Neither ISU nor Iowa ended up showing too much on O against their opponent.
However, as is often the case ... often the other teams shows the other team precisely what they WANT to show them. The question is to infer the reasoning/intention for those "reveals."
Iowa's offensive reveal #1:
- Iowa prioritized targeting TEs ... particularly LaPorta ... why?
One option is that Indiana has a good secondary ... so LaPorta posed a mismatch against IU's LBs.
Another option is that Iowa didn't have to flash anything fancy ... because they grabbed the early momentum in the game ... and 17 points off of turnovers kept the game out of reach for the Hoosiers. Consequently, keeping things simple and keeping looks to the TEs was "safer" AND the Hawks didn't need to reveal as much about the O.
With an eye to the ISU game AND other future opponents ... the objective may have also emphasized the TE in order to encourage opposing Ds to game-plan for our TEs. If the TE gets extra attention from the LBs ... that possibly opens up opportunities in the running game. Alternatively, if the TE garners bracket coverage ... and takes up 2 defenders ... opposing Ds are increasing left in scenarios where they put a DB on an island. QBs are trained to go after man-coverage match-ups (particularly, if its possibly a mismatch).
Was this part of the intention?
Iowa's offensive reveal #2:
- Iowa showing the red-zone QB run down the middle. Furthermore, on another short-yardage situation, Petras did a "trick" play where he took a quick snap from behind center and got something like 3 yards on the sneak. Why reveal these QB run options?
As we've been painfully aware of for years ... we haven't always been the best short-yardage conversion team on 3rd downs. When the D has to account for the QB in the run-game ... it forces them to have that much more gap discipline ... even if it's just for short-yardage situations. When this is the case ... if a guy ends up missing an assignment ... it increases the change for a bigger pay-off in the running game. Given an explosive RB like Goodson ... this scenario can yield nice dividends!
At the very least ... if the opposing D has more to think about on 3rd downs ... that hopefully helps us to have a better 3rd down conversion percentage.
Iowa offensive reveal #3:
- Already, even in game 1 ... we already saw Goodson a few times in the wildcat. Why already feature this continued wrinkle?
For one thing ... we obviously know that Goodson is a great playmaker for us ... so, of course, it behooves the offensive staff to find ways to get him the ball!
However, from a strategic point of view ... it also illustrates that this wrinkle is here to stay for the Hawks. Thus, this is something that opposing Ds will have to prepare for.
It's also complementary to the prior objective of making the Hawks a little harder to defend on 3rd and short situations. If we can convert more frequently on 3rd downs ... we can possess the ball longer ... and that is usually to our advantage.
However, as is often the case ... often the other teams shows the other team precisely what they WANT to show them. The question is to infer the reasoning/intention for those "reveals."
Iowa's offensive reveal #1:
- Iowa prioritized targeting TEs ... particularly LaPorta ... why?
One option is that Indiana has a good secondary ... so LaPorta posed a mismatch against IU's LBs.
Another option is that Iowa didn't have to flash anything fancy ... because they grabbed the early momentum in the game ... and 17 points off of turnovers kept the game out of reach for the Hoosiers. Consequently, keeping things simple and keeping looks to the TEs was "safer" AND the Hawks didn't need to reveal as much about the O.
With an eye to the ISU game AND other future opponents ... the objective may have also emphasized the TE in order to encourage opposing Ds to game-plan for our TEs. If the TE gets extra attention from the LBs ... that possibly opens up opportunities in the running game. Alternatively, if the TE garners bracket coverage ... and takes up 2 defenders ... opposing Ds are increasing left in scenarios where they put a DB on an island. QBs are trained to go after man-coverage match-ups (particularly, if its possibly a mismatch).
Was this part of the intention?
Iowa's offensive reveal #2:
- Iowa showing the red-zone QB run down the middle. Furthermore, on another short-yardage situation, Petras did a "trick" play where he took a quick snap from behind center and got something like 3 yards on the sneak. Why reveal these QB run options?
As we've been painfully aware of for years ... we haven't always been the best short-yardage conversion team on 3rd downs. When the D has to account for the QB in the run-game ... it forces them to have that much more gap discipline ... even if it's just for short-yardage situations. When this is the case ... if a guy ends up missing an assignment ... it increases the change for a bigger pay-off in the running game. Given an explosive RB like Goodson ... this scenario can yield nice dividends!
At the very least ... if the opposing D has more to think about on 3rd downs ... that hopefully helps us to have a better 3rd down conversion percentage.
Iowa offensive reveal #3:
- Already, even in game 1 ... we already saw Goodson a few times in the wildcat. Why already feature this continued wrinkle?
For one thing ... we obviously know that Goodson is a great playmaker for us ... so, of course, it behooves the offensive staff to find ways to get him the ball!
However, from a strategic point of view ... it also illustrates that this wrinkle is here to stay for the Hawks. Thus, this is something that opposing Ds will have to prepare for.
It's also complementary to the prior objective of making the Hawks a little harder to defend on 3rd and short situations. If we can convert more frequently on 3rd downs ... we can possess the ball longer ... and that is usually to our advantage.
Last edited:
