lets talk scheme on D

big10fan

big10fan

Well-Known Member
would like to see a few minor tweaks on D, i think we all would. this isn't going to be a bash anything thread, just want to talk some x's o's. Foval, please chime in cause i appreciate your knowledge on the subject.

i'd like to see us really try and develop a 1 technique DT. there are kids out there like Davis, but i don't know really anything about him and if he could fit the bill.

i'd like to see us let our DE's attack the QB instead of being so afraid of losing contain. now this isn't a blanket statement for all QB's, cause that's obviously a bad idea with certain QB's and certain situations. but, if we load these new kids down with thinking too much, it actually makes them less effective and then they suck at not only keeping contain, but they also get no pressure.

i'd like to see us go into press coverage occasionally. we have decent to good speed at corner, like to see us not give up so much cushion.

lastly, would be great if we could blitz without showing it. seems like we can't blitz without having the LB walk up to the line. or if we're going to do it like that, to actually fake the blitz, cause i can't remember a time when we gave that look and didn't blitz.

anyway, looking forward to some actual discussion on scheme.
 
If davis plays "high" like he did last year it wouldn't be good. Hopefully he and Coop spend some good time with Doyle and can keep our LBs clean next year
 
If our D Line can't get pressure with 4 we will have to blitz more and we get burned some but will get some TOs too I would guess. This year we will almost have to use some form other than our front 4 to get pressure
 
One thing I'm looking forward to is Parker was the secondary coach he first hand understands that the QB having time is death to a secondary. There are several ways to attempt to fix this,but I'm looking forward to see what happens.
 
I agree with clim. It sounds easier than it is.
Linemen these days try and pack on the pounds to get up to weight before going to college. This does not always work out as most of the time it is not good weight. I mentioned in another thread how important upper body is to a linemen and many people only look at or are enamored with squat numbers. Hand placement and speed as well as playing with his hips, can all be taught fairly fast, but building muscle takes awhile. Again I dont care how much you can squat, if you are lacking in upper body, the whole process starts to break down and you will not do well.

I dont know what his numbers were, but I know that with his condition AC worked his upper body alot. Just saying....
Edit: I just looked it up and it wasn't all that great of numbers, so maybe not the greatest example. Thing is he only lacked in one area and that area he did the best he could with it. In all other areas he went above and beyond to make up for it. Point is it's not just one thing, just like it's not squat numbers. You kind of need the whole package and like I said it sounds easier then it is.
 
Last edited:
"i'd like to see us really try and develop a 1 technique DT."

I don't understand what you mean by this?

I wouldn't mind seeing the opposing receivers disrupted, or delayed from their patterns. I agree with this.

I'm confused by pressure on the qb -v- contain. We are very successful when there is pressure, but all the experts say it is an Iowa defensive "demandment" to contain. My feeling is that this would need to be predicated on which qb we are playing.

We did send a lot of corner blitz last season. I believe this is mostly how we do it. Last year we did LB blitz too. Usually for a team like us, that isn't necessarily a good thing.
 
A 1 tech is a true Nose and the key to running a successful run stopping 3-4. All of these suggestions are solid, but Iowa did allow Prater to press occoasionally and they also incorporated a few delayed blitzes last season which were successful. I think that the defense will show more varied looks next season out of base personnel, but for the most part Iowa's base scheme is effective. If Iowa can be more effective on third and long it willl go a long way towards shoring up the defense next season, which has been an issue against smart qbs for a long time.

One last thing, when Iowa had their best personnel over the last few seasons (2009 and 2008) they were more aggressive on third downs than many realize.
 
It's a misnomer that Iowas scheeme calls for a contain and non aggro front 4. There have been years in which our back seven personnel have called for it, but wasn't a global philosophy.
 
a 1 technique DT is lined up on the shoulder of the center on the weak side. it is a 4-3 lineup. we seem to put our DT's in the A gaps in a 2 tech, which is actually very different from most 4-3 teams. for example, Wilfork for the Pats plays the 1 on their 4 man front.
 
DuffMan said:
It's a misnomer that Iowas scheeme calls for a contain and non aggro front 4. There have been years in which our back seven personnel have called for it, but wasn't a global philosophy.
Click to expand...

you should say it has been years. those Roth days are quite a long time ago.
 
spudhawk said:
A 1 tech is a true Nose and the key to running a successful run stopping 3-4. All of these suggestions are solid, but Iowa did allow Prater to press occoasionally and they also incorporated a few delayed blitzes last season which were successful. I think that the defense will show more varied looks next season out of base personnel, but for the most part Iowa's base scheme is effective. If Iowa can be more effective on third and long it willl go a long way towards shoring up the defense next season, which has been an issue against smart qbs for a long time.

One last thing, when Iowa had their best personnel over the last few seasons (2009 and 2008) they were more aggressive on third downs than many realize.
Click to expand...

Agree, I don't think it is so much a scheme problem. These coaching changes could really help, but not because of different schemes. I feel like we need to develope better and execute better. If those two things happen it will pay back 100 fold.
 
DuffMan said:
It's a misnomer that Iowas scheeme calls for a contain and non aggro front 4. There have been years in which our back seven personnel have called for it, but wasn't a global philosophy.
Click to expand...

I disagree with parts of this post. A lot of what you are saying is true versus offenses like ours, but contain is really stressed versus spread looks. An example would be Binns who seemed to be more reckless and explosive as a sophomore as a pass rusher, but personally I think he is one of the smartest players to play d-line at Iowa ever. Look at the teams Iowa generated good pressure against and you will see similarities to Iowa's offensive scheme.
 
