, it has to execute at a high level. It's easy to blame KOK, but the players deserve a lot of the blame. I'm not blaming the players or anyone for that matter, the results are what they are. The amount of situations that KOK really killed us is pretty small, and if you think it's high, I would try and convince you that the real problem was player execution.

It's really easy to be the guy that says, "What a bad play call!" ... "My daughter knew what play they were going to run" ... "Where are the trick plays" etc.
These comments are really out of line.

What is really frustrating in my opinion, is the number of times when the offense was so close to executing a perfect play. It takes 11 guys doing their job to execute a perfect play and that's easier said than done. I don't think Iowa had the talent or depth to do that this year.

The number of times when the scheme was perfectly blocked and Coker was ready to hit the hole...except one guy misses his assignment and results in a tackle for loss. Or when the pass blocking is perfect and the routes are crisp and the throw just isn't there on the open receiver.

Execution is everything and Iowa didn't execute that well this year.

 

[hogeye]

i started this thread because of the defensive scheme thread and how good it turned out. hoping this would end up the same.

what do you believe trickeration is? because i am starting to think you dont know much about football if you think that is what i am talking about.

scheme isnt the end all be all but scheme is about taking what you have and putting it in the best position to excel. we have some skill players that i believe could be put in better position to excel if it was schemed better. the colts struggled because their scheme was built around peyton manning's skills and when he couldnt play they didnt adjust the scheme much and expected their qbs to do the same things. good that they fired that staff in my book.

Quit talking in cliches. My mention of trickeration is mockery of your persistent cliche-ridden arguments about what Iowa needs to do offensively to win.

The fact here is simple, Foval, Iowa's overall game plan and play book are proven commodities. We've had great success with them, so changing the paint job isn't the solution.

What has been recently reiterated by previous replies to this one is what is being largely ignored. The players execution plays a large role in this that gets ignored. Some of that is on players, some is on coaches, I am not here to hang anyone out dry. But the simple fact remains that when our players are able to execute we can play with the best.

We're Iowa. And part of being Iowa is accepting who we are, who we recruit and what our limitations are. I am not saying we need, or should, expect 7 and 8 wins seasons. Iowa isn't an easy recruiting job. There is a large gap that has to be bridged by the coaching staff, and if people want to knit-pick KOK and KF on offense, then do so, but you had better damn well give credit for arguably the best player development in the NCAA.

So, getting back on point, get your blinders off and realize that the challenges we face aren't going to be resolved by scheme. It's not that simple and if you want to talk about knowing football then know who we are and what we have to work with before you get into your pretentious little paradise of X's and O's and schematic changes we need to make based of your time on PlayStation.

 

[Foval21]

i will break this down for you. football is basically two parts on gameday: scheme (coaches plans and adjustments) and execution (players doing the correct things to accomplish the scheme). i have never gone with change to a spread or we need a mobile qb. i am a proponent of the prostyle. execution is a majority of what matters in who wins a game (wont argue this point it is true). yet scheme is what puts players in (hopefully) the best position for them to execute. if you believe that shifts and motion and formations are trickeration and magic then i guess you hate watching football today and want to go back to the days of the wishbone and t formations where it was straightforward run and option and it was better athlete wins. we dont always have the better athlete so we must use our precision and brain to beat them. players havent been that precise lately (last 2 yrs) and we havent lived up to expectations because of it. but i believe using our heads better we could put players in a better environment to be precise and execute. if using motion to get a wr matched up 1 on 1 in man coverage with a lb is trickeration and cliche then i guess that most teams are that. i feel we could do more of this and other things to get more favorable match ups.

here is an example: mcnutt had a few games where he struggled getting off the los and had poor performances because of this. when our coaches saw that this was happening in their scheme they should have had a plan to do something to nullify this. like use him in motion so the cb cant jam him or use him in the slot off the line or a number of other things.

i am a fan of kok as a developer of qbs. but i think that his gameplanning and playcalling lacked (this is called scheming). he had great tools at iowa. rb after rb that was solid, te after te, and others and i think they did well for him yet i think his schemes didnt always put the players in the best situation to execute.

with all this said even the best scheme must be executed. but if you put your players in a situation where they have the advantage it is easier to execute.

i will use a bball analogy to try to help if you have michael jordan being guarded by shaq as a coach are you going to call a play where mj is posting shaq up on the low block? that is called scheme. mj doesnt have the advantage...you would put him on the wing where he has the advantage. this is the end of coaching 101.