The Last Offensive Possession

[HawkSTL]

Let me preface by stating I think BF is a pretty smart schematic coach and a pretty good playcaller who is clearly conscious of Iowa’s tendencies. But I would really love for the staff to re-evaluate it’s game plan for a four minute or two minute offense when leading by one score.

We had the ball at our 40, needing one first down to win the game outright. Yet, our primary objective was to get ISU to burn its two timeouts. I don’t think anyone watching last night felt confident that we could line up in heavy formations and pick up that first down. Instead we got 3rd and 7 and even if Wieting hadn’t gone out of bounds we are giving ISU 50 seconds to go 40 yards and win the game, knowing they get 4 downs.

I think philosophically we need to be more aggressive about getting the first down and less concerned solely with burning timeouts. And whether that is running out 3 WR, shotgun instead of heavy, or playaction on first instead of third, I think going forward the offense needs to play to win that game and not just kill time for the defense. We played with fire last night and got away with it. But we will lose a game at some point if we do that again.

 

[HawK + i]

I would like to see the tendency numbers on Iowa throwing out of shotgun vs running out of TE tight w/ FB formations... has be nearly 99% for both. Iowa should run out of a spread look more often. Just imagine Goodson’s speed, in that kind of space, with our supposedly elite-level WR blocking requirements we have on the outside.

 

[Auger]

I would like to see the tendency numbers on Iowa throwing out of shotgun vs running out of TE tight w/ FB formations... has be nearly 99% for both. Iowa should run out of a spread look more often. Just imagine Goodson’s speed, in that kind of space, with our supposedly elite-level WR blocking requirements we have on the outside.

Would like to see Iowa go spread for an entire series with Goodson as the RB. Yesterday it was pretty clear our run game was having issues with Sargent/Young with a power TE set. Holes weren't there long enough for those two backs. Similar issues will happen against Wisconsin, Northwestern and Penn St. Maybe Michigan. We are deep at WR and I was more impressed with their blocking yesterday when we ran outside than I was with the TE's blocking on runs inside. Let's open up the offense and use some speed. Let the WR's block in the open field. Nico, Tracy, ISM and Goodson have the quickness in the open field. Sargent has been effective in the pass attack because of the WR's blocking.

 

[DodgerHawki]

Would like to see Iowa go spread for an entire series with Goodson as the RB. Yesterday it was pretty clear our run game was having issues with Sargent/Young with a power TE set. Holes weren't there long enough for those two backs. Similar issues will happen against Wisconsin, Northwestern and Penn St. Maybe Michigan. We are deep at WR and I was more impressed with their blocking yesterday when we ran outside than I was with the TE's blocking on runs inside. Let's open up the offense and use some speed. Let the WR's block in the open field. Nico, Tracy, ISM and Goodson have the quickness in the open field. Sargent has been effective in the pass attack because of the WR's blocking.

Sargent averaged 4.5 yards per carry. Goodson averaged 5.3 on 3 carries. Goodson had 6 touches yesterday, second most among all the running backs. Actually tied with IKM for second. They are giving Goodson more and more of a role. He and IKM were both very, very good yesterday. IKM's run from 3rd and 2 on the ISU 4 yard line was a thing of beauty.

Iowa is mixing it up a whole bunch. They make teams prepare for a lot. They are going to continue to be multiple and go after teams that way.

 

[24 so far]

Let me preface by stating I think BF is a pretty smart schematic coach and a pretty good playcaller who is clearly conscious of Iowa’s tendencies. But I would really love for the staff to re-evaluate it’s game plan for a four minute or two minute offense when leading by one score.

We had the ball at our 40, needing one first down to win the game outright. Yet, our primary objective was to get ISU to burn its two timeouts. I don’t think anyone watching last night felt confident that we could line up in heavy formations and pick up that first down. Instead we got 3rd and 7 and even if Wieting hadn’t gone out of bounds we are giving ISU 50 seconds to go 40 yards and win the game, knowing they get 4 downs.

I think philosophically we need to be more aggressive about getting the first down and less concerned solely with burning timeouts. And whether that is running out 3 WR, shotgun instead of heavy, or playaction on first instead of third, I think going forward the offense needs to play to win that game and not just kill time for the defense. We played with fire last night and got away with it. But we will lose a game at some point if we do that again.

Leslie Frazier was a master of this, which led to bunch of close losses when the Defense couldn't hold his precarious 2 or 6 point leads, when a little more Offense wins the game outright. Its maddening.

