You can't give me the excuse "that would have left receivers wide open"....cause they were wide open all night anyway. The D made the qb look like Joe Montana.
why didn't we blitz the crap out of them?
- Thread starter Kurt Warner
- Start date
This is one of the biggest questions of the night. The 2 or 3 times Leidner was pressured, he was sacked and threw a couple poor passes. The best pass defense is a hurried QB or one who's on the seat of his pants. Send the freakin' house. No QB looks good when pressured. Any QB looks like a Heisman Trophy winner when he can stand back there and play catch. Yes, it's that simple.
Watching Indiana and Minnesota toss the ball around the yard without Iowa making any concerted effort to pressure the QB has been beyond frustrating. How the hell the coaches can stand there all game long and watch that BS is beyond me. KF needs to get a clue and give it to Parker.
Iowa should have beaten Minny about 56-14. Instead, once again Iowa has to luck out with an onside kick to escape an upset. No wonder the national pundits are so wacky. KF gives them more than enough ammunition. AND, by keeping the game so damn close, KF nearly gets his injured QB killed on a sneak that never should have been necessary.
New KF? Sure. And Donald Trump is the new Thomas Jefferson.
Watching Indiana and Minnesota toss the ball around the yard without Iowa making any concerted effort to pressure the QB has been beyond frustrating. How the hell the coaches can stand there all game long and watch that BS is beyond me. KF needs to get a clue and give it to Parker.
Iowa should have beaten Minny about 56-14. Instead, once again Iowa has to luck out with an onside kick to escape an upset. No wonder the national pundits are so wacky. KF gives them more than enough ammunition. AND, by keeping the game so damn close, KF nearly gets his injured QB killed on a sneak that never should have been necessary.
New KF? Sure. And Donald Trump is the new Thomas Jefferson.
I also wondered why we didn't blitz more, If we are going to lose I would much rather go down being aggressive as hell vs the passive crap we saw last night
Please cedarvalleykid14 give us your coaching resume. Please include years you were at this high school or college and your title. Thanks! Only looking for this response and nothing else.
Answer to the original question - Because we didn't have to; we got the win anyway, and despite the close scores the past two games and the need to recover an onside kick to seal the victories, I felt Iowa was in control of those games from start to finish.
What CVK bashing Ferentz again? I can't believe what I am reading.
Our biggest weakness all year is our lack of pass rush. If the front four can't get there someone has to otherwise someone will eventually get open.
I agree with the OP, Leidner lit up our secondary, particularly Mabins side(he's becoming a liability), and I don't think I saw the Raider defense once in the game, despite how successful it has been.
During game, in the thread, you will see me getting pissed at this. What??? don't want to tire us out? Hell... the D wasn't on the field for 3 minutes at a time. Blitz already dammit! Only thing I can possibly think of is that we'll blitz the hell out of Nebraska. Perhaps they want them to believe we'll sit back and let them throw the ball constantly. One thing is for sure...we bring that lackluster stuff for nebby...and we will lose
Watching Indiana throw the ball all over the field? What game were you watching when Iowa played Indiana, because it sure as hell wasn't the one I was watching. Pretty sure Sudfeld had a completion percentage of below 50% and like 180 yards passing. That's pretty terrible.
I don't know if you noticed, but their QB was kind of hard to bring down...
that guy was a horse.
that guy was a horse.
Yes, we were in control the whole game in both games. That is exactly why I shouldn't be sweating out the outcome of the game on the final onside kick. Honestly, there is no reason for Iowa to be in that situation. I don't get why we consistently get so damn conservative just as we really start to take control of a game.
So we were just trying to be nice to them and make them feel better? They can't stop our offense, so we don't need to bother stopping theirs?
The thing is, blitzing worked the few times we used it. Why not use what is working esp since nothing else we were doing was.
We are saving our blitz packages for a couple games at the end of the year, we don't want to show our hand too early.
Leidner took a lot of 3 step drops and got the ball out quickly. He played a hell of a game. Pretty hard to blitz him a lot, because he was pretty effective running as well. Everytime we tackled him he fell forward 2 yards. I think our big problem last night were blown coverages. Our DB's were caught looking in the backfield and let receivers run right by them.
Utt oh, you're gonna catch a lot of crap for this
I had no complaints whatsoever with the play calling last night, loved it actually.
