Should Lester be held to the 25ppg standard?

[Hawkeye Marching Band]

The 2020 offense finished #40 in scoring offense at 31.8 ppg. Petras had his obvious struggles, but that team had a good OL and playmakers at WR. If Stanley had been able to stay for a fifth season it would have been a playoff team. Also key was having O'Keefe around to help with the passing game. It was all BF after KO's retirement.

 

[Iron Doc]

Since the OLine in now chronically inadequate, UPDATE to a Spread that reduces the pressure on the OLine.

This is conceptually no different from the implementation of the Wishbone back in the day. Invented by a HS coach so his undersized squad had a chance against T formation teams that physically overmatched them.

 

[eyesofhawk]

Since the OLine in now chronically inadequate, UPDATE to a Spread that reduces the pressure on the OLine.

This is conceptually no different from the implementation of the Wishbone back in the day. Invented by a HS coach so his undersized squad had a chance against T formation teams that physically overmatched them.

Chronically inadequate? As in two seasons?

The spread isn't happening. I wish I was 25 again, but does anyone want to talk about that?

You UPDATED your methods for finding the cure for cancer yet?

 

[Champ_Kind_whammy]

 

[kkhawk]

A friend of mine is highly respected in the IL HS coaching community. I guess he know Lester and got to spend a day with him and observe last week. His quote was "Tim only took the job if he had 100% control" and "it is similar to the Packer offenses of past"

That's all I got....

 

[RIGHTWINGHAWK]

To make it clear, I'm glad Lester is here and I have high hopes for him.
That said, should he get a free pass his first year or is it fair game to expect minimum 25ppg?

Free pass and no "double secret probation" status for the first two seasons.

 

[sober_teacher]

Since the OLine in now chronically inadequate, UPDATE to a Spread that reduces the pressure on the OLine.

This is conceptually no different from the implementation of the Wishbone back in the day. Invented by a HS coach so his undersized squad had a chance against T formation teams that physically overmatched them.

I disagree with your statement that the OL is chronically inadequate. They’ve struggled, due to issues with personnel, as well as, imo, dealing with a situation where the old offensive schemes had become very predictable and relied on increasingly stricter levels of execution against stacked boxes who knew exactly what was coming. Especially against higher quality opponents, that meant the margin for error was increasingly thin, and we saw that in 3 shutout losses last year.

 

[eyesofhawk]

Lester should be held to the standard of contributing on and off the field to the education of his student-athletes, contributing by whatever means necessary and within the rules to a winning football program and to winning ballgames, and to that of a positively contributing citizen and role-model in the community

 

[eyesofhawk]

I disagree with your statement that the OL is chronically inadequate. They’ve struggled, due to issues with personnel, as well as, imo, dealing with a situation where the old offensive schemes had become very predictable and relied on increasingly stricter levels of execution against stacked boxes who knew exactly what was coming. Especially against higher quality opponents, that meant the margin for error was increasingly thin, and we saw that in 3 shutout losses last year.

Correct - O-line is not chronically inadequate.

Not sure what you mean by stricter level of execution. Even plays with the best of design will not work if even one player does not execute his assignment. For example, a lineman attempts to block a non-assigned player, a RB attempts to run through a non-assigned hole, a WR/QB misreads the coverage. These examples of not accounting for correct assignments are what is normally referred to as lack of execution. In this way, a play is either executed or it is not executed.

I suppose there can be varying degrees of execution when all correct assignments are accounted for. Is that what you mean by stricter level of execution? For some positions, examples of this are easier said than done. For example, a RB is pretty much always going to run his hardest. A lineman is always going to block his hardest, although there is technique to master. Mostly, the ways in which a play, where correct assignments have been accounted for, fails in execution, are inaccurate and dropped passes. I don't see where scheme or predictability is really related to execution or stricter levels of execution.

The increase in predictability had to do with the playbook shortening to accommodate for a backup QB. The increase in 8-man fronts had to do with the ineffectiveness of a backup QB. I'm not sure there is any way around that. And that situation doesn't really speak to the effectiveness of a scheme.

Coaches within a conference end up knowing each other's plays/schemes for years. It's about personnel and execution. And we've seen that with a functional O-line, Iowa has been able to execute while being predictable, and execute against 8-man fronts. We've also seen that with a functional QB, Iowa has been able to execute in those situations.

In 2022 Iowa probably had its worst O-line I can remember in 38/39 years of watching Iowa football. In 2023 Iowa, for most of the season, probably had its worst QB I can remember in 38/39 years of watching Iowa football. If one is to judge scheme, it would make much more sense to do so in seasons prior to 2022.

Margin for error is always thin against top competition. Margin for error is always thin with a bad O-line. Margin for error is always thin with a bad QB.

Your obsession with scheme is peculiar. Of course, being predictable makes playing with a bad O-line even tougher. But again, that's the nature of the situation for any team playing a backup QB. The playbook does not expand in those situations.