 

[moondog24]

We have to make them burn their time outs on defense. Maybe a toss sweep or pass play involving a back and slot man flooding a zone on second down after a first down run might have generated more yards but you gotta be 100% sure it will be completed. Give the ISU defender credit for driving the TE out of bounds -- not all would have been able to do so.

 

[unoHawkeye]

Especially at the rate Iowa converted on third down. I agree, the O was more than up to the task of winning the game themselves

 

[bdcolt45er]

I would like to see the tendency numbers on Iowa throwing out of shotgun vs running out of TE tight w/ FB formations... has be nearly 99% for both. Iowa should run out of a spread look more often. Just imagine Goodson’s speed, in that kind of space, with our supposedly elite-level WR blocking requirements we have on the outside.

Historically Iowa hasn't run much out of shotgun but this season they have run it quite a bit from that formation.

 

[83Hawk]

I would like to see the tendency numbers on Iowa throwing out of shotgun vs running out of TE tight w/ FB formations... has be nearly 99% for both. Iowa should run out of a spread look more often. Just imagine Goodson’s speed, in that kind of space, with our supposedly elite-level WR blocking requirements we have on the outside.

I agree with running out of the TE tight formation. It is telling the defense “Hey, we’re gonna run!” Need to pass a few times.

 

[PAULA_C]

During the last Offensive series, Iowa had the ball on the ISU 22 yd line with 1:29 to go. Could have scored again.

 

[texas twister]

I didn't mind the first 2 runs; but, the TE pass heading to the out of bounds was bad. Then, delay of game and false start on a simple punt is horrible. I was sure ISU was going to be set up to win. Only a fluke muff saved Iowa.

 

[mazda1]

With the defense focused on creating a turnover I’m not sure I want our smallest freshman running back going wide and I certainly don’t want to be looking at a pitchout.

I get we don’t have a power run game that can normally get 10 yards in three plays against a stacked box. Maybe a two back set with both Sargent and Goodson spreading things out a bit and then trying to get outside with ultra safe backfield passes on first down down.

If we have a healthy defense going forward there are worse things than trusting them. Let’s not forget the D gave up 3 points other than the 2 inexperienced TD’s.

We are all flashbacks to the days of having a linebacker who can’t cover in pass defense, but if we’re healthy and in a cash defense I’ll take my chances there.

 

[hawkeyeinmo]

I didn't mind the first 2 runs; but, the TE pass heading to the out of bounds was bad. Then, delay of game and false start on a simple punt is horrible. I was sure ISU was going to be set up to win. Only a fluke muff saved Iowa.

I like the TE pass but not the going out of bounds. I think the delay penalty was to try to get ISU to jump off sides and get first down. 5 yards was not that big of a deal and the way Sleep-Dalton has been punting I think they were still confident he would punt it inside the 20. The false start was bad!

 

[hexumhawk]

We have done a great job of tendancy breaking lately but the plays either havent worked or have not been executed when needed. 3rd and short from our end and ran the Hok play from PSU...didnt work as the corner crashed and saw the fake. The last play to Weiting- great call but should have been ran to other side of the field to ensure the guy stayed in bounds if he doesnt get the first down.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

I didn't mind the first 2 runs; but, the TE pass heading to the out of bounds was bad. Then, delay of game and false start on a simple punt is horrible. I was sure ISU was going to be set up to win. Only a fluke muff saved Iowa.

I don't mind the pass to Wieting. Opponents know he is a rarely used option in the passing game (no receptions in the first two games this year), and there was a good chance that once he leaked out he'd be the only player on that side of the field. It was well read by the ISU defense, so give them credit. Wieting has to do a better job to stay in bounds when it's clear he's not going to pick up the first down - and to his credit he did try to stay in bounds but was too close to the sideline and got knocked out. It was a low-risk, high reward play. What happened was essentially worst case scenario.

 

[SDHawkDoc]

Passing to the TE wasn't the bad part. Going to the short side, a late leading throw and the TE not going south or at least immediately dropping to the turf were the bad parts.

A lack of situational awareness was the problem.

The order for that play needed to be get the first down, but for Pete's sake whatever happens DO NOT GO OUT OF BOUNDS.

 

[HawkSTL]

I don't mind the pass to Wieting. Opponents know he is a rarely used option in the passing game (no receptions in the first two games this year), and there was a good chance that once he leaked out he'd be the only player on that side of the field. It was well read by the ISU defense, so give them credit. Wieting has to do a better job to stay in bounds when it's clear he's not going to pick up the first down - and to his credit he did try to stay in bounds but was too close to the sideline and got knocked out. It was a low-risk, high reward play. What happened was essentially worst case scenario.

