Will the new KF architecture stand the test of time in the B1G?

D

desihawk

Well-Known Member
Let me preface this by stating that I am actually optimistic for the upcoming season because I see more strengths than weaknesses in the form of players, coaches/schemes, and schedule. That said, there are striking similarities between the latest KF architecture and the program that Rich Rodriguez put together at UM.

Personnel -- the emphasis has suddenly (actually it began in 2010 itself) become speed (of the 3-star kind) on both O and D, at the expense of physicality (very apparent at the LB and safety spots) and endurance (to last the rigors of a long B10 grind).

Schemes-- On both O and D, the schemes will be speed oriented. On offense, it looks like GD will identify speed mismatches that favor us, get the ball in space (via quick passes that stretch the field sideways) and let them generate yards. In the past, KOK focused upon run-pass "balance" and imposing our will physically on the opponent. On the defensive side, I get the sense that PP will similarly (to GD) rely on speed -- smallish DL, linebackers, and blitzes. Previously, Nowm emphasized a low risk and physicality based non-blitz approach.

The new tweaks imo will actually help Iowa improve over the last season or two but that said the similarities with RR's approach are apparent. RR did put a productive offense on the field (in terms of yards and points)-- if GD does the same, great. But RR's defenses (despite his DC's credentials) simply wilted in the rugged Big Ten.

Are there enough differences (between KF's new look and RR's UM avatar) besides the apparent similarities to permit the new Iowa program sustained success in the B1G?
 
I don't necessarily see the connection to UM with the changes. RichRod tried to play a 3-3-5 at Michigan.

Defensively - The linebackers had to get quicker as more of our opponents play the spread offense. The linebackers have to be able to cover receivers in space or our defensive scheme will not work. Last season Iowa only played 3 teams that used the power running approach (Penn State, Nebraska, and Michigan St) the other 9 opponents all used a variance of the spread.

Additionally we are actually recruiting bigger D-line players than in the past so the line is getting bigger not smaller.

Offensively - The O-line & TE recruiting has not changed. The emphasis on speed is at the receiver position, which Iowa needs badly. If we can spread a team out with 3 fast receivers and make them pull more players out of the box it will actually make our ability to run the ball easier. I am tired of seeing us try to run the zone stretch play against 8 in the box. It just does not work.
 
hawkinaclownhouse said:
I don't necessarily see the connection to UM with the changes. RichRod tried to play a 3-3-5 at Michigan.

Defensively - The linebackers had to get quicker as more of our opponents play the spread offense. The linebackers have to be able to cover receivers in space or our defensive scheme will not work. Last season Iowa only played 3 teams that used the power running approach (Penn State, Nebraska, and Michigan St) the other 9 opponents all used a variance of the spread.

Additionally we are actually recruiting bigger D-line players than in the past so the line is getting bigger not smaller.

Offensively - The O-line & TE recruiting has not changed. The emphasis on speed is at the receiver position, which Iowa needs badly. If we can spread a team out with 3 fast receivers and make them pull more players out of the box it will actually make our ability to run the ball easier. I am tired of seeing us try to run the zone stretch play against 8 in the box. It just does not work.
Click to expand...

I can't honestly dispute any of what you wrote...despite wanting to (just to prolong a debate about Iowa football). But I will anyway--

1. The main difference you point out (and it is admittedly a big one) with RR's product is that PP will likely stick with a 4-3-4 alignment where RR went with a disastrous 3-3-5. But can RR's failings be entirely attributed to just that one attribute? THe overall defensive personnel seem very similar.

2. We are getting smaller linebackers to cope with spread offenses you say. But we will play PSU, UW, MSU, Neb, and UMich none are spread finesse types and will possess good talent. The spread opponents are of a decidedly inferior caliber talent wise, and we should be able to compensate without recruiting fast midgets at LB. So I don't see the stocking up at LB with smaller athletes as a good trend.
 
I don't see our linebackers as "midgets". It's no good to be large and slow, either. I wouldn't worry about Parker's D being as weak as DickRod's scheme. Also, you can't "impose your will" with the lowest(or close to it) ypc in the conference; new wrinkles were needed.
 
Last edited:
There have been a lot of complaints about (1) Iowa vs the spread and the inability of the LB's to be successful in contain and (2) Iowa LB's pass coverage...question..can they do both? Maybe.

