A version of the Spread would go a long way toward taking some pressure off of the less than optimal OLine.
Should Lester be held to the 25ppg standard?
- Thread starter desihawk
- Start date
There’s a wide variety of things Lester could do that would allow him to make changes to the offense while still maintaining Kirk’s core philosophies on that side of the ball.
That's true, but the last several years indicate that The Capt's Core Philosophies (at least on Offense) have seen better days. In fact, the USofA is laughing at our pitiful Offense. That can't be a good thing, can it?
Another advantage Brian had is a softer regular season schedule than Lester will have. Even if the 2024 is relatively easier than 2025 and 2026 will be.
The basic concepts remain sound in my opinion - control the ball, be efficient in possession and limit mistakes. What happened is that college football evolved, for a variety of reasons the scheme no longer works as it once did, and Kirk has been slow to adjust.
Eyesofhawk seems to believe the preponderance of the blame lies with the players, and to an extent I don’t disagree. Though of course that falls on the coaches for repeated recruiting misses if they’ve truly whiffed that badly across 3+ recruiting classes now. I think more blame lies on the unwillingness/unable to adapt the scheme. For example, it’s hard for me to totally blame the OL for failing to create holes when they’re consistently blocking 8+ man fronts. That’s just not something you can expect to win regularly.
Kinda funny how you think this is a positive point.
Yes, I'm aware that Iowa has made a couple minor adjustments in its D. But for the most part, it's been the same defense throughout KF's tenure.
The changes have been minimal compared to the changes happening across football. So Iowa's D still serves to support the claim that change isn't always a good thing.
Throwing 30+ times with Hill only twice is still too many. It should never happen. Looking deeper into the numbers in games Hill played:
-MSU- 27 attempts by Hill. 5 attempts by McNamara. 3 rushes from Hill, including 1 sack. 1 rush from McNamara.
I don't remember how many of the other 3 QB rush attempts were designed runs or QB scrambles. Sneaks are fine. But the point is, none of those downs were plays called for the purpose of developing a rhythm for the O-line and backs, or contributing to a cumulative effect that can wear down a defense.
-Minnesota- 28 attempts by Hill. 8 rushes from Hill, including 4 sacks. That means at least 32 times Iowa left the huddle with the intention to pass.
-Rutgers- 31 attempts from Hill and 4 rushes.
-Illinois- 29 attempts from Hill. 5 rushes, including 4 sacks.
-Nebraska- 28 attempts from Hill. 5 rushes, including 1 sack.
-Michigan- 32 pass attempts from Hill. 6 rushes, including 3 sacks.
-Tennessee- 18 attempts from Hill. 7 attempts from Lainez. 7 rushes, including 4 sacks from Hill. 6 rushes from Lainez, including 1 sack. So between the two of them, Iowa left the huddle intending to pass well over 30 times.
30 attempts was just a round number to mention. All of these numbers are way too high. And this dynamic occurred in 7 of the 10 games Hill played in.
This is not pounding the rock. You can think what you want. But to me, Iowa hasn't been anywhere near committed enough to the run the past couple of seasons. The numbers the previous season were very similar.
Exactly how is it that you claim Iowa's offense is outdated? I think the points we've made about the rule change to cut-blocking and the ineffectiveness of immobile QB's have their merit.
Beyond that, for what reasons do you claim that what once worked no longer works? Running against 8 man fronts and lack of deception aren't qualified examples. Because not long ago, Iowa has had success running against 8 man fronts with a lack of deception. And NFL teams still do it all the time. If it's something that no longer works, WHY does it no longer work?
People just haven't been able to provide those examples and reasons. Yet they insist on calling Iowa's offense outdated. I just don't see evidence of that. More likely, it's been a very easy narrative to jump on, as clearly Iowa's offense has struggled, and clearly it no longer looks like what everyone else is doing.
I just don't see evidence that scheme has been that big of a problem. More likely, the main truth is what's always been true-the game is won up front, no matter what the scheme
In previous years we rarely consistently faced 8 man fronts as often as we did the past two years especially due in part to having better QB play, a threat from the passing game. It was still much harder than it needed to be. And even then, over the past 10 years we've only averaged 4 ypc or better 4x; and only two of those were with more than that 4.0 avg. That's not a sign of a successful rushing offense.
