Ground is being made on O ... RE: Leistikow's article

[ghostOfHomer777]

First, the article:
https://www.hawkcentral.com/story/s...nley-hawkeyes-wisconsin-minnesota/1453919002/

The gist:

• Brian Ferentz claimed that the Hawks tend to play winning O if they're getting 4 yards or more on first down.
• Leistikow verified that the Hawks did poorly in that category in the first 2 game. 3.1 yards per play on 1st and 10s vs NIU ... got 4 yards or more in such situations only 38% of the time. 2.7 yards per play on 1st and 10s vs ISU ... to 4 yards or more in such situations only 26% of the time.
• In contrast, through the prior 2 games ... 7.6 yards per play on 1st and 10s vs UNI ... got 4 yards or more in such situations 65% of the time. 8 yards per play on 1st and 10s vs Wisconsin ... got 4 yards or more in such situations 67% of the time.

It IS true that Iowa has had some issues scoring in the red-zone. That's another area where the Hawks need to continue to make ground. Between the critical unforced turnovers vs Wisconsin and the failures deep in the red-zone ... those were more than enough to cost the Hawks the game. As a whole though ... the Hawk O was a surprising "bright spot" in the game.

This Hawk O will continue to improve ... and, as we look down the road, we're not necessarily playing against a murders row of Ds either. It will be interesting to see how things continue to develop and transpire.

 

[ukrainehawk]

First, the article:
https://www.hawkcentral.com/story/s...nley-hawkeyes-wisconsin-minnesota/1453919002/

The gist:

• Brian Ferentz claimed that the Hawks tend to play winning O if they're getting 4 yards or more on first down.
• Leistikow verified that the Hawks did poorly in that category in the first 2 game. 3.1 yards per play on 1st and 10s vs NIU ... got 4 yards or more in such situations only 38% of the time. 2.7 yards per play on 1st and 10s vs ISU ... to 4 yards or more in such situations only 26% of the time.
• In contrast, through the prior 2 games ... 7.6 yards per play on 1st and 10s vs UNI ... got 4 yards or more in such situations 65% of the time. 8 yards per play on 1st and 10s vs Wisconsin ... got 4 yards or more in such situations 67% of the time.

It IS true that Iowa has had some issues scoring in the red-zone. That's another area where the Hawks need to continue to make ground. Between the critical unforced turnovers vs Wisconsin and the failures deep in the red-zone ... those were more than enough to cost the Hawks the game. As a whole though ... the Hawk O was a surprising "bright spot" in the game.

This Hawk O will continue to improve ... and, as we look down the road, we're not necessarily playing against a murders row of Ds either. It will be interesting to see how things continue to develop and transpire.

 

[ukrainehawk]

Wanted to send you a quick private message, but can't seem to figure out how. Sorry.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

Wanted to send you a quick private message, but can't seem to figure out how. Sorry.

Yeah, I've had trouble with that myself - let me know if you end up figuring out how to do it.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

Here's another interesting thing to notice:

GAME 1 starting OL (right to left): Le. Paulsen, Banwart, Render, Reynolds, Ferguson
GAME 2 starting OL: Wirfs, Banwart, Render, Reynolds, Jackson
GAME 3 starting OL: Wirfs, Ferguson, Render, Reynolds, Jackson
GAME 4 starting OL: Wirfs, Ferguson, Render, Reynolds, Jackson

And, as we head into GAME 5, the listed starters are:
Wirfs, Ferguson, Render, Reynolds, Jackson

Thus, the benefit here is that it appears as though we're developing some consistency among the starters. Furthermore, Banwart and Le. Paulsen are regular guys who are rotating in.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

First, the article:
https://www.hawkcentral.com/story/s...nley-hawkeyes-wisconsin-minnesota/1453919002/

The gist:

• Brian Ferentz claimed that the Hawks tend to play winning O if they're getting 4 yards or more on first down.
• Leistikow verified that the Hawks did poorly in that category in the first 2 game. 3.1 yards per play on 1st and 10s vs NIU ... got 4 yards or more in such situations only 38% of the time. 2.7 yards per play on 1st and 10s vs ISU ... to 4 yards or more in such situations only 26% of the time.
• In contrast, through the prior 2 games ... 7.6 yards per play on 1st and 10s vs UNI ... got 4 yards or more in such situations 65% of the time. 8 yards per play on 1st and 10s vs Wisconsin ... got 4 yards or more in such situations 67% of the time.

