X and O question

[hwk23]

No, not really. Adam Robinson wasn't overly athletic he just understood where the cutback lanes were and could get chunk yardage. Before he went off the rails he consistently got Iowa into 2nd and 5(s) and 3rd and 4(s). He was a much better fit than Coker/weisman/Bullock ever were.

Zone blocking scheme was designed to plug any RB into it and to pick up chunk yardage even against 8 man fronts. It is clearly not the case. At this point i do not think even Shannonhan/Gibb could tweak it to make it work. It is outdated the way Iowa runs it. The problem is the o-line, the overall offensive philosophy is built around an outdated concept.

We we're 10th and 9th in rushing (Big Ten wise) when Adam Robinson played. I wouldn't call that successful although I agree he was a better fit for zone blocking. Again the only success we've had scoring wise was 2001, 2002 and 2008 and those were all years we had very rare skill players, and any scheme probably would have worked.

 

[drew003]

Heck of a breakdown hawkfan.

I think the later scenario is our problem. Extra defenders in the box allows teams to cheat. And we don't punish teams for cheating. Instead we run away from the extra man and hope all our lineman can perfectly execute difficult blocks and that unblocked backside players don't chase the play down.

We need action that keeps the backside players home (fly action, naked boots, zone read qb keep, etc..). And we need to make teams pay through the passing game for cheating.

 

[lightning1]

Lots of good stuff in this thread. IMO, the zone blocking scheme only works well when you have the right RB. He has to be patient, decisive (one cut) and have good vision/ anticipation. I have watched KF's offensive line and running backs more than any other unit over the past 15 years. It is a beautiful thing when it's working well but there is a huge difference in YPC between the right RB and ones that don't have the attributes I described.
Even a RB like Adam Robinson had success here, in spite of his athletic limitations. He ran tough, patient and didn't dance around or try and bounce outside on every play.

 

[hawkfan2679]

Heck of a breakdown hawkfan.

I think the later scenario is our problem. Extra defenders in the box allows teams to cheat. And we don't punish teams for cheating. Instead we run away from the extra man and hope all our lineman can perfectly execute difficult blocks and that unblocked backside players don't chase the play down.

We need action that keeps the backside players home (fly action, naked boots, zone read qb keep, etc..). And we need to make teams pay through the passing game for cheating.

Sadly, that latter scenario is not necessarily sound every down defensive strategy (unless one of the things I mentioned: bringing pressure, found a tendency, or disguising coverage) because most good offenses make you pay for running too much of that. The Iowa offense, on the other hand...

 

[SpiderRico]

We we're 10th and 9th in rushing (Big Ten wise) when Adam Robinson played. I wouldn't call that successful although I agree he was a better fit for zone blocking. Again the only success we've had scoring wise was 2001, 2002 and 2008 and those were all years we had very rare skill players, and any scheme probably would have worked.

I would add 2005 into that as well as that was a high scoring team in the Ferentz Era and also had, possibly, the best all-around RB of the KF era in Albert Young.

 

[hwk23]

I would add 2005 into that as well as that was a high scoring team in the Ferentz Era and also had, possibly, the best all-around RB of the KF era in Albert Young.

We were 7th in scoring and 7th in rushing in 2005 (in the Big Ten). Still not really good. Better than an average KF offense but it takes more than Albert Young to make a Kirk offense work. I'm guessing if BB had Tate and Young they would be the #1 offense in the Big Ten or close, running 65% of the plays.

 

[trj]

Heck of a breakdown hawkfan.

I think the later scenario is our problem. Extra defenders in the box allows teams to cheat. And we don't punish teams for cheating. Instead we run away from the extra man and hope all our lineman can perfectly execute difficult blocks and that unblocked backside players don't chase the play down.

We need action that keeps the backside players home (fly action, naked boots, zone read qb keep, etc..). And we need to make teams pay through the passing game for cheating.

KOK had the PA waggle in the playbook. Think of all the big plays Iowa got with the PA waggle and a TE or a slot receiver running a drag route across the middle of the field.

 

[ICHawk24]

I haven't been able to make myself rewatch the ISU game, but it seems like we've had a ton of zone plays run down from the backside. Lots of posters have been complaining that the RB have missed cut back lanes, but when I'm standing in Kinnick, I see a constant flow of backside defenders chasing without fear of repercussions. It seems like the cutbacks aren't there.

 

[94HawkMA]

I haven't been able to make myself rewatch the ISU game, but it seems like we've had a ton of zone plays run down from the backside. Lots of posters have been complaining that the RB have missed cut back lanes, but when I'm standing in Kinnick, I see a constant flow of backside defenders chasing without fear of repercussions. It seems like the cutbacks aren't there.

If the run is a zone "read", the problem is that there is no reading going on. It's an automatic give and the defense knows it doesn't have to protect the back side.