Of course, it is obvious that vs the spread, as well as some other offensive sets, that LB's will HAVE to cover at least slots and te's, as well as backs out of the backfield. The defensive line has done a good job on contain against the spread, but that interrupts the pass rush...pretty tough to do both! So, Iowa's answer, to my eyes, has been obvious: We have recruited LB's more toward the speed preference, rather than the traditional big, strong, run-oriented LB's. To some degree, speed has been more of a requirement for incoming safety's and corners.

Just my humble opinion.
 
defense - if you dont look at scheme but look at what the coaches did. parker is staying with a 4-3 but tweaking to blitz more because we need to put more pressure on the qb. our personnel is matching that in going bigger on the dl (our dl outside of some of the young guys have been bigger recruits than we usually get...compare davis and jaleel and ekatitie to the size of klug and others as frosh). we also have had better cover corners lately meaning we can blitz more. richrod basically tried defensive schemes out of the blue and his personnel didnt fit the system. they didnt have dl to run a 3 man front.

offense - we are adapting with the times and going to more of a west coast timing route. i would bet that our run/pass ratio will still be pretty even. we just will have more quick developing pass plays.

we are not making wholesale changes we are adapting to personnel and the times. richrod just would change things in the middle and expect things to work out. nebby runs a power run spread - need speed at lb to counter that. mich - runs a west coast spread & a west coast prostyle - need speed to counter that. wisky and msu - true ground and pound teams...but our dl has been getting bigger to deal with that better.
 
desihawk said:
Let me preface this by stating that I am actually optimistic for the upcoming season because I see more strengths than weaknesses in the form of players, coaches/schemes, and schedule. That said, there are striking similarities between the latest KF architecture and the program that Rich Rodriguez put together at UM.

Personnel -- the emphasis has suddenly (actually it began in 2010 itself) become speed (of the 3-star kind) on both O and D, at the expense of physicality (very apparent at the LB and safety spots) and endurance (to last the rigors of a long B10 grind).

Schemes-- On both O and D, the schemes will be speed oriented. On offense, it looks like GD will identify speed mismatches that favor us, get the ball in space (via quick passes that stretch the field sideways) and let them generate yards. In the past, KOK focused upon run-pass "balance" and imposing our will physically on the opponent. On the defensive side, I get the sense that PP will similarly (to GD) rely on speed -- smallish DL, linebackers, and blitzes. Previously, Nowm emphasized a low risk and physicality based non-blitz approach.

The new tweaks imo will actually help Iowa improve over the last season or two but that said the similarities with RR's approach are apparent. RR did put a productive offense on the field (in terms of yards and points)-- if GD does the same, great. But RR's defenses (despite his DC's credentials) simply wilted in the rugged Big Ten.

Are there enough differences (between KF's new look and RR's UM avatar) besides the apparent similarities to permit the new Iowa program sustained success in the B1G?
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure Iowa has purposely gone to speedy, smaller LBs to cover the spread offenses as much as those are the guys who accepted scholarships and are the best LBs on the team at the current time.

I don't see Iowa as any faster on offense or defense than they've been in the past. I think the staff recruits the best players they can and plugs them into the system. Some have more size, some have more speed.

I think some people are making the new coordinators out to be changing things. I'd be shocked if schemes on offense or defense are much different that what we've seen in the past.
 
Xerxes said:
I'm not so sure Iowa has purposely gone to speedy, smaller LBs to cover the spread offenses as much as those are the guys who accepted scholarships and are the best LBs on the team at the current time.

I don't see Iowa as any faster on offense or defense than they've been in the past. I think the staff recruits the best players they can and plugs them into the system. Some have more size, some have more speed.

I think some people are making the new coordinators out to be changing things. I'd be shocked if schemes on offense or defense are much different that what we've seen in the past.
Click to expand...

I think its been said even by the staff they did try to recruit guys who could cover receivers better at the LB position and that they might give up some size for speed, but that may have just been an assumption by most too.

They did try to put Derby at LB though and he would have been a huge LB although he probably could have handled coverage too.
 
I agree with the above poster who wonders if its just the guys who happened to come into the program and have made the starter's spot. Hitchens came in as a RB and stopped at safety before becoming an OLB. Kirksey just happened to be a fast small guy they recruited.
 
All due respect, I think Iowa, as well as other D1 teams, is a lot more sophisticated in recruiting than you are giving them credit for. If there has been a change in the physical makeup of linebackers, or D linemen, that has been a purposeful decision by Iowa coaches. IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top