food for thought in regards to Iowas offense

[nolookpass]

"I have posted all of the numbers before and will not bother going through them all again. In 11 years, IOWA has been in the top-40 in offense exactly three times and in the top-25 once - #13 in 2002 with a Heisman runner-up at QB, 4 future NFL OL including the Outland winner, the Mackey winner and the Groza winner. One of us could have called plays for that offense and probably done okay. At least half of the time, we finish south of 75th spot in the entirety of Division I"

[funnelcake]

I know it's frustrating we suck so bad- it's way more important to beat teams by 21+ than by 1, 3, or 7.

There are totally 70 teams that are consistently better than Iowa every year......paging Mr. Hawk...ding ding

[HawkLax6]

I think it all comes down to how KF likes to play football. Very conservatively. Rather than take a chance down field, KF would prefer the short run and punt and play field position with our defense than try anything too crazy.

But I will say it is frustrating as a fan to watch the offense at times when you compare it straight up to the defense.

[Jim]

I think it all comes down to how KF likes to play football. Very conservatively. Rather than take a chance down field, KF would prefer the short run and punt and play field position with our defense than try anything too crazy.


I'd be curious to see how Ohio State ranks during the same period of time.

[MikeyJoe]

But I will say it is frustrating as a fan to watch the offense at times when you compare it straight up to the defense.
It's interesting to compare our offensive and defensive philosophies.

On defense, the philosophy is that we'll give up the 7-8 yard play to prevent the big play because it's hard for a team to go down the field with 10-12 plays without making a mistake. But on offense, our strategy seems to be to play it safe and try to march down the field in 10-12 plays.

[funnelcake]

But I will say it is frustrating as a fan to watch the offense at times when you compare it straight up to the defense.
It's interesting to compare our offensive and defensive philosophies.

On defense, the philosophy is that we'll give up the 7-8 yard play to prevent the big play because it's hard for a team to go down the field with 10-12 plays without making a mistake. But on offense, our strategy seems to be to play it safe and try to march down the field in 10-12 plays.

no, the gameplan is to shorten the field so you are not driving the length of the field

[MikeyJoe]

But I will say it is frustrating as a fan to watch the offense at times when you compare it straight up to the defense.
It's interesting to compare our offensive and defensive philosophies.

On defense, the philosophy is that we'll give up the 7-8 yard play to prevent the big play because it's hard for a team to go down the field with 10-12 plays without making a mistake. But on offense, our strategy seems to be to play it safe and try to march down the field in 10-12 plays.

no, the gameplan is to shorten the field so you are not driving the length of the field
That doesn't address what I'm saying.

[funnelcake]

It's interesting to compare our offensive and defensive philosophies.

On defense, the philosophy is that we'll give up the 7-8 yard play to prevent the big play because it's hard for a team to go down the field with 10-12 plays without making a mistake. But on offense, our strategy seems to be to play it safe and try to march down the field in 10-12 plays.

no, the gameplan is to shorten the field so you are not driving the length of the field
That doesn't address what I'm saying.

I know because you were off the mark and I set you straight...(wink)

Iowa's offensive strategy that is.

[HawkLax6]

OSU's offensive FBS ranks since Tressel took over in 2001

2001 - 65th Total Yards per Game / t-67th Scoring Offense
2002 - 70th / 41st
2003 - 93rd / t-74th
2004 - 97th / 71st
2005 - 32nd / 26th
2006 - 26th / 8th
2007 - 63rd / 42nd
2008 - 76th / t-45th
2009 - 69th / 48th

[funnelcake]

I'll bet this OSU is an average team, they really should strive for excellence

[Whatever]

But I will say it is frustrating as a fan to watch the offense at times when you compare it straight up to the defense.
It's interesting to compare our offensive and defensive philosophies.

On defense, the philosophy is that we'll give up the 7-8 yard play to prevent the big play because it's hard for a team to go down the field with 10-12 plays without making a mistake. But on offense, our strategy seems to be to play it safe and try to march down the field in 10-12 plays.