NFL teams certainly do not run into 8 man fronts without doing things to attempt to deceive, create confusion/matchup advantages etc.
Asking again - do you truly think no changes to the offense are needed?
Phil has made more than a couple "minor" adjustments.
1. Don’t think it’s fair asking him to score that threshold on very first season
2. Judging where the offense was the previous years, 25 points average was a pretty difficult benchmark to hit. BF wasn’t very smart signing that contract.
2. Judging where the offense was the previous years, 25 points average was a pretty difficult benchmark to hit. BF wasn’t very smart signing that contract.
Not only does Phil make adjustments, he does it in game...and quite effectively.
You'd think 2 consecutive years at the bottom of nearly every offensive category would establish the offense is broken would be self-evident.
It doesn't matter what I think because obviously changes are being made. I've been very clear in stating that scheme hasn't been nearly the problem that people have made it out to be. And that the offense Iowa has been running has not been outdated.
No matter how often Iowa has faced 8 man fronts, the fact remains that they were able to have some success against them when they didn't have a poor offensive line.
The fact that they've faced 8 mans more frequently recently has to do with poor QB play (from a backup) and somewhat from poor receiver play (from backups the previous season). This has nothing to do with scheme.
The rushing numbers support my belief that Iowa hasn't been committed enough to the run. You have to continue to pound the rock for a crack in the wall to turn into a crumbled wall. There's no argument against this because what's being proposed is stubbornness itself.
Regardless of the numbers the last 10 seasons, the offense has been serviceable in all but 2 of those seasons.
So I again ask: for what reasons do you claim what once worked no longer works? What specific examples can you cite? What are defenses now doing to have made Iowa's former offense outdated?
Phil has created and more frequently used the hybrid "cashback". Some seasons he's rotated more at D-line. For a while he used the "sugar" formation with the D-line on 3rd down. And he's blitzed a little more frequently in some seasons. I consider these all minor adjustments. Iowa has still run the same zone coverage on pretty much every down for 24 years
Michigan ran the same philosophical O as Iowa and just won the NC...there is nothing wrong with the philosophy...it controlled the LOS and tempo of the game...wore teams down...AND scored points when it needed to...
The word @sober_teacher used is spot on "evolve"...he is not the only one of you that alluded to it or flat out said it. But your take seems like you need radical changes...
It's only when Michigan/Harbaugh went back to it's roots (and gave up on the "speed in space" concept which was closer to a spread) that things clicked....3 straight playoff appearances and a NC...playing "complementary football"...a term you are all way familiar with...
The O Michigan ran, the last 3 years, was not the same one he ran at Stanford nor what he ran when he got to Michigan. BUT, it's philosophy and core were the exact same thing. It became more multiple from personnel packages, to personnel, to techniques used (even during a single play... especially blocking schemes), etc...
But at the same time it was still KF type football...be the more physical team, pound (we call it "smash") the football and control the clock and tempo...but Michigan also brought in elements of other types of Os to become more explosive...BUT elements... wasn't the core
Iowa can take a step forward with how you guys play...you just need to "evolve"... we'll see if Lester is the guy...if he throws the "baby out with the bathwater" I doubt it...but it doesn't seem that is his approach
Of course the offense was broken. That doesn't mean it was scheme.
You'd think there would be no reason to look any further than a bad O-line and a backup QB that happened to be bad.
And you would think there isn't any reason to believe that the game has changed to such a drastic level overnight
The last 3 years our offense has ranked at or near the bottom in most major offensive stats. For years, it's saving grace had been that it was mostly efficient in the end zone and when given short fields to work with; as well as protecting the ball. Then it stopped even being able to do that.
You seem to think there were zero problems with the offensive scheme. For a long time I used to think the scheme itself was sound, but needed tweaks based on how defenses were attacking us. Kirk and BF chose instead to dumb things down and focus on execution.
Seriously, watch youtube highlights from the OSU game, the USC bowl game, or many of the Ws we had the first 3 years of BF's tenure as OC. Most of those plays gradually vanished from the playbook the last 3.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree if you truly believe player/execution was the only area we had problems the last 3 years.