Minnesota was going to play this to spoil our no-loss season. And they are not such a bad football team to begin with. Have played many down to the wire.
I'm not going to get into all of the x's and o's of whether or not to blitz MN more, but sometimes you have to acknowledge that you're playing a pretty decent opponent. MN impressed me quite a bit. Their O-line was impressive, I thought, and Leidner probably played his best game of the year. They also made some tremendous calls and burned us with some great deception. Their D made us earn our scores and forced us to convert a ton of 3rd downs (hats off to our O for going 67% on 3rd down, which is phenomenal).
Sometimes you tip your cap for good play from your opponent. MN isn't as bad as the pundits want people to believe. They have talent, and they're well-coached. I would have loved a blowout, but this ain't Play Station.
Sometimes you tip your cap for good play from your opponent. MN isn't as bad as the pundits want people to believe. They have talent, and they're well-coached. I would have loved a blowout, but this ain't Play Station.
Agree, Minnesota has a very very nice team that gave the hawks all they wanted. Their D is a little shaky but the offense doesn't have many weaknesses.
We all agree that a lack of a pass rush is a concern. Blitzing also puts our corners on more of an island and I'm not sure we really want that with Mabin. I do think the lack of a pass rush is the reason our turnovers numbers have gone down. QB's are getting pretty comfortable in the pocket against us. Unfortunately we really miss Ott, but comfortable is probably the better of the two options rather than total man coverage. The lack of a pass rush has exposed the back end a bit.
With regards to Nebraska/Ohio State I'd like to have the DE's focus on contain. I think Armstrong will throw us the ball often enough regardless and keeping him in the pocket as much as possible is a much bigger key than pressuring his throws. I'm not to concerned about Purdue and I don't like the idea of a talent match up against Ohio State when we blitz. I think we'll have more than enough of an issue controlling Elliot in our base defense without getting a bunch of folks out of position.
The blitz is great when it get's there, but I don't see us getting home on a regular basis. A few times a game is fine by me. With the Jimmy's and the Joe's we've got on the D line we're not
going to pile up a bunch of sacks. I'm hoping JJ takes on pass rush as a personal ambition and plays out of his mind these next 3 games.
With regards to Nebraska/Ohio State I'd like to have the DE's focus on contain. I think Armstrong will throw us the ball often enough regardless and keeping him in the pocket as much as possible is a much bigger key than pressuring his throws. I'm not to concerned about Purdue and I don't like the idea of a talent match up against Ohio State when we blitz. I think we'll have more than enough of an issue controlling Elliot in our base defense without getting a bunch of folks out of position.
The blitz is great when it get's there, but I don't see us getting home on a regular basis. A few times a game is fine by me. With the Jimmy's and the Joe's we've got on the D line we're not
going to pile up a bunch of sacks. I'm hoping JJ takes on pass rush as a personal ambition and plays out of his mind these next 3 games.
We've been in "control" in plenty of games that we've lost due to conservative play and onside kick coverage. All of those things are still in play, regardless of this years team and record.
Their vaunted Offense was last in the Big Ten entering the game. Iowa made them look great, hard as that is to do. Leidner is certainly capable of throwing it to the other team, or into the ground, but you can't let him or any other human being playing QB sit back there and take mental snapshots of the entire field, and make a sandwich while doing it. Iowa rarely blitzed (duh), but when they did it helped, as it quite often does. The fact is Ferentz and Parker go outcoached, big time. Our Offense and the players on it refused to let us lose. Thankfully.
I see what you're saying and loosely agree, but with regards to Nebraska and (potentially) OSU, I think they are TOTALLY DIFFERENT situations:
Nebraska - talented team, but not more talented than us. Doesn't mean Iowa will for sure win, but at least we know that if we line up and play the same football we've played all year, we ought to leave Lincoln with a win.
Ohio State - this is a true "can't lose" situation for the Hawks. Should OSU be clicking, they'll beat Iowa no matter how well we play. And there's nothing wrong with admitting that, IMO. On the other hand, we need to try everything in that game and play the underdog role to perfection to win and move into a CFP game. Literally, leave nothing on the field. Hawkeye fans like me still can't forgive KF for what he did at the Shoe in 2009. You play to win the game.
Latest posts
-
-
-
COMMIT: Iowa Lands 2026 Iowa City West, Three-Star OL Colin Whitters
- Latest: clayborn_94
-