Except the Iowa offense expects to run it down the field while the Iowa defense expects to make the other team pass it.

[PipeDaddy]

The Iowa offensive strategy is to do one of two things:

1) Fall behind by 2 TDs and then come back after lulling the opposition into a slumber.
2) Get a 10 point lead on an inferior team and then run the clock out.

:)

-----

Seriously though, the offensive strategy changes with the talent level of the players available. I don't think KOK tries to force his teams into some scheme that they don't fit. And unfortunately we've had a few seasons (like this one) where injuries can affect that.

[roseboundhawk]

Switching offensive coordinators every season seems like a good strategy -- just ask Minnesota.

[MikeyJoe]

OSU's offensive FBS ranks since Tressel took over in 2001

2001 - 65th Total Yards per Game / t-67th Scoring Offense
2002 - 70th / 41st
2003 - 93rd / t-74th
2004 - 97th / 71st
2005 - 32nd / 26th
2006 - 26th / 8th
2007 - 63rd / 42nd
2008 - 76th / t-45th
2009 - 69th / 48th
I don't like this argument. Yes, of course you can be good with a dominant defense and an average offense. Similarly, you can win a lot of games with an outstanding offense and an average defense. But why wouldn't you at least want to have both? I'm not in the "fire KOK" crowd, but still.

[PipeDaddy]

But why wouldn't you at least want to have both?

Yep.

[HawkLax6]

OSU's offensive FBS ranks since Tressel took over in 2001

2001 - 65th Total Yards per Game / t-67th Scoring Offense
2002 - 70th / 41st
2003 - 93rd / t-74th
2004 - 97th / 71st
2005 - 32nd / 26th
2006 - 26th / 8th
2007 - 63rd / 42nd
2008 - 76th / t-45th
2009 - 69th / 48th
I don't like this argument. Yes, of course you can be good with a dominant defense and an average offense. Similarly, you can win a lot of games with an outstanding offense and an average defense. But why wouldn't you at least want to have both? I'm not in the "fire KOK" crowd, but still.

I just posted that since Jim asked for it.

Would I want a Top 25 offense AND defense? Of course.

[funnelcake]

OSU's offensive FBS ranks since Tressel took over in 2001

2001 - 65th Total Yards per Game / t-67th Scoring Offense
2002 - 70th / 41st
2003 - 93rd / t-74th
2004 - 97th / 71st
2005 - 32nd / 26th
2006 - 26th / 8th
2007 - 63rd / 42nd
2008 - 76th / t-45th
2009 - 69th / 48th
I don't like this argument. Yes, of course you can be good with a dominant defense and an average offense. Similarly, you can win a lot of games with an outstanding offense and an average defense. But why wouldn't you at least want to have both? I'm not in the "fire KOK" crowd, but still.

Yeah, that is what I'm saying- I don't want to have the greatest team in college football, I wouldn't want to have a top 25 offense and defense every year. Christ, you sound like nolook now.

Can we just will it to be that way, or are there about 3000 things that have to happen to have an excellent offense, excellent defense, very few turnovers, undefeated season, preferable schedule, very few penalties, no mistakes, no injuries, no off the field issues with star players, top recruiting to Iowa City, IA.

should we just lure the top minds in the game to come and coach for us, and how long should we give them before we try and find someone better.

it is just funny and bordering on hilarity.

[MikeyJoe]

OSU's offensive FBS ranks since Tressel took over in 2001

2001 - 65th Total Yards per Game / t-67th Scoring Offense
2002 - 70th / 41st
2003 - 93rd / t-74th
2004 - 97th / 71st
2005 - 32nd / 26th
2006 - 26th / 8th
2007 - 63rd / 42nd
2008 - 76th / t-45th
2009 - 69th / 48th
I don't like this argument. Yes, of course you can be good with a dominant defense and an average offense. Similarly, you can win a lot of games with an outstanding offense and an average defense. But why wouldn't you at least want to have both? I'm not in the "fire KOK" crowd, but still.