Again, I use the example of KC vs TB in the Super Bowl. Reid is one of the best strategist of all-time. KC had no O-line and his strategy never had a chance. Mahomes/Kelce is one of the best improve duos of all-time. Their skill never got the chance. The following season, one of the best QB's ever, in Brady, had no chance when his O-line got banged up. This is not only simple analysis of these situations, that does not involve scheme, but these situations are very predictable in the first place. I know I made money betting TB in the Super Bowl, and betting against TB in 3 games down the stretch of the following season.

Of course, scheme is part of a recipe in which all of the ingredients interact. But for one's attention to be on the type of chili used in a taco seasoning, when there isn't any ground beef in the first place, doesn't make much sense

 

[sober_teacher]

The increase in predictability had to do with the playbook shortening to accommodate for a backup QB. The increase in 8-man fronts had to do with the ineffectiveness of a backup QB. I'm not sure there is any way around that. And that situation doesn't really speak to the effectiveness of a scheme.

The increase in predictability had to do with the playbook shortening to accommodate for a backup QB. The increase in 8-man fronts had to do with the ineffectiveness of a backup QB. I'm not sure there is any way around that. And that situation doesn't really speak to the effectiveness of a scheme.

Coaches within a conference end up knowing each other's plays/schemes for years. It's about personnel and execution. And we've seen that with a functional O-line, Iowa has been able to execute while being predictable, and execute against 8-man fronts. We've also seen that with a functional QB, Iowa has been able to execute in those situations.

Another part is Iowa was getting very obvious with it's tendencies. I used to write it off as exaggerated, but the last few seasons it was hard to ignore that opposing defenses knew what those were for Iowa. It frankly wasn't an uncommon sight to see LBs pointing almost exactly where the play was going to go. Sometimes, that didn't matter - the execution was there and the play worked. More often than not, the opponent crashed the box so effectively it didn't matter how well the play was blocked and the result was a minimal gain at best.

Better schemes involve attempts to cause confusion in the defense, make it harder to pick up on tendencies. Sometimes that's as simple as having multiple options from the same formation, like the RPO. Other times its using motion or a formation shift to create leverage at the point of attack, or to get the D to tip its hand as to whether they're in man or zone. These aren't overly complicated concepts, but they're ones that increasingly disappeared from the offense the last 3 years in particular. I think Dochterman for example, pointed out that last year, Iowa's YPC went up by nearly 2 yards when they used jet sweep motion, if only as a decoy. Yet that was virtually absent some games.

You can explain that, to some extent, on the injuries Iowa went thru, I agree on that. But only to an extent. Especially for the bowl game vs Tennessee, when they'd had a month to prep for it, with no opt-outs, we still saw the exact same offense as we'd seen during the regular season.

 

[eyesofhawk]

Another part is Iowa was getting very obvious with it's tendencies. I used to write it off as exaggerated, but the last few seasons it was hard to ignore that opposing defenses knew what those were for Iowa. It frankly wasn't an uncommon sight to see LBs pointing almost exactly where the play was going to go. Sometimes, that didn't matter - the execution was there and the play worked. More often than not, the opponent crashed the box so effectively it didn't matter how well the play was blocked and the result was a minimal gain at best.

Better schemes involve attempts to cause confusion in the defense, make it harder to pick up on tendencies. Sometimes that's as simple as having multiple options from the same formation, like the RPO. Other times its using motion or a formation shift to create leverage at the point of attack, or to get the D to tip its hand as to whether they're in man or zone. These aren't overly complicated concepts, but they're ones that increasingly disappeared from the offense the last 3 years in particular. I think Dochterman for example, pointed out that last year, Iowa's YPC went up by nearly 2 yards when they used jet sweep motion, if only as a decoy. Yet that was virtually absent some games.

You can explain that, to some extent, on the injuries Iowa went thru, I agree on that. But only to an extent. Especially for the bowl game vs Tennessee, when they'd had a month to prep for it, with no opt-outs, we still saw the exact same offense as we'd seen during the regular season.

I don't think you understand that the QB/O-line combination that Iowa was forced to play with last season made it hard to be successful with even the simplest of plays. In these situations, you try to limit big mistakes. Adding to the playbook is not the way to go, no matter if you have two months to prepare. I also don't think you understand how hard it is for a college level offense to make changes of much substance in a months time, even with a skilled line-up.

Tendencies are the same thing as predictability. Just as predictability goes up with a backup QB, so does predictability increase with a bad O-line. This is because the offense only has time to execute certain plays. But also because the offense has to focus on trying to execute a few plays the best that it can, rather than not being able to execute anything. Again, the time-frame in which you are claiming Iowa's offense became more predictable is the exact same time frame in which the O-line has struggled.

Iowa has still used some tendency-breakers. One of them being jet sweep motion. If it were used as a staple, it wouldn't have been as successful. It was used more frequently once Brown had gotten his feet wet, because he was an actual threat to hand the ball to.

Iowa has run multiple plays from the same formation, as has every team, for what I would guess has to be close to 150 years. The option to run or pass, in an RPO, is a decision that's made by the QB AFTER the snap.

