MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
You do realize Kirk's head just exploded reading this, don't you? Too much too fast.
Zone Blocking Scheme
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
You do realize Kirk's head just exploded reading this, don't you? Too much too fast.
I know! I know! Because he didn't execute! What do I win?
The biggest failure of Kirk's zone blocking scheme is that hes been here 16 years and still can't identify and recruit (and retain) RB's with the skills needed to execute his beloved system.
I think our oline opened up or share of holes. But when those plays go for 10-20 yards instead of 30-50, it really hurts our stats and makes it look like the oline is underperforming. Look at Wisconsin. They have one of the best backs in the nation and he gets held to 3 or less yards about just as often as we do. It's not that their oline is winning more often ours. It's about the production they get on the plays that thier oline win.
hawkeyegamefilm
Well-Known Member
There's nothing wrong with the zone blocking scheme itself, it's the lack of evolution of around it that is the primary issue for Iowa IMO. Iowa finally added the jet sweep to the inside zone to give teams something to think about this year; and that was something Wisconsin and others have been doing since ~2010. Iowa has always run pin & pull outside zone but it's really the only consistent variation they use. Iowa really doesn't run split zone looks much either, which is basically has a counter feel to it. Iowa will occasionally run "FB Sugar" zone looks, where the FB in I Form will go away from the play side but it looks very much the same to the front four, allows them to flow to QB pivot side at the snap.
All Xs and Os discussion aside they haven't had a skilled, load carrying back since Jewel Hampton left in '10. Coker was a reasonable fit in '10-'11, but didn't have ability to change direction at speed and struggled against good defenses. If you're going to run a mostly plain-jane zone blocking scheme, you better have a Shonn Green or Jewell Hampton type back who can create YAC on their own and make teams pay for over-pursuing. Iowa simply hasn't had one on the roster in awhile and is trying to run the same scheme; not a recipe for success in the ground game.
All Xs and Os discussion aside they haven't had a skilled, load carrying back since Jewel Hampton left in '10. Coker was a reasonable fit in '10-'11, but didn't have ability to change direction at speed and struggled against good defenses. If you're going to run a mostly plain-jane zone blocking scheme, you better have a Shonn Green or Jewell Hampton type back who can create YAC on their own and make teams pay for over-pursuing. Iowa simply hasn't had one on the roster in awhile and is trying to run the same scheme; not a recipe for success in the ground game.
Last edited:
Very true. The scheme is designed to have no negative plays (0-3 yard gains are okay), and to also have a handful of explosive plays throughout the game. That's where Gordon does his damage, he can house it on any play. I agree the holes have been there but the backs haven't been able to get there on time and through them before they close.
99topdawg
Well-Known Member
Jon, you took a huge swing and missed big. Did you even look at the programs/teams that use it? Or are you arguing that it's a good scheme that wins consistently?
4 of the 5 teams that are 9-3 are listed, and New England also uses it, but not exclusively. They do zone, power, and zone-power combo. 11 of the 13 NFL teams listed are .500 or above. The college teams that are listed need no explanation. Iowa, if anything, is an outlier in the other direction.
Arizona (10-2)
UCLA (9-3)
Ohio State (11-1)
Auburn (8-4)
BYU (8-4)
Oregon (11-1)
Iowa (7-5)
Total: 64-20
NFL
Green Bay 9-3
Denver 9-3
Arizona 9-3
Philadelphia 9-3
Dallas 8-4
Seattle 8-4
Pittsburgh 7-5
Baltimore 7-5
Cleveland 7-5
Miami 6-5
Houston 6-6
Jacksonville 2-10
Total 92-63
We need a running back that can account for an unblocked player. A cleanly blocked play, inevitably, leaves a safety or LB unblocked to fill hole. We need to recruit running backs that can make that player miss sometimes. We need a running back that can punish a LB or S for over pursuing his gap. We need a running back that explode through a crease. The Big 10 teams that beat us had these types of players. We would have looked different this year with Cobb, Abdulah, Gordon, or Clement on our team. Instead we trotted out a series of below-average Power 5 running backs.
allup86
Well-Known Member
Take a look at the CFB team using it. Which 2 stand out? BYU and Iowa, neither of which are offensive juggernauts. In fact, BYU would have been far better than 8-4 if their QB hadn't had a horrific leg injury. The other teams have players with a skill set that is better utilized in the system.