Yeah, that is what I'm saying- I don't want to have the greatest team in college football, I wouldn't want to have a top 25 offense and defense every year. Christ, you sound like nolook now.

Can we just will it to be that way, or are there about 3000 things that have to happen to have an excellent offense, excellent defense, very few turnovers, undefeated season, preferable schedule, very few penalties, no mistakes, no injuries, no off the field issues with star players, top recruiting to Iowa City, IA.

should we just lure the top minds in the game to come and coach for us, and how long should we give them before we try and find someone better.

it is just funny and bordering on hilarity.
I wasn't responding to you.

I'm talking about the general point - often on these boards, when people complain about the offense struggling, you'll see the "How good is OSU's offense?" rebuttal. I'm just saying that yes, I acknowledge you can win without a dominant offense. I just don't see why that would mean you shouldn't care about an offense being mediocre.

[nolookpass]

all we hear about the offense is excuses. The reality is, the offense sucked against UNI and it sucked later in the year, like against MSU when we were pretty healthy. With TM at TE, our receiving core was more talented than any KF has ever had and we had a returning QB who threw one more TD than picks.

But stick your head in the sand and pretend everything is rosy on the offensive side of the ball.

[roseboundhawk]

The reality is that getting rid of O'Keefe would be a negative, live with it.

[funnelcake]

sorry- but my point is still out there.......dont you think because it goes deeper than that. I mean offensive prowress by itself doesn't mean squat. People still try and point out that yards and such amount to success- Ohio State/Iowa type numbers prove that it doesn't. Just like Alabama, when they were dominant didn't always have great offenses. There are a few ways to win games, try and outscore your opponets- or shut down your opponets.

The college game isn't the NFL, you cant just do patchwork fills to shore up one aspect of your team that is lacking- this is magnified in the college game because of constant turnover and talent gaps. Iowa does pretty well at scheming to protect against these differences and teams like USC, Florida, OSU and Texas consistently get better talent in addition to excellent coaching so they are more consistent over the long term but still are not immune to down periods or issues that throw them for a loop.

[funnelcake]

all we hear about the offense is excuses. The reality is, the offense sucked against UNI and it sucked later in the year, like against MSU when we were pretty healthy. With TM at TE, our receiving core was more talented than any KF has ever had and we had a returning QB who threw one more TD than picks.

But stick your head in the sand and pretend everything is rosy on the offensive side of the ball.

Maybe fat charlie could come in an install the offense that has made him so successful- he was a great offensive mind at New England...What is the ole ball coach or Norm Chow doing these days, maybe they'd be interested. Who should we get that would make you happy nolook?

[nolookpass]

all we hear about the offense is excuses. The reality is, the offense sucked against UNI and it sucked later in the year, like against MSU when we were pretty healthy. With TM at TE, our receiving core was more talented than any KF has ever had and we had a returning QB who threw one more TD than picks.

But stick your head in the sand and pretend everything is rosy on the offensive side of the ball.

Maybe fat charlie could come in an install the offense that has made him so successful- he was a great offensive mind at New England...What is the ole ball coach or Norm Chow doing these days, maybe they'd be interested. Who should we get that would make you happy nolook?


Im not saying KOK should be fired. What I am saying is for the vast majority of Kirks tenure the offense has been below average.

[funnelcake]

all we hear about the offense is excuses. The reality is, the offense sucked against UNI and it sucked later in the year, like against MSU when we were pretty healthy. With TM at TE, our receiving core was more talented than any KF has ever had and we had a returning QB who threw one more TD than picks.

But stick your head in the sand and pretend everything is rosy on the offensive side of the ball.

Maybe fat charlie could come in an install the offense that has made him so successful- he was a great offensive mind at New England...What is the ole ball coach or Norm Chow doing these days, maybe they'd be interested. Who should we get that would make you happy nolook?


Im not saying KOK should be fired. What I am saying is for the vast majority of Kirks tenure the offense has been below average.

below average by what measure? total offense? Yards? Does this matter when other factors have been added to the equation to determine the overall performance of the team?

Who should be responsible to you if you are not happy about it? Should this person be replaced? by who?

