Will Iowa play like there's nothing to lose, or play "base" and learn for future?

[Pepperman]

I've been kicking this one around in my head and I really would like to see Iowa take more calculated risks in games like this. Yes, that by definition means Iowa might get burned a few times - hence the word "risk". But, you see, I'm not necessarily convinced that Iowa gives itself a good chance to win by playing the base offense and defense in this game. What do I mean by this?

Offensively, we will of course have to rely on ball control and that all starts by being able to run the football. Out of that, Iowa can do play-action passes. But I'd like to see some new wrinkles or complete breaking of tendencies (to the extent BF has them - I would bet PSU staff is finding them on tape already). Maybe some new counter or misdirection plays, maybe utilize a pitch or two to Wadley to get him in space, and hell, if the situation is right try a halfback pass or something completely new. Am I calling for a completely different game plan? NO, but some wrinkles to keep PSU off balance.

Defensively, I'm much more concerned Iowa has to take calculated risks. I just don't see the typical 4-3 base defense working at all Saturday night. I think Iowa needs to play a lot more nickel and dime to keep the LBs out of pass coverage responsibility. And then as much as I know it can backfire, I'd really love to see a lot of blitzes.

The Hawks are 12.5 underdogs and PSU kicked our ass last year. We *COULD* beat them straight up, but I just happen to think we are better off treating this game a little differently. Honestly, what is there to lose? If Iowa loses, but wins out (and I know that isn't likely), they'd still play in the B1G championship. So really, there's nothing to lose.

Now, on the other hand, KF may look at this game and say there's a lot to gain even in a loss. Perhaps he approaches this game with the same "nothing to lose" attitude, but believes by playing base packages, Iowa will learn a lot even in a loss?

 

[ichawk24]

They'll play whatever defense they think will help them win. Which will probably be base.

 

[nu2u]

Am I calling for a completely different game plan? NO, but some wrinkles to keep PSU off balance.

Definitely hope to see this on offense Pepperman.

On defense, Parker likely to stay base bend don't break. The objective on defense IMO is slowing PSU by preventing big scoring plays and/or 4-5 play scoring drives. Every man on assignment and tackling is a big key.

On defense, hold PSU to mid 20's or less. On offense, win TOP with longer drives but add a few wrinkles and capitalize on them to keep PSU off balance. If Iowa wins, I anticipate a 27-24 type score.

 

[DodgerHawki]

I've been kicking this one around in my head and I really would like to see Iowa take more calculated risks in games like this. Yes, that by definition means Iowa might get burned a few times - hence the word "risk". But, you see, I'm not necessarily convinced that Iowa gives itself a good chance to win by playing the base offense and defense in this game. What do I mean by this?

Offensively, we will of course have to rely on ball control and that all starts by being able to run the football. Out of that, Iowa can do play-action passes. But I'd like to see some new wrinkles or complete breaking of tendencies (to the extent BF has them - I would bet PSU staff is finding them on tape already). Maybe some new counter or misdirection plays, maybe utilize a pitch or two to Wadley to get him in space, and hell, if the situation is right try a halfback pass or something completely new. Am I calling for a completely different game plan? NO, but some wrinkles to keep PSU off balance.

Defensively, I'm much more concerned Iowa has to take calculated risks. I just don't see the typical 4-3 base defense working at all Saturday night. I think Iowa needs to play a lot more nickel and dime to keep the LBs out of pass coverage responsibility. And then as much as I know it can backfire, I'd really love to see a lot of blitzes.

The Hawks are 12.5 underdogs and PSU kicked our ass last year. We *COULD* beat them straight up, but I just happen to think we are better off treating this game a little differently. Honestly, what is there to lose? If Iowa loses, but wins out (and I know that isn't likely), they'd still play in the B1G championship. So really, there's nothing to lose.

Now, on the other hand, KF may look at this game and say there's a lot to gain even in a loss. Perhaps he approaches this game with the same "nothing to lose" attitude, but believes by playing base packages, Iowa will learn a lot even in a loss?

Would you advocate Iowa goes to nickel or dime on first down? I would not. The quickest way to a loss is to have Penn State run the ball with impunity. Last year Penn State absolutely decimated the Raider package by running against it, and Iowa basically hasn't used Raider since due to how PSU attacked it. Best chance for Iowa is to play well on early downs, try to get PSU into 3rd and longs where they can put extra DB's on the field. Easier said than done.

 

[GT Hawkaholic]

Definitely hope to see this on offense Pepperman.

On defense, Parker likely to stay base bend don't break. The objective on defense IMO is slowing PSU by preventing big scoring plays and/or 4-5 play scoring drives. Every man on assignment and tackling is a big key.