It IS true that Iowa has had some issues scoring in the red-zone. That's another area where the Hawks need to continue to make ground. Between the critical unforced turnovers vs Wisconsin and the failures deep in the red-zone ... those were more than enough to cost the Hawks the game. As a whole though ... the Hawk O was a surprising "bright spot" in the game.

This Hawk O will continue to improve ... and, as we look down the road, we're not necessarily playing against a murders row of Ds either. It will be interesting to see how things continue to develop and transpire.

The trick is to execute against "lesser" defenses that sell out to force Iowa's hands in one particular direction. Like Northwestern for example.

They absolutely do not want us to run the ball against them. They want us to pass and hope we flop in our execution and they can force mistakes/turnovers to give them more opportunities.

So if and when we fail to execute plays that are there to be made given what the defense is giving us (the drops, for example....), that is when we struggle against these "lesser" Ds and suddenly we're playing to our competition.

Oh and when our opponents are able to do what they can't against other teams that have worse LB units, and get mismatches in their passing game against our LBs. Happens everywhere, sure, but it really f***ing seems to happen WAY THE F*** more, than it does on average, with Iowa..............just sayin.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

The trick is to execute against "lesser" defenses that sell out to force Iowa's hands in one particular direction. Like Northwestern for example.

They absolutely do not want us to run the ball against them. They want us to pass and hope we flop in our execution and they can force mistakes/turnovers to give them more opportunities.

So if and when we fail to execute plays that are there to be made given what the defense is giving us (the drops, for example....), that is when we struggle against these "lesser" Ds and suddenly we're playing to our competition.

Oh and when our opponents are able to do what they can't against other teams that have worse LB units, and get mismatches in their passing game against our LBs. Happens everywhere, sure, but it really f***ing seems to happen WAY THE F*** more, than it does on average, with Iowa..............just sayin.

When Norm was the DC ... he'd keep us in our base personnel a lot more ... and that typically made it harder to run against us ... but it was also easier to catch our LBs covering WRs too.

Phil is more apt to play around with coverages and use more DB heavy sub packages. However, all the same ... on early downs it's still possible to catch our LBs in mismatches.

 

[SDHawkDoc]

Stating the obvious, the O needs to figure out how to set up the best passing scheme with the tools available: outstanding TEs, a relatively immobile but solid arm at QB, a subpar wr corps. I'd like to see a rb emerge as a pass catching threat out of the backfield. That would add a wrinkle that could take pressure off the weak wr group. The defensive book on Iowa is still to cheat into the box, bottle up the run, try to make them throw.

As for the D, the linebackers remain the weakest link on that side. They're definitely improving. Limited to some extent by a lack of quickness and footspeed to make up ground when out of position. Also, they don't have a good cover guy like the better units of the past. Niemann seemed to be the one that might inherit that mantle from his brother but now he's out. I think bringing in another safety for one of the backers in certain situations could be a good strategy this year.

Realistically, though, for the D it's more about little tweaks to improve. If they can stay in the top 25 as a unit at the end of the year that would be a good accomplishment.

 

[CO_hawk]

I think there was some good offensive plays vs Wisconsin.
Looks like most of us want more though. Watching Kansas City last night, makes me wish we had Andy Reid type play caller on the staff.

 

[hawkfeever]

I think there was some good offensive plays vs Wisconsin.
Looks like most of us want more though. Watching Kansas City last night, makes me wish we had Andy Reid type play caller on the staff.

haha. Go back to the second half of the playoff game from Titans v Chiefs last year. Fans were ready to run AR out of town!

 

[Pepperman]

Stating the obvious, the O needs to figure out how to set up the best passing scheme with the tools available: outstanding TEs, a relatively immobile but solid arm at QB, a subpar wr corps. I'd like to see a rb emerge as a pass catching threat out of the backfield. That would add a wrinkle that could take pressure off the weak wr group. The defensive book on Iowa is still to cheat into the box, bottle up the run, try to make them throw.

Nailed it.

What bothers me the most is when Iowa comes out in the first half and sees what the opposing defense is doing, but still tries to pound away and "be Iowa". Well, on one hand I get that you can't just abandon the run, but on the other hand you're trying to ram a square peg into a round hole. Sometimes, I feel the OC / HC just needs to run through their loop of OODA (observe, orient, decide, act) and what logic states is that you should have plenty of passing options to take advantage of the defense setting up against the run. EVERY SINGLE YEAR there are certain teams that do this to Iowa, and I can't think of many times where Iowa comes out and says "ok, here you go MFer, stop this!"