Here is were there is a misconception....
　
In 2009 we lost several of those games, tOSU in particular because we lost position on the Dline and therefore contain. Containment is the first, 2nd and 3rd major responsibility of the D-line and if you lose focus on it you are dead...
　
2nd over the last 2 years we have corner blitzed, sfty blitzed and out of all 3 positions at Lber with mixed results.
　
We have played more nickel and dime, with mixed results and we have played 3-4 also with mixed results.
　
We have also played more press coverage and man to man than EVER. With....mixed results.
　
So in short, we have done all these things and more, I'd like to actually get back to how we USED to play D.
　
Finally, our contain defense and the way our CB's play really isn't all the diff than anyone else. I have had several good discussions with several of you who watch a lot of football who readily agreed they are shocked how many (i/e: pretty much all) teams, Southern teams, aggressive teams wind up playing 10 yards off the ball....
　
Iowa isn't all that unusual in reality....
 
we were plenty aggro clayborsfb Jr year so you don't have to go back to roth and company.

the issue the last two years has been the 3 not the 4
 
The last two years we were forced to blitz. I don't believe blitzing in this instance is a good thing. I believe it is a sign of lack of confidence in the front four. At least in our scheme.

I slightly disagree about playing 10 yards off the receivers. I see plenty of teams that will at least chuck a receiver once, even if 5 yards deep, to disrupt his pattern, and give the front four a chance.
 
DuffMan said:
we were plenty aggro clayborsfb Jr year so you don't have to go back to roth and company.

the issue the last two years has been the 3 not the 4
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right. I still say it's because we are getting beat up top. It's not a sled pushing fix. I would even go as far as to say we have showed very good hand skills and speed as well (even this last year), but when you get pushed off your hips, you are done for. First one to win that battle, wins the fight.
 
olddude said:
DuffMan said:
we were plenty aggro clayborsfb Jr year so you don't have to go back to roth and company. the issue the last two years has been the 3 not the 4
Click to expand...
Yes, you are right. I still say it's because we are getting beat up top. It's not a sled pushing fix. I would even go as far as to say we have showed very good hand skills and speed as well (even this last year), but when you get pushed off your hips, you are done for. First one to win that battle, wins the fight.
Click to expand...

What if we could equip our players with lasers?







welcome back :)
 
I think what we need is for our DT's to step up. In a 4-3 you have to legitmately demand a double team. That would allow our DE's to do their jobs and when they were allowed to, they did fairly well last year. On a side note I hope if Nate does not make it at RB he moves to mike.
First and foremost for a 4-3 to work extremly well, you have to plug the hole and make it so that is not even an option.

Sorry duff, even as big of fan of lasers as I am, I think that would be a clear violation of the rules. :)
 
Last edited:
Personally I do not think that we need to see a large or even what could be considered a moderate change in scheme for the Hawkeye defense. Scheme is not the problem. Execution is and has been the problem. After having said that it is easy for us to sit here and blame the coaches for poor execution on the field but if we take a step back and allow ourselves a realistic point of view, it is even easier to see that it isn't just coaching. Honestly guys, we lost 3 out of our 4 d-line starters to the NFL. We lost 2 LB. Sash just won a Superbowl with the Giants. Greenwood had a shot with the Steelers as well. What did any of us hope for and what where our realistic expectations? Obviously I would have loved to see a return to what we saw in 2008 and 2009. But that would have been nothing short of miraculous. Multiple miracles in fact considering how many great Hawkeyes departed. Now I'm not saying that "We're Just little old Iowa." But the fact of the matter is, we are not Ohio State or Oregon or Alabama. Sure, I would like to see the Hawkeyes be comparable from season to season as apposed to every 4 to 5 seasons. Maybe we all will some day. But we aren't there yet.
Anyway, I don't want to see much change from what we have seen in play calling. Execution is another story but I think the lack of experience and depth whether they be due to injury or otherwise has been a far larger factor than anything on the coaching end of it last year. The 2010 teams fizzle could be squared upon the coaching to a point but again they where not solely responsible. It is the coaching staff job to motivate the team and I have watched the Hawkeyes play football since the early Frye years and I cannot remember a time when I was more excited about Iowa football than I was going into that fall. All of us where. From the media and us fans it was Big Ten title or bust. Rose Bowl or bust. Talk of a national title. Big time expectations. I mean to make no excuse for the defensive decline in the second half of that season but from the outside looking in it is easy to see where or how they would lose their "edge" after their and our "this" or bust mentality had been dashed. Don't get me wrong, I was just as disappointed as anyone else. Still am to some respects. But I think that everyone one in here has had some times in their lives where they have not fit the bill. Few of us have ever had an entire state hoping and dreaming and talking abut our success. What we are supposed to and expected to do. That team had the talent to be the best Iowa team I/we have ever seen and all of the kids on that team knew that. They knew that they where expected to do that. That's part of the deal. We all know that but lets not throw all of the blame on scheme or coaching or the kids playing ball. We don't have a lot of experience with that as a fan base, as players, or as a coaching staff.
 
Last edited:
Contain is important when you can't get to a running QB quick enough- NW, Minnesota, ISU, Michigan, OSU, and the like. You need to prevent them from running all over you.

They just need guys that can get to the QB quicker and with more consistency, this year's recruits should help (I think). Corners shouldn't stand further than the first down marker on every play either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top