99topdawg
Well-Known Member
Exactly. It's a personnel thing, not a blocking scheme thing. It's a blocking scheme that's proven to work and is not outdated as some have indicated.
MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
To me they didn't open gaping holes as in years past, though. I think Wisky's line did a better job this year when watching. Two problems, we didn't have backs that were good at a stretch play, or at least didn't have the correct personnel in at times to do it, and the holes were not being made up the middle for Weisman & Canzeri. I thought Canzeri underperformed this year and don't have a reason why. He just didn't run with authority & seemed timid & would back into contact a lot which I didn't get.
DBAHawkFan
Well-Known Member
Agree. Although it sounded like he was hurt most of the year (seemed like every time he got tackled something was dinged up), he didn't seem to have the same cutting ability as before. Some of his runs where it appeared like he had some daylight, instead of making that one cut back inside, he'd take two or three baby steps to get his body going the other way. I don't know if it's injury, or if he added more bulk and lost some of that ability. Maybe it was never there.
Wadley seemed to have that natural cutting ability. He was our first 100 yard back this year, and then he barely see's the field. The worst offense was the MN game. He'd just come off of the best running game of Iowa's season....and we pound Mark Wiesman 15+ times in the first half. Once Wadley got in the game, it was already over....and a non typical KF move....with 30 seconds left and the score out of reach, instead of taking a knee or passing the ball, he hands off to Wadley and he fumbles. Why even risk it?
As for the zone blocking. It doesn't work for Iowa because we are extremely predictable. When Jake audibles, 95% of the time we run over to the short side of the field. They also know that we have a Fullback as our #1 rusher, so they can completely crash to the flow of the OL and not worry too much about MW cutting back and beating them for more than 15-20 yards at the most.
MiniMoeHawk
Well-Known Member
How else are you supposed to block for the FB stretch play? Whar cut back lanes?
hawkphan00
Banned
Kirk's response is pretty simple: It worked pretty good for John Elway didn't it??
My post came off like I was calling iowa and wisconsin's olines equal. I was more so meaning that they were a lot closer than what the running backs made them look. If we were getting big chunks of yards every time our oline opened up a hole, we probably wouldn't even be discussing our line good or bad.
mccarthyizm
Well-Known Member
i strongly disagree with the idea that zone blocking is the problem. By definition, there's really nothing about it, in and of itself, that could cause Iowas problems on o. But, you must have a back who knows how to read the scheme, have patience, and understand where the cutbacks are. Iowa has not had a good back that understands this in several seasons, which is odd, because there's nothing particularly hard about it. It can be coached. But, as with everything, if you try to run outside zone with a back like Weisman, it ain't going to work. If you try to run base zone running plays without corresponding play action, it gets tougher. If you aren't even going to try to mix it up or put the defense on their heels, it will get even harder.
Also, it's not a religion. Most zone teams mix in some man blocking depending on the play.
finally, the thinking used to be that zone linemen needed to be mobile enough due to the amount of lateral movement and quickness required to move to the second level without warning. It's not a man based steamroller scheme where you lock onto a man and try to drive him in a pre defined direction.
Also, it's not a religion. Most zone teams mix in some man blocking depending on the play.
finally, the thinking used to be that zone linemen needed to be mobile enough due to the amount of lateral movement and quickness required to move to the second level without warning. It's not a man based steamroller scheme where you lock onto a man and try to drive him in a pre defined direction.