Why would there be no reason to look at everything when the offense was that freaking bad for several years?
The game didn't change overnight - it evolved over years. Iowa's offense did not. Phil realized several years back that using a 4-3 defensive scheme was no longer going to work consistently so he switched to a 4-2-5 scheme amongst other things. I'm not sure why you won't budge on Iowa's offensive scheme needing to evolve as well.
That's different from saying the offensive philosophy was wrong.
Make up your mind - are you arguing offensive "scheme" or offensive "philosophy". Those are two different things.
The word you are looking for is "implementation"...you can start with a philosophy...rely on a general scheme...and then implement it way differently
Then the way we "implemented" our offensive philosophy needed a drastic overhaul. It clearly hasn't worked for 2+ years.
Where have I ever said it's been execution?
Dude, last year it was a terrible QB that was never supposed to have been playing, coupled with a below average O-line.
The year before it was a bad (underdeveloped) O-line that never should have been playing, coupled with an immobile QB, and in the first part of the season a completely gutted receiving core that never should have been playing.
If you think any judgements of an offensive scheme can be made in a season where a backup QB was forced into action, I don't know what to tell you. OF COURSE they pared it down. Let alone the fact that the backup was really bad.
The previous season the O-line was really bad. When I have more time tomorrow, I will go into more depth why that was. But should anything be expected of an offense in such a season? Have you ever heard the phrase that "football is won up front"? Guess what - it's true. Why would any judgements about scheme be made from a season with a crap (underdeveloped ) O-line?
The fact that Iowa did have success in the OSU and USC games, and other than the past two seasons have always had a serviceable offense tells you that it wasn't scheme. You've debunked your own argument
Agree to disagree.
With very rare exceptions, our offense hasn't looked serviceable against quality opponents in a really long time.
I'm out.
Obviously...
All I'm saying is there is no reason to throw out the "baby"...you needed to get new bathwater and...well maybe a new bath...but just an upgrade to the bath...no reason to go for a tech that that doesn't doesn't fit
Offenses have changed a lot. In my opinion, not necessarily for the better. Defenses really haven't changed much.
AGAIN, in what ways are you saying defenses have changed to have rendered Iowa's former offense outdated?
You keep saying Iowa's offense has needed to "evolve". But have given no examples of how something that once worked can no longer work
Gone - without having provided any examples of what was many times asked of you to provide support to your claim that Iowa's offense has been outdated
For the last time - I've said multiple times I believe the basic offensive philosophy remains sound. HOW we attempt to execute that philosophy - our "scheme" needs to adapt. Lining up with a RB, FB and 2 TEs and trying to play smashmouth football does not work any more, but most of those basic concepts can still be effective, utilizing different formations, motion, and other things to make the defense move and have to guess more at what we are attempting to do. While preferred, we don't need stud receivers to be effective, but our passing game DOES need to change - how many times have we seen rollouts called to the short side of the field, with all available receivers in the same general area, resulting in congested passing lanes and making it near-impossible for yards after the catch?
Thanks for the discussion, but i'll just leave it here. We clearly disagree on what, if anything we should be doing differently on offense.
Still no examples? That's fine. But don't claim it's an offense that is outdated or needs to evolve.
For example, I agree that rollouts to the short side of the field are a concept that should be used sparingly to keep the D honest and in short-yardage situations. But it has nothing to do with being outdated. Defenses haven't changed in a way that prevents that concept from working anymore.
Why would you say smashmouth with a FB and and two TE's no longer works? I happen to know it works just fine with a decent O-line. If anything, it works better against the present defenses built to play against spread O. FYI, Lester has no problem with this formation
Last edited:
Easy to see why Joe Labas has entered transfer portal - Hawk Fanatic
By Pat Harty IOWA CITY, Iowa – Since the early days under Kirk Ferentz, back when Kyle McCann started over Brad Banks at quarterback for the entire 2001 season, I’ve believed that Kirk Ferentz plays who he truly believes gives the Iowa football team the best chance to win. Because why wouldn’t...
hawkfanatic.com
So what was the logic for not playing LABAS?
KF's stubbornness if a character flaw. And his contract allows him to indulge it.