Now you really have me interested

[MikeyJoe]

The reality is that getting rid of O'Keefe would be a negative, live with it.
I don't know how this could possibly be definitively stated.

[funnelcake]

The reality is that getting rid of O'Keefe would be a negative, live with it.
I don't know how this could possibly be definitively stated.

possibly true, but KF will never replace him unless something unforseen happens, so it really is a moot point

[Jim]

all we hear about the offense is excuses. The reality is, the offense sucked against UNI and it sucked later in the year, like against MSU when we were pretty healthy. With TM at TE, our receiving core was more talented than any KF has ever had and we had a returning QB who threw one more TD than picks.

But stick your head in the sand and pretend everything is rosy on the offensive side of the ball.

Maybe fat charlie could come in an install the offense that has made him so successful- he was a great offensive mind at New England...What is the ole ball coach or Norm Chow doing these days, maybe they'd be interested. Who should we get that would make you happy nolook?


Im not saying KOK should be fired. What I am saying is for the vast majority of Kirks tenure the offense has been below average.

And he's had a pretty good run.

<paging Lax> How many teams in college football have a top 25 offense AND a top 25 defense consistently?

[HawkLax6]

One last thing I want to point out that has been mentioned a couple times before on the other site that people tend to ignore or don't believe, but apparently KOK is a spread guy who likes aggressive calls. I guess his teams at Allegheny College (79-10-1 mark at Allegheny, where his team won five North Coast Athletic Conference titles and the 1990 NCAA Division III national title) ran the spread and your typical offense that pleases the "Xbox" crowd.

Sounds like KF is the one that causes our offense to be overly conservative at times, more so than KOK is my guess.

[HawkLax6]

<paging Lax> How many teams in college football have a top 25 offense AND a top 25 defense consistently?

Using scoring offense and scoring defense

2009 - 9 teams
2008 - 7 teams
2007 - 5 teams

[RiotFan]

I'm fine with the offensive philosophy. Pro-style offense, goal of run/pass balance, etc, etc.

I absolutely hate the play-calling. Almost every play in the Iowa playbook takes FOREVER to develop. No quick hitting runs, rare misdirection plays (i.e. counter type plays). I still can't figure out why we can't take advantage of quick play action passes over the middle when our opponents LB's are run blitzing every other play.

I'm sure I don't understand all the nuances of football and Monster will be here shortly to set me straight, but damn, I get tired of watching this offense.

[The Tin Man]

Seriously though, the offensive strategy changes with the talent level of the players available. I don't think KOK tries to force his teams into some scheme that they don't fit. And unfortunately we've had a few seasons (like this one) where injuries can affect that.

Bingo.

[sergeanthulka]

OSU's offensive FBS ranks since Tressel took over in 2001

2001 - 65th Total Yards per Game / t-67th Scoring Offense
2002 - 70th / 41st
2003 - 93rd / t-74th
2004 - 97th / 71st
2005 - 32nd / 26th
2006 - 26th / 8th
2007 - 63rd / 42nd
2008 - 76th / t-45th
2009 - 69th / 48th
I don't like this argument. Yes, of course you can be good with a dominant defense and an average offense. Similarly, you can win a lot of games with an outstanding offense and an average defense. But why wouldn't you at least want to have both? I'm not in the "fire KOK" crowd, but still.

Of course you don't. It completely undermines your argument.

The objective is to WIN. Not try to impress people with the size of your cock.

You don't have to look back any farther than the OSU game to recognize that our staff can be aggressive when it needs to be. We moved the ball fairly effectively against them & we HAD to take chances. For the most part, it worked...but you also saw the downside with multiple turnovers & near-miss t/o's...

[MikeyJoe]

OSU's offensive FBS ranks since Tressel took over in 2001

2001 - 65th Total Yards per Game / t-67th Scoring Offense
2002 - 70th / 41st
2003 - 93rd / t-74th
2004 - 97th / 71st
2005 - 32nd / 26th
2006 - 26th / 8th
2007 - 63rd / 42nd
2008 - 76th / t-45th
2009 - 69th / 48th
I don't like this argument. Yes, of course you can be good with a dominant defense and an average offense. Similarly, you can win a lot of games with an outstanding offense and an average defense. But why wouldn't you at least want to have both? I'm not in the "fire KOK" crowd, but still.