Yes, it always matters how well a play is blocked. A well blocked play can sometimes result in a minimal gain vs an effective run blitz, or a stout 8-man front. But a well blocked play never results in no gain. There have to be two elements to a well blocked play. Correct accountability for assignments, and physical push to sustain blocks. The physical push is what we've seen Iowa's lineman struggle with, as they were forced into action before having the necessary strength. A defense can put as many people in the box as it wants. If its D-lineman are getting knocked back into the laps of its LB's and safeties, the numbers don't matter

 

[sober_teacher]

I don't think you understand that the QB/O-line combination that Iowa was forced to play with last season made it hard to be successful with even the simplest of plays. In these situations, you try to limit big mistakes. Adding to the playbook is not the way to go, no matter if you have two months to prepare. I also don't think you understand how hard it is for a college level offense to make changes of much substance in a months time, even with a skilled line-up.

I don't discount those limitations at all. But there's a difference between playing conservative to limit big mistakes, and playing scared of making ANY mistakes. IMO, Iowa's offense played scared far more often than not last year. And I'm not even talking making major changes between the b10 championship and the bowl game; but can you honestly look at that TN game, and tell me that after a month of practice and virtually everyone healthy and playing, against a TN defense down several starters, that it's unreasonable to expect that they should show SOME signs of improvement?

I don't pretend to be an expert on all things football. Like 90% of posters here, I'm approaching this from a primarily layman's perspective. What's your football background that makes you the expert?

 

[eyesofhawk]

I don't discount those limitations at all. But there's a difference between playing conservative to limit big mistakes, and playing scared of making ANY mistakes. IMO, Iowa's offense played scared far more often than not last year. And I'm not even talking making major changes between the b10 championship and the bowl game; but can you honestly look at that TN game, and tell me that after a month of practice and virtually everyone healthy and playing, against a TN defense down several starters, that it's unreasonable to expect that they should show SOME signs of improvement?

I don't pretend to be an expert on all things football. Like 90% of posters here, I'm approaching this from a primarily layman's perspective. What's your football background that makes you the expert?

Iowa's offense last year couldn't afford to make ANY mistakes. If they played scared more often than not, then that was the correct approach, because they won 10 games for the 11th time in program history, with probably one of its worst O-lines, and for the majority of the season, probably one of its worst QB's.

I profess no level of expertise in football. I played the game and did coach the game, but that was a long time ago.

These days, I follow the game closely enough to hold my own as a sports bettor. And although I'm a consistent winner in other sports, "hold my own" is about the extent of my success as a bettor in football. For several reasons, most sports bettors agree that football, especially NFL, is the hardest sport to consistently win at.

Whether the game has "evolved' or not, it's certainly a lot more complicated than when I coached. And given that I don't attend coaching clinics, and as a fan, don't have the benefit of skycam or endzone angle footage, I can only confidently speak about X's at O's at a basic level. As fans, we cannot see most of the defensive coverage and offensive routes, as they don't fit in the tv screen on the horizontal angle. It's also very hard at that angle to see the interior blocking schemes very well. Even with the necessary camera angles, we as fans have no inside knowledge of gameplans and play-calling.

But one thing I can tell you for a fact is that football is won up front. That always has always been and always will be true.

I can also say with complete confidence that scheme hasn't been near the problem with Iowa football that fans have made it out to be.

I can also confidently say that much of fans having over-blamed scheme is due to them having not been entertained by Iowa's offense.

But winning is what's important and entertaining to me. I know enough to listen to the experts. And I know that I'm in no position to question Kirk Ferentz, when it comes to Iowa football. He clearly still understands defense and special teams. And I'm quite certain he still understands offense. But frankly, I don't care if he doesn't understand offense, as long as he keeps winning. He clearly understands winning. And achieving that result is what he's paid to do

 

[sober_teacher]

But one thing I can tell you for a fact is that football is won up front. That always has always been and always will be true.

I can also say with complete confidence that scheme hasn't been near the problem with Iowa football that fans have made it out to be.

I used to believe complaints about scheme were overrated. I don’t anymore.

There were plenty of times the OL won the initial battle at the point of attack, only for the play to get blown up anyway because someone knifed in from the outside and got the the RB behind the LOS anyways, because we didn’t have anyone protecting the backside. Other times they simply demonstrated that they had zero fear of getting beaten deep so they’d crowd the line.

I mentioned jet sweep motion earlier, I’m not saying you hand it off there every time…sometimes you fake it and sometimes you don’t. Either way, you force the guys on the edge to hesitate a split second and that helps the OL with blocking.

Last year we won 10 games due to a stellar defense, and largely superb special teams, despite a dreadful offense. That’s simply not a repeatable formula. Even if the OL is the source of all offensive woes like you say, it’s still possible with better coaching, to find ways to scheme success. Find ways to get the ball outside quickly - remember those quick passes Greg Davis allowed if Beathard saw the CB backing off? Run screen passes - for whatever reason, that’s never been used effectively under Kirk, I don’t know why.

A good OL certainly makes everything else easier, no question. But that’s not always possible for a wide variety of reasons. Coaches have to make adjustments when that happens to still let the offense function. They didn’t do that the last couple years.