It just has little chance of working on 3rd and 7. If we are insistent on running heavy and burning timeouts, run that play on first (might actually get space) and then follow up with two runs. The sequence of plays we ran only makes sense if we picked up six or seven yards on our first two downs and not three.

 

[hawkfeever]

Let me preface by stating I think BF is a pretty smart schematic coach and a pretty good playcaller who is clearly conscious of Iowa’s tendencies. But I would really love for the staff to re-evaluate it’s game plan for a four minute or two minute offense when leading by one score.

We had the ball at our 40, needing one first down to win the game outright. Yet, our primary objective was to get ISU to burn its two timeouts. I don’t think anyone watching last night felt confident that we could line up in heavy formations and pick up that first down. Instead we got 3rd and 7 and even if Wieting hadn’t gone out of bounds we are giving ISU 50 seconds to go 40 yards and win the game, knowing they get 4 downs.

I think philosophically we need to be more aggressive about getting the first down and less concerned solely with burning timeouts. And whether that is running out 3 WR, shotgun instead of heavy, or playaction on first instead of third, I think going forward the offense needs to play to win that game and not just kill time for the defense. We played with fire last night and got away with it. But we will lose a game at some point if we do that again.

And if they tried shit and had incompletions and left ISU with timeouts you'd bitch about that also. Easy to criticize after the fact. Also, they were going for the 1st down on 3rd down. They had made over 50% of their 3rd downs to that point (quite high number). Had they made the first down you'd say they were geniuses. WE WON!

 

[hawkfeever]

Passing to the TE wasn't the bad part. Going to the short side, a late leading throw and the TE not going south or at least immediately dropping to the turf were the bad parts.

A lack of situational awareness was the problem.

The order for that play needed to be get the first down, but for Pete's sake whatever happens DO NOT GO OUT OF BOUNDS.

Kirk said post game that play didn't go as planned and they would learn from it. Assuming maybe Wieting was to be past the sticks if he was going out of bounds, otherwise make damn sure to stay in field of play.

 

[hawkfeever]

I didn't mind the first 2 runs; but, the TE pass heading to the out of bounds was bad. Then, delay of game and false start on a simple punt is horrible. I was sure ISU was going to be set up to win. Only a fluke muff saved Iowa.

Turnovers man. Part of the game. Everything counts.

 

[hawkfeever]

Would like to see Iowa go spread for an entire series with Goodson as the RB. Yesterday it was pretty clear our run game was having issues with Sargent/Young with a power TE set. Holes weren't there long enough for those two backs. Similar issues will happen against Wisconsin, Northwestern and Penn St. Maybe Michigan. We are deep at WR and I was more impressed with their blocking yesterday when we ran outside than I was with the TE's blocking on runs inside. Let's open up the offense and use some speed. Let the WR's block in the open field. Nico, Tracy, ISM and Goodson have the quickness in the open field. Sargent has been effective in the pass attack because of the WR's blocking.

So we had Schott, Linderbaum and Kallenberger in there. Against a veteran D line. We shouldn't have been that surprised and those guys for as young as they are did a good job. Amazed on how few penalties there were for the youth there and the loud environment.

 

[Hawk_4shur]

Personally, I would have liked to see Iowa throw on 2nd down, unless the plan is to run the ball 3 times no matter what.

The play call of a pass to Wieting was ok on 3rd, but it was clear (I think) that he wasn't going to get a first down before Nate threw the ball. I would have preferred to see him eat it and stay in bounds.

A core principle for Iowa is to make the opposing offense beat you, and do it with as little time as possible. Not a terrible strategy most of the time really, but ISU was moving the ball pretty easily outside of the red zone and all they needed was a FG to win. To go with a conservative plan and have a player go out of bounds was a mistake.

This situation has presented itself many, many times in the KF era. I wonder what the success rate is?

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

It just has little chance of working on 3rd and 7. If we are insistent on running heavy and burning timeouts, run that play on first (might actually get space) and then follow up with two runs. The sequence of plays we ran only makes sense if we picked up six or seven yards on our first two downs and not three.

I think the preference to run that on 3rd down is this: the play essentially had one option to work, and that was to throw to Wieting. If the play obviously was not there, Stanley should just eat it for a loss. Taking a loss on 3rd down really isn't that big of a deal, but if we take a shot and loss yards on first down, then we basically blow any chance we'd have to pick up the first down.

