The Good The Bad The Ugly
- Thread starter longtimer
- Start date
kicker22
Well-Known Member
Agree 100%. Hate the offense scheme and mentality and definitely not a fan of BF, but if KF gets the blame for the dumpster fire of an offense we see week in and week out then he deserves just as much credit for his scheme and performance of the defense. I'm still adamant that we can have a good offense to compliment an elite defense, but that's besides the point.
Yup. To me that game at the end of the day is pass fail,/win lose. You either take the trophy home or you don't. The rest is just details. We can worry about details against Western Michigan next and others going forward. But there's no nitpicking who got what targets/touches etc. The ISU game is about surviving and advancing. That's it.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
I would consider the 3rd and 2 pass to Lachey that connected to be a big play that we hit. This team showed that it has big play potential and just putting that stuff on tape is going to help us going forward.
Ben Rumson
Well-Known Member
That's the most unfair question you could ever ask! 6 of one/ half dozen the other. I feel I know the Answer but I'd prefer to let Kirk Answer it for entertainment purposes only. I wish you were doing the post game interview with KF and had asked that.
SCHawkeye2
Well-Known Member
Iowa’s biggest preseason question: Can a zone-based rushing scheme still work?
Cut-blocking rules and ever-evolving defenses have altered the Hawkeyes' primary running play, but they need to find a way to make it work.
theathletic.com
For those who can access, good piece by Dochterman on the viability and difficulty of the zone blocking offense. The article is from 2020, but is, sadly, still relevant.
Interesting quote:
IOWA CITY, Iowa — For a program built on a foundation of physical domination along the line of scrimmage, Iowa’s rushing numbers have limped more than galloped across the finish line the last three seasons.
The Hawkeyes employ a zone-based running scheme with 4.5 yards per carry as a program goal. The cumulative pounding its offensive line takes upon an opponent with that number not only wins games, but it puts them in championship contention. Yet the last three seasons, Iowa has failed to cross the 4.0 threshold. The Hawkeyes ranked 90th nationally last year, and that was an improvement from 2018 (94th) and 2017 (104th).
“We want to run the ball effectively,” coach Kirk Ferentz said, “and 3.9 (yards per rush) is not good enough, in my opinion.”
Teddy
Well-Known Member
Didn't Iowa win a piece of the title in 2002 and 2004?
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
Yes, I was counting this year as 24 and 20 years, but Iowa did have a share in 2004… which is crazy, it’s been 20 years.
thedukeofearl
Well-Known Member
Iowa’s biggest preseason question: Can a zone-based rushing scheme still work?
Cut-blocking rules and ever-evolving defenses have altered the Hawkeyes' primary running play, but they need to find a way to make it work.
For those who can access, good piece by Dochterman on the viability and difficulty of the zone blocking offense. The article is from 2020, but is, sadly, still relevant.
Interesting quote:
IOWA CITY, Iowa — For a program built on a foundation of physical domination along the line of scrimmage, Iowa’s rushing numbers have limped more than galloped across the finish line the last three seasons.
The Hawkeyes employ a zone-based running scheme with 4.5 yards per carry as a program goal. The cumulative pounding its offensive line takes upon an opponent with that number not only wins games, but it puts them in championship contention. Yet the last three seasons, Iowa has failed to cross the 4.0 threshold. The Hawkeyes ranked 90th nationally last year, and that was an improvement from 2018 (94th) and 2017 (104th).
“We want to run the ball effectively,” coach Kirk Ferentz said, “and 3.9 (yards per rush) is not good enough, in my opinion.”
Dearly love the Athlete
Last edited:
NorthKCHawk
Well-Known Member
When the NCAA largely outlawed the cut block by putting in the chop block rule and the reach rule, it made the zone blocking scheme very hard to work consistently. Defensive lineman have much less fear of the OL going low, so they can fight through high at near 100%. It would be like outlawing the screen and the draw in the passing game. The DL would have every incentive to come 100% at the QB on every pass play because there is little risk.
I have been advocating for two years that BF/KF should be simplifying the blocking scheme with more drive blocking and less zone and trap blocking. We are just getting caught in the backfield too much. The rule change is part of the problem, but having a QB who scares no one the last couple years has excasserbated the problem.
I understand that its hard to change your DNA, but we somehow moved to the CASH on D. Change is needed.
I have been advocating for two years that BF/KF should be simplifying the blocking scheme with more drive blocking and less zone and trap blocking. We are just getting caught in the backfield too much. The rule change is part of the problem, but having a QB who scares no one the last couple years has excasserbated the problem.
I understand that its hard to change your DNA, but we somehow moved to the CASH on D. Change is needed.
MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
Great observation. KF has gone a couple rounds with refs about chop block calls he didn't agree with.
NorthKCHawk
Well-Known Member
The thing is that you have to be square with the defender (not from the side), and engage low completely alone, not even a hint of a double team. The zone block requires the 5 linemen to step in unison to the side and then determine who to block and sometimes two OL both think they should engage 1 DL and if 1 goes low, flag.
KF gets pissed because the refs overcall chop blocks that are not true chops. But, the risk is so huge of a drive killing 15 yard penalty, you have to coach these kids to chop only in very limited circumstances.
I understand the rule change as it is a safety issue, and its one of the few changes in recent years that favors the D.
BigD
Well-Known Member
Not for soccer mom’s. Participation trophy’s are always heart warming.
BigD
Well-Known Member
This is true but most morally competent humans would look at the weak spot and fix it. Not just living to get your next extension and pay raise.
Especially when you get paid millions of dollars annually. Barta and the Big Ten Channel were Kirk’s best friends. Even the bottom dwellers get the same money from the BNT.
What this did is make it so you don’t have to play in the biggest bowl games to bring home a few e tea dollars to invest back into your program.
There was no fifty million dollars for Hayden to mooch off of. If you didn’t have a good enough team back then you weren’t on National TV and you weren’t playing in one of the top four bowl games that usually had left over cash to bring home.
Now you can be the worst team in the conference and get an even cut.
On the bright side the nursing homes can play re-runs of Brian’s offense to help the residents sleep. If they are suffering from severe sleep disorders they can bring out Lickliter re-runs.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
dude... the apostrophes...
HuckFinn
Well-Known Member
Too bad participation trophies have a negative connotation. How about incentive to do better? You can’t learn to win if you don’t participate. I have seen too many coaches judge kids’ futures totally wrong. Think about it.
HuckFinn
Well-Known Member
Great idea! Pay the OSU, Mich, PSU more than Iowa. What is your iq again? But you are right on the $$ about Lackluster…
BigD
Well-Known Member
At a red light and typing fast.
BigD
Well-Known Member
I agree totally with you in that regard. I’ve watched four and five years old out on the soccer field playing in organized leagues.
Some don’t even want to be there. It’s their over zealous parents that want them to be there. Some of them are just standing on the field looking at butterflies, the ball can roll right into their area and some of the kids just stand there and watch the ball sit there while parents are trying to encourage them to just kick the ball anywhere. To be too hard on them is ridiculous but being to lax can be bad also. Some can come to expect things given to them with little to no effort. It can lead to an entitlement attitude.
HuckFinn
Well-Known Member
Entitlement attitude from a participation trophy: a new psychology scholarly report from Big D. Who knew!