Of course you don't. It completely undermines your argument.

The objective is to WIN. Not try to impress people with the size of your cock.

You don't have to look back any farther than the OSU game to recognize that our staff can be aggressive when it needs to be. We moved the ball fairly effectively against them & we HAD to take chances. For the most part, it worked...but you also saw the downside with multiple turnovers & near-miss t/o's...
That is stupid. Seriously.

Don't you think that scoring more points improves your chances of winning? You're setting up this false dichotomy which doesn't actually exist where you have to choose between a mediocre safe offense and a wing it all over the field crazy spread. Plenty of schools run a similar pro-set offense to Iowa. There's just some who score more points doing it.

[MikeyJoe]

The most frustrating thing about these boards is how people want to make up your position for you when they're arguing with you.

For the last effing time, people - all I'm saying is that (while true), "You can win without a good offense" isn't some sort of massive pwn to those who say they wish our offense was better. Unless of course someone is honestly trying to tell me that they wouldn't like Iowa's offense to be better. Which is weird.

[sergeanthulka]

I don't like this argument. Yes, of course you can be good with a dominant defense and an average offense. Similarly, you can win a lot of games with an outstanding offense and an average defense. But why wouldn't you at least want to have both? I'm not in the "fire KOK" crowd, but still.

Of course you don't. It completely undermines your argument.

The objective is to WIN. Not try to impress people with the size of your cock.

You don't have to look back any farther than the OSU game to recognize that our staff can be aggressive when it needs to be. We moved the ball fairly effectively against them & we HAD to take chances. For the most part, it worked...but you also saw the downside with multiple turnovers & near-miss t/o's...
That is stupid. Seriously.

Don't you think that scoring more points improves your chances of winning? You're setting up this false dichotomy which doesn't actually exist where you have to choose between a mediocre safe offense and a wing it all over the field crazy spread. Plenty of schools run a similar pro-set offense to Iowa. There's just some who score more points doing it. And lose a lot more games, as well.

Helped you out a bit there.

Though, as stupid as I am, you apparently believe there's an easy button in the coaches office every week that if only pushed is going to dramatically improve the offenses effectiveness & execution. But you don't seem to realize (or at least you won't acknowledge) that this comes with incremental risk.

Another example, Minnesota's defense was highly susceptible to the screen game on Saturday - everybody that knows anything about football knew this. But what happened the one time we tried to run a screen? It almost went for a Gopher TD. So, how do you think the coaching staff reacted to that? My guess is that they looked at each other, said, 'I don't think the Gophers are going to score more than 9 today - unless we hand them the points -- let's not run that play anymore.' As much as it was painful & frustrating to watch, offensive series that ran 2-3 minutes off the clock & ended with a punt, were actually successful drives.

It's not really fun to win that way, but losing is less fun.

[MikeyJoe]

Helped you out a bit there.
Again, dumb. You're basically reiterating exactly what I said - that there is no other option besides a conservative offense that is mediocre or throwing open the floodgates and running a crazy risky offense. Can you not acknowledge that there are plenty of teams who run conservative offense that score more points than Iowa? I honestly do not understand why this is a difficult or controversial point.

Though, as stupid as I am, you apparently believe there's an easy button in the coaches office every week that if only pushed is going to dramatically improve the offenses effectiveness & execution. But you don't seem to realize (or at least you won't acknowledge) that this comes with incremental risk.
Reposting:
The most frustrating thing about these boards is how people want to make up your position for you when they're arguing with you.
Of fucking course there are ways that Iowa could improve their offense stats that would come at higher risk. But I'm not advocating for those, so I'm not entirely sure who you think you're arguing with.

But let's also not act like our low scoring is a result of the fact that we protect the football and never turn it over. Over the last few years, we've turned the ball over at a pretty good clip.