On defense, hold PSU to mid 20's or less. On offense, win TOP with longer drives but add a few wrinkles and capitalize on them to keep PSU off balance. If Iowa wins, I anticipate a 27-24 type score.

I've had that exact same number in my head all week. I think Iowa needs to hold PSU to 24 or less to have a shot to win and we'll likely need a couple of big plays for TD's. Whether that be finally connecting on a deep ball, defensive TD or special teams TD, we can't ground and pound them all night, they are too good.

 

[cecilB]

I've had that exact same number in my head all week. I think Iowa needs to hold PSU to 24 or less to have a shot to win and we'll likely need a couple of big plays for TD's. Whether that be finally connecting on a deep ball, defensive TD or special teams TD, we can't ground and pound them all night, they are too good.

I agree, however, I don't believe the talent disparity is as significant as many are making it out to be. We must tackle well in space. Iowa can score 4-5 times on that defense. Hopefully it's not 5 field goals.

 

[F6n6]

the concern I have is... it seems like every time we blitz, we get burned...
our linebackers and safeties have to play better...
like Kirk says.. they gotta improve faster.

 

[Johnsoda123]

They beat Pitt 33-14 and it was 21-6 going into the 4th. Pitt actually outgained them and they held Barkley to less than 100 rushing. Pitt gave up 59 to OSU. No reason Iowa can't put up 30.

 

[Crazy Hawk]

I'm hoping Iowa utilizes different combinations out of their front seven that they haven't used all season. I am not optimistic that they will though based on how the Iowa State game went. Meaning, that was a ball game until the very end and Iowa's front seven stayed very basic....even when the game was on the line.

I'm not saying they need to blitz 30% of the time....but they need to move the DL around...let them utilize their speed/size/athletic ability. Get those OT to have to "get into" their drops and then cover the likes our our athletic DE's in space instead of letting them fight one step into their pass drop.

 

[David1979]

Iowa's best bet is to get penetration by the front seven. Barkley is really tough to bring down and fast so you can't let him get a head of steam. Also, their WRs aren't great. There are 5 things you need to worry about with PSU's offense, Barkley, Barkley, Barkely, McSorley and their TE.

 

[Pepperman]

Would you advocate Iowa goes to nickel or dime on first down? I would not.

Well, I think that depends on what look PSU is giving Iowa on first down. If they go 3 WR and a TE, yeah... because I've seen what happens when other teams pick on our LBs.

On defense, Parker likely to stay base bend don't break. The objective on defense IMO is slowing PSU by preventing big scoring plays and/or 4-5 play scoring drives. Every man on assignment and tackling is a big key.

And that's fair, and good and great IF it is working. What do we do if it is PSU 10, Iowa 0 in the first quarter and the base defense is both bending AND breaking?


Ok, ok, I know, Pepperman is planning for the worst here... if nothing goes right, we weren't winning this one anyway, and I get it. I'm just saying / asking, can Iowa avoid going down by being more aggressive? Do people agree with me that when you're an underdog sometimes you need to roll the dice?

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

I actually think that Kirk's conservative nature is what often gives us a puncher's chance against a lot of teams that are heavy favorites against us. Typically our bend but don't break defense doesn't give up big plays which forces the opponent to sustain long drives before scoring. When we have the ball, we like to run often and eat up the clock.

Altogether this has the effect of shortening the game and reducing the amount of possessions each team has. The shorter the sample size of possessions, the larger the variability of outcomes. In other words, when the game is shortened, the underdog has a better chance. This is why we seemingly play up or down to our competition.

I don't see the offense or defense doing anything far out of their comfort zone. The players are coached a certain way, and if they execute well they're going to have a decent chance to win.

 

[mvhomerj]

Rolling the dice, and taking some chances are just like drugs and alcohol. They're O.K.
if done in moderation.

 

[desihawk]

I could be wrong and most (not all) will disagree but i'm not convinced that psu is so much better to convincingly overcome the Kinnick advantage. Yes, I think we are also a talented bunch. Sure they minced Iowa last year but such games are known to happen sometimes and don't project into the future. If that's the case (ie teams are even), does that change anything? Maybe not but I don't feel like Iowa should gamble merely assuming that it's the only way to win. It needs to be done very smartly.

 

[SDHawkDoc]

I expect base D and contain as always. Give up yards in front of them all game long to avoid the big play from psu. I'd advocate for taking more chances on D. Blitzing. Sure, it might not work and there's a much bigger chance of being burned long. I don't think they'll win either way but I would be more interested in watching a defeat in an offensive shootout.

 