At the end of the day, it didn't work and we've seen too many instances of our offense not being able to pick up a first down when we need it the most under Ferentz. Another poster pointed out that we've been running more out of shotgun this year and I think we've had good success doing so. If we can run well out of shotgun, and the strength of our offense is not our TEs, then maybe shotgun is our best option. It certainly seems like it might be beneficial to spread the defense out in these situations as it seems like we can't generate the push we need with our heavy sets.

 

[HoustonHawkeye]

Since most people assume we would run the ball, why not put Mansell in with 2 fullbacks. You can still pass to the TE or WR, or run Mansell with 2 fullbacks blocking on a sweep.

 

[Lone Clone]

I didn't mind the first 2 runs; but, the TE pass heading to the out of bounds was bad. Then, delay of game and false start on a simple punt is horrible. I was sure ISU was going to be set up to win. Only a fluke muff saved Iowa.

I thought the delay penalty was intentional.

 

[MVPFAN]

They should have kept the clock running on 3rd down. If you are going to decide to clinch the game on 3rd down throw the damn ball far enough to get the first down and for sure tell your player to get down in the filed of play.

 

[NevadaHawk]

Turnovers man. Part of the game. Everything counts.

Absolutely. In a close game, late in the fourth quarter, the last thing you want to do is the give the opposing team a turnover. All ISU needed was a FG to win the game and even if Iowa got the ball back there would have been very little time on the clock. I think we played that last offensive series the only way we could.

 

[David1979]

Had no problem with burning clock until they decided not to burn clock.

I have more of an issue with their short yardage scheme/play calling. It’s horrendous​

 

[JRingo]

A right handed quarterback rolling left to the short side of the field and not throwing to the sticks on third down. That's a good call if you can't wait another minute to see your punter.

 

[ichawk24]

Since most people assume we would run the ball, why not put Mansell in with 2 fullbacks. You can still pass to the TE or WR, or run Mansell with 2 fullbacks blocking on a sweep.

With the game hanging in the balance, bringing your backup QB in ice cold off the bench to throw a pass sounds like a terrible idea.

Stanley is our QB.

 

[BigOHawk]

This should have been the 1st or 2nd down play to break tendency. Given the time left and no ISU timeouts on 3rd down, I fully expected a pass or even another Stanley run/RPO safe pass. I can think of two other situations late in games where the team has no timeouts and needs the ball back where we ran a TE surprise play (2011 Insight Bowl to Reisner and 2013 Michigan to CJ Fed) although both of these went for first downs and iced the game.

 

[walleye hunter16]

Passing to the TE wasn't the bad part. Going to the short side, a late leading throw and the TE not going south or at least immediately dropping to the turf were the bad parts.

A lack of situational awareness was the problem.

The order for that play needed to be get the first down, but for Pete's sake whatever happens DO NOT GO OUT OF BOUNDS.

1 catch ball
2 don't fumble
3 dont stop the clock
4 get first down

 

[walleye hunter16]

Spread out the D, line up Goodson and IKM either side of Mansell and run to the wide side each time and make them make a great play to stop them from getting the first down. No pitches, handoffs, passes. Three fast elusive guys in space with good blocking WRs. Many teams across America can readily get 4 yds per play out of that.
Many other ways to gets simple first downs without looking to score. Putting 22 guys in 35' of space on the field thinking a positive result is going to come from running the ball is blind stupidity and Im certain success % bears that out. At least a QB sneak from a spread set leaves some open gaps to have a sjot ro get through.

 

[HawkSTL]

I rewatched the sequence of plays. Conceptually they were fine and perhaps were a planned package. All three plays utilized two tight ends and a fullback. The first and second utilized identical formations and motion with Weiting.

The first play was a gap isolation play away from Weiting’s motion. The LB charged hard and stalemated Ross in the hole and Lima made a nice play disengaging from Linderbaum to make the stop. The second play was outside zone toward Weiting’s motion that got killed by aggressive backside pursuit.

The final play was a one receiver route where Weiting first faked a run block. There was really no way for him to run a route 7 yards deep given his extended run fake and it being on the short side of the field. The success of that play requires picking up a few more yards on first and second down. And that play took him directly to the sideline.

 

[kelsoe]

Packers threw on 2nd down in the same situation against the Viks. Executed and all was good with the world. Like that Iowa was giving the offense a chance to end the game with possession of the ball, maybe the Hawks just didn't execute well.