[Jim]

Can you not acknowledge that there are plenty of teams who run conservative offense that score more points than Iowa? I honestly do not understand why this is a difficult or controversial point.


Boise State, Texas, TCU, Cincinnati, Florida, Pitt, and Alabama.

Which of the above teams run a "conservative" offense?

[MikeyJoe]

As silly as that question is (which I'll get to below): I don't know much about TCU, but from that list, Texas, Pitt (I think), and Alabama run traditional offenses similar to Iowa's.

Again - Iowa is 48th in scoring offense this year. Unless you're trying to claim that all teams ranked 1-47 run some crazy risky scheme (and all have worse records than Iowa) I don't know what that question is supposed to prove.

[Jim]

As silly as that question is (which I'll get to below): I don't know much about TCU, but from that list, Texas, Pitt (I think), and Alabama run traditional offenses similar to Iowa's.

Again - Iowa is 48th in scoring offense this year. Unless you're trying to claim that all teams ranked 1-47 run some crazy risky scheme (and all have worse records than Iowa) I don't know what that question is supposed to prove.

;)


There are 3 teams ranked higher than Iowa in scoring offense this year with a better record.

Oh and I almost forgot..

[QUOTE=MikeyJoe;835248]As silly as that question is (which I'll get to below): I don't know much about TCU, but from that list, Texas, Pitt (I think), and Alabama run traditional offenses similar to Iowa's.

:)

[MikeyJoe]

Right - obviously there's going to be few this year because we have 10 wins. We're talking about over the current coaching staff's tenure here at Iowa.

But I still don't know why people are trying to act like I'm saying something I'm not. I'm going to repost it bold. Hopefully that will help.

I'm talking about the general point - often on these boards, when people complain about the offense struggling, you'll see the "How good is OSU's offense?" rebuttal. I'm just saying that yes, I acknowledge you can win without a dominant offense. I just don't see why that would mean you shouldn't care about an offense being mediocre.

[Jim]

I'm talking about the general point - often on these boards, when people complain about the offense struggling, you'll see the "How good is OSU's offense?" rebuttal. I'm just saying that yes, I acknowledge you can win without a dominant offense. I just don't see why that would mean you shouldn't care about an offense being mediocre.

It.Doesn't.Matter.

Teams like Ohio State and Iowa prove that an average offense and a great defense is what you need to be very good in college football.

[nolookpass]

I'm talking about the general point - often on these boards, when people complain about the offense struggling, you'll see the "How good is OSU's offense?" rebuttal. I'm just saying that yes, I acknowledge you can win without a dominant offense. I just don't see why that would mean you shouldn't care about an offense being mediocre.

It.Doesn't.Matter.

Teams like Ohio State and Iowa prove that an average offense and a great defense is what you need to be very good in college football.


OSU has played in recent Rose Bowls and BCS championship games.
We have not reached that level under the current staff. Some of us, like me, think, we need to improve our offense to get to the next level.

[Jim]

It.Doesn't.Matter.

Teams like Ohio State and Iowa prove that an average offense and a great defense is what you need to be very good in college football.


OSU has played in recent Rose Bowls and BCS championship games.
We have not reached that level under the current staff. Some of us, like me, think, we need to improve our offense to get to the next level.

If only we could improve our offense.. we might be able to take OSU to overtime on the road or end the year with the same record ;)

[MikeyJoe]

If only we could improve our offense.. we might be able to score four more points and beat OSU on the road
This is all I'm trying to say.

Obviously teams have proven that a dominant defense is what you need to be good. I just can't wrap my mind going from that fact to thinking that how many points you score doesn't matter.

[sergeanthulka]

I'm talking about the general point - often on these boards, when people complain about the offense struggling, you'll see the "How good is OSU's offense?" rebuttal. I'm just saying that yes, I acknowledge you can win without a dominant offense. I just don't see why that would mean you shouldn't care about an offense being mediocre.

It.Doesn't.Matter.

Teams like Ohio State and Iowa prove that an average offense and a great defense is what you need to be very good in college football.


