Scheme Question

[BirdistheWord]

First, I have never been a head coach, do not play one on TV nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Question: Given how clogged up our normal run oriented plays have been executed (e.g. 2/3 wide receiver sets), and really not getting anything significant going in the running game, why would we not use more 4/5 receiver sets, thus spreading out the defense more for Wadley?

Our run game strikes me as the definition of insanity (at times) where we keep trying to take on 7-8 guys in the box and not winning the battle. I suppose I know the answer to my own question (its the KF way) but have to ask anyway.

 

[Crafty Beaver]

Identity.
Staying committed to the running game helps protect a young qb and tackles.

 

[BubsFinn]

Identity.
Staying committed to the running game helps protect a young qb and tackles.

maybe, but it doesn't do much for young running backs, not to mention the damage it does to the win column.

 

[MeetTheFerentz]

You came to the right place, Bird. There is a plethora of football experts with intimate, inside detailed knowledge of Iowa's football program that peruse this board.

 

[BirdistheWord]

You came to the right place, Bird. There is a plethora of football experts with intimate, inside detailed knowledge of Iowa's football program that peruse this board.

Excellent, I look forward to their response. Might they share a copy of the playbook as well?

 

[BirdistheWord]

Identity.
Staying committed to the running game helps protect a young qb and tackles.

Actually, my question was couched around running schemes/formations only. So committing to the run is redundant. But do understand your point around protecting the QB.

 

[Aethelstan]

First, I have never been a head coach, do not play one on TV nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Question: Given how clogged up our normal run oriented plays have been executed (e.g. 2/3 wide receiver sets), and really not getting anything significant going in the running game, why would we not use more 4/5 receiver sets, thus spreading out the defense more for Wadley?

Our run game strikes me as the definition of insanity (at times) where we keep trying to take on 7-8 guys in the box and not winning the battle. I suppose I know the answer to my own question (its the KF way) but have to ask anyway.

Deploying four wides forces two backers out of the box in zone coverage. If the defense plays man with one free safety, it forces only one out of the box. There is a definite advantage in the run game vs. zone cover and an advantage in the pass game if you can beat man coverage. If they play zone, you have five blockers vs. five in the box. If they play man/free ( cover 1 ), however, they have a one man advantage with six in the box, which forces the QB to "read" one of them, and become a potential runner.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

Brian talked a lot this offseason about getting the best personnel out there as much as possible. At this point, I think the evaluation is that our tight-ends and full backs are more productive than most of our wide receivers. I imagine that if the coaches felt better about our WRs past Easley and Vandeberg that we'd see more 3, 4, or even 5 WR sets.