Have you been living under a rock?Easy to see why Joe Labas has entered transfer portal - Hawk Fanatic
By Pat Harty IOWA CITY, Iowa – Since the early days under Kirk Ferentz, back when Kyle McCann started over Brad Banks at quarterback for the entire 2001 season, I’ve believed that Kirk Ferentz plays who he truly believes gives the Iowa football team the best chance to win. Because why wouldn’t...
So what was the logic for not playing LABAS?
KF's stubbornness if a character flaw. And his contract allows him to indulge it.
Labas was smoking weed and late to meetings.
Why else would Hill have passed Labas so quickly on the depth chart? After all, Labas had already started in a bowl game win and KF is too stubborn to change.
Just another of the narratives that fans don't realize contradicts and defeats itself
Yep, we have no idea regarding some kids other than what we see on the field or sidelines.
Agree but it was also having JJ McCarthy, a guy who could scramble and run. Iowa hasn’t cared about that for a long time.
The entire free world (old Cold War term, I was there) is LAUGHING AT OUR OFFENSE.
Let's go to a modern offense such as (some iteration of) the Spread, or at least the Wing-T.
Let's go to a modern offense such as (some iteration of) the Spread, or at least the Wing-T.
I've never said the blame lies with the players. Not sure where you're getting that.
Have only said that the broken offense has had much more to do with a bad offensive line than bad scheme.
I suppose you could say those players on the O-line haven't got the job done. But it's not like it's been a lack of execution, in terms of missing assignments left and right. Although the line has lacked some of the cohesion that comes with experience. It's been a lack of ability to knock the defense back off the ball. It's that simple.
This hasn't necessarily been because the lineman are bad players, as a result of recruiting whiffs. It's been because Iowa's line took on some attrition, and the guys that have been playing were forced into action before they were ready. And it's not like they been slow learners or poorly coached. They been underdeveloped in terms of not yet being big and strong enough. Again, it's that simple.
You have to understand the factors involved. Very often, Iowa has recruited undersized O-lineman with good feet, with the plan of building them up through Doyle, who was one of the best strength and conditioning coaches in the country.
Iowa's O-line started taking on attrition during the same time period that they lost Doyle, and younger players were losing crucial developmental workouts during the Covid shutdown. It all adds up when you do some digging.
The '22 line projected to have had at least some of Jenkins, Ince, Britt, Linderbaum, Miller, Fenske, Davidkov. In that group we're some players with beef and high ratings. Some were lost to career ending injuries. Some transfered (I believe at least one because Doyle was gone). A couple just quit football, for whatever reason. Linderbaum left early for the NFL.
The '23 line projected to have at least some of Britt, Miller, Fenske, Davidkov, Proctor.
When underdeveloped O-lineman are forced into action it's pretty easy to understand how an offense all of the sudden stalls out.
As I've outlined, last season a below average O-line was coupled with a bad backup QB. The season before a bad O-line was compounded by an immobile QB and depleted receiving core.
And I think it's fair to say that maybe some scheme became exposed by the conditions. But I don't think scheme was anywhere near the top of the list of problems.
All those factors can be navigated around if the O-line is in tact. You can get away with having bad receivers. But no matter how good your receivers are, you can't get away with a bad O-line. Same with scheme. If your O-line isn't any good, it doesn't matter what the scheme is, you're going to be in trouble. While pretty much any scheme will work with a good O-line.
It's a simple game and Iowa's problems can easily be traced back to a point where the dots connect. Even in '21 the lack of push in the running game started surfacing. The attrition had begun, and it was the first full season (and full off-season) without Doyle. Doyle also worked a lot with the O-line and helped them to be stronger psychologically. His absence started to be felt. And it was compounded by a RB who began to look toward his pro career and lost his willingness to fight for short gains.
Your O-line has to be able to push forward. This is how the game is won up front, and this has always been the simple formula of football. Why do you think amidst a season of almost zero offense in '22, the Hawks were all of the sudden able to put up 30+ vs NW? It's because Iowa's O-line was able to win their matchups up front and knock NW back off the ball. Simple game. All of the sudden every play worked and the fans were all talking about what a great game BF called, LMAO
As I mentioned several posts ago; there's plenty of blame to go around - from recruiting misses, to injuries (lost several players, including Davidkov to medical retirement), to inexperience, and then of course coaching, including BF and the position coaches.
With Lester, we'll get an idea this season to begin with how much of the offensive woes lie on poor scheme/playcalling vs players - from poor play to execution to everything in between.
Personally, I feel that problems with the offensive scheme/playcalling put the OL in an impossible situation, and I honestly don't know how to grade them when they constantly run-block into stacked boxes, pass block for QBs who lack mobility/poor ball security - which allowed defenses an easier time to rush the passer by targeting a spot in the backfield where the QB was likely to be, instead of having to respect any ability by the QB to move around. This resulted in the OL, imo, being put into consistently tough positions that required near-perfect execution to succeed, play after play. That's a tough ask of even the best OLs, and for a variety of reasons we know ours wasn't.
Maybe you'll be proved right and the problem lies more with players than coaching. That's certainly possible. I think it's also possible that coaching was the bigger part of the problem than you think.
Phil usually gets a free pass because he is such a great coach and gets everything out of our guys.
But he has been out-schemed more than a few times over the years. David Bell torching us back to back years stands out. He was all they had at WR his second year and he absolutely torched us again as we did very little to take him away. It took Seth Wallace to convince him to ditch the outdated 4-3 in favor of the Cash position. He is almost as conservative on the other side as Kirk has been with the offense. He's been awesome. But he hasn't been perfect. No coach is perfect. Mistakes, bad game plans, poor adjustments, etc., it's all going to happen in a season. Just gotta get the guys who perform at a high level more than other coaches. We do have that in Phil. I'll take Phil every day of the week. And now I'm ducking the tomatoes...
But he has been out-schemed more than a few times over the years. David Bell torching us back to back years stands out. He was all they had at WR his second year and he absolutely torched us again as we did very little to take him away. It took Seth Wallace to convince him to ditch the outdated 4-3 in favor of the Cash position. He is almost as conservative on the other side as Kirk has been with the offense. He's been awesome. But he hasn't been perfect. No coach is perfect. Mistakes, bad game plans, poor adjustments, etc., it's all going to happen in a season. Just gotta get the guys who perform at a high level more than other coaches. We do have that in Phil. I'll take Phil every day of the week. And now I'm ducking the tomatoes...
Again, the box was stacked because Deacon Hill sucked. And for some of the previous season because the backup receivers sucked. That has nothing to do with scheme.
Your point about defenses being able to pin their ears back to rush immobile QB's is well taken. But the immobility of Petras wouldn't have been as big a deal if the line could have blocked anybody. Yes, it can work together. But again, an immobile QB can be navigated around. A bad O-line cannot. I don't know how else to explain that.
As for the immobility of Hill, yes, it was compounded by some predictable play-calling. But again, that's what happens when backup QB's enters the middle of a season. The playbook shrinks. So scheme is what you should have a hard time knowing how to accurately grade. Yes, Hill made the line's job harder. But again, an offense can survive with a fifth string QB if it's able to run the ball. And yes, fifth string QB's face 8 man boxes.
I will say that Iowa's offensive scheme has been built around its O-line. So even though every offense will struggle with a bad O-line, Iowa's scheme and its limitations have been exposed by having lost effectiveness in the fundamental area its offense was designed around.
The O-line has been easy to judge. No matter how many people have in the box, they haven't been able to knock anybody back and create any space in the run game. But of course against weaker opponents they have. The '22 NW game I referenced. And the '23 W. Michigan game. You don't think those teams were using 8 man boxes?
Gotta a link to back that up? I mean he obviously failed a drug test, when was that exactly?
Late to meetings? His son was arrested twice as a freshmen and he wasn't chased off the team. I guess being late to a meeting is worse than that. LOL
Keegan Johnson
Charlie Jones
Julius Brents
I guess they all smoked weed and were late to meetings also. I guess the reason no one but JV took all the snaps in 2012 is because the backups all smoked weed and were late to meetings.
KF has admitted in interviews he avoids getting serious reps to backup QBs because of the "controversy" it creates. Hindering the development of your QB room because you're afraid of negative press is a bad look.
Last edited:
Latest posts
-
-
WATCH: Fran on Prepping for Nebraska, Learning from Wisconsin Loss
- Latest: ClintonHawk
-
-