IMO, our offense is primarily constrained by it's insistance on being conservative. If we had a lesser defense, I contend that you would see a more aggressive (and 'better' statistically) approach.

Just like those that say that KF should have 'gone for the throat' on that last drive in regulation against OSU - they just refuse to acknowledge that JV had basically thrown 3 picks on the last 2 drives, including a pick-6 that was called back, & a dropped int. that falls into TM's hands. One thing you don't do in that situation is lose that game on a mistake by a RS Fresh QB that also prevents your best unit to have their chance on the field - I fully understand the decision. I may not have made the same one, but I respect the FACT that KF won't press the envelope, based on his own fixed perameters, because he got caught up in the emotion of a moment. He said that the 40-YL is the green light point for the offense in that situation.

Listen, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that KF (and not unrelatedly, KOK) is among - if not THE - most conservative coaches in the country. But, as long as our coach has our team playing on January 1, more often than not...I'm sure as hell willing to take the good with the 'bad'. So as long as that continues to be the case, I'm more than willing to accept conservative play that may not be MY first choice. As long as our success far outpaces where our program should be based upon our inherent recuruiting disadvantages, as long as our coaching staff is among the most well-respected & well thought-of staff's in college football -- I'm probably not going to sweat the small stuff...

[Monster]

Offensive statistics don't exist in a bubble. What we do offensively is guided not only by a conservative overall offensive philosophy, but an entire TEAM philosophy that is very conservative. What Iowa likes to do defensively and on special teams has a direct impact on the team's offensive stats.

Sure, we could spread it out (though I would argue we don't have the personnel to do that). We could hit a bunch of short, jailbreak-type crap like Boise State, run 5-receiver sets all day, throw 70% of plays, and try for the long ball every 6-7 passes. Maybe Iowa scores a few more points per game. But that philosophy extends games. It puts your defense on the field longer. Iowa's defense is based on a zone philosophy, which will give up some underneath stuff and prevent the big play. If you're going to score on Iowa, plan on going 8-12 plays to do it. Plus, that kind of offense leads to mistakes (though Iowa has made a ton of mistakes this season and somehow survived. Typically, we can't).

Putting the defense on the field longer and fatigue will make Iowa less effective. Big plays will happen. You'll see Iowa have to take more risk offensively (which, clearly, many of you would like to see). Iowa would need to go hurry-up at the end of the half. Iowa would not be able to pound the ball late in games. And, Iowa's defensive rankings would invariably slip. Then we'd have threads about why our defense isn't better, and what needs to be done to improve it.

[nolookpass]

http://www.hawkeyenation.com/football/analyzing-iowas-offense

Webbs take on the offense.

Some people think if you criticize the offense, that means you want a more open attack or a run and shoot. Thats not always the case. I like Iowas split between running and passing, what I dont care for is how predictable it is based on formation and how they are unable to adjust during the games.

3 and 11 and you run play action? Are you fooling anyone with that?

[RiotFan]

http://www.hawkeyenation.com/football/analyzing-iowas-offense

Webbs take on the offense.

Some people think if you criticize the offense, that means you want a more open attack or a run and shoot. Thats not always the case. I like Iowas split between running and passing, what I dont care for is how predictable it is based on formation and how they are unable to adjust during the games.

3 and 11 and you run play action? Are you fooling anyone with that?

This. See my post earlier in this thread.

[danish_hawkeye]

Run the ball and Stop the run

[Monster]

http://www.hawkeyenation.com/football/analyzing-iowas-offense

Webbs take on the offense.

Some people think if you criticize the offense, that means you want a more open attack or a run and shoot. Thats not always the case. I like Iowas split between running and passing, what I dont care for is how predictable it is based on formation and how they are unable to adjust during the games.

3 and 11 and you run play action? Are you fooling anyone with that?

This. See my post earlier in this thread.

I just read your earlier post. You're right - I will set you straight. ;)

We don't have any quick-hit runs because we are a zone-blocking team. That takes time to develop. I think everyone needs to remember that we've had some pretty good success running the football over the years (SG, AY, DS, FR), and our blocking scheme (and coaching) is the main reason why. Therefore, play-action will take longer to develop as well. In order for play-action to work, the defense has to believe it's a run play. But I'm sure you know that.

I thought I'd mention that the linked article had this:

"The playcalling early in the game was a little disjointed to me. Only 4 of the first 16 plays were passes. Then the next 4, and 7 of the next 9 were passes."

Now, after interpreting the piss-poor writing, it sounds like a fairly varied attack. While I agree that the play-calling was vanilla on 3rd and long, it should be mentioned that the defense sits back expecting pass on those plays, which is a recipe for disaster for a young QB. The emphasis here is to win the game, not look fancy, and calling that boring draw play that everyone knows is coming and leaving it to your defense (which stuffed Minny all damn day) is winning football. It might have been more exciting for JVB to sit back and wing that thing all over the field on 3rd and long, but I think we've seen that NOT work more often than it works. But, he's young.

[RiotFan]

I understand the reason for those stretch plays to the edges is because of the zone blocking scheme. What I don't understand is how you can't have a play or 3 with just man on man blocking, quick handoff to the RB's up the gut (especially in short yardage). Is that too much of a leap from the normal zone scheme? That's an honest question as I really don't know.

[PlannedSickDays]

I understand the reason for those stretch plays to the edges is because of the zone blocking scheme. What I don't understand is how you can't have a play or 3 with just man on man blocking, quick handoff to the RB's up the gut (especially in short yardage). Is that too much of a leap from the normal zone scheme? That's an honest question as I really don't know.

Iowa runs inside and outside zone plays.

[Monster]

I understand the reason for those stretch plays to the edges is because of the zone blocking scheme. What I don't understand is how you can't have a play or 3 with just man on man blocking, quick handoff to the RB's up the gut (especially in short yardage). Is that too much of a leap from the normal zone scheme? That's an honest question as I really don't know.

It's quite different. What you do in short yardage is not get to the 2nd level. It looks a lot like man blocking in that regard, as most of the time the defense has walked guys up and show a 7-8 man front. Everyone flows to the play and what you end up with, really, is straight up man blocking. Iowa likes to run out of the I with the tailback 7 yards or so behind the QB, and that's why it takes awhile to get there. I suppose they could have the back 5 yards behind. Not sure what the implications there would be.

[Monster]

I should mention that I actually prefer zone blocking, even in short yardage. How many times do you see a guy bust through a gap and blow up a 3 and 1? Often, in man schemes, the o-linman will "lock on" to their assignment, and fail to recognize a stunt, or a blitzing backer that walked up. In zone, you block an area, and those guys, most of the time, get accounted for.

[MikeyJoe]

In zone, you block an area, and those guys, most of the time, get accounted for.
James Vandenberg disagrees. ;)

[Monster]

In zone, you block an area, and those guys, most of the time, get accounted for.
James Vandenberg disagrees. ;)

That's pass pro, Mikey.

[MikeyJoe]

By the way, I'm in agreement with Monster and others that I like this offense. Somehow what I was trying to say got taken way off track, but I don't want Iowa to switch offenses. My issues with coaching come down to the execution within this offense - things like dropped balls, missed blocking assignments, passes that miss open receivers, etc. And yeah, sometimes the playcalling itself within the system would qualify. But overall, it's more of a "coaching up" rather than "coaching philosophy" issue.

[PlannedSickDays]

In zone, you block an area, and those guys, most of the time, get accounted for.
James Vandenberg disagrees. ;)

That's pass pro, Mikey.

heh

[MikeyJoe]

In zone, you block an area, and those guys, most of the time, get accounted for.
James Vandenberg disagrees. ;)

That's pass pro, Mikey.
I'm just taking a quote out of context to be snarky. Don't expect me to be accurate. :)

[Monster]

James Vandenberg disagrees. ;)

That's pass pro, Mikey.
I'm just taking a quote out of context to be snarky. Don't expect me to be accurate. :)

Oh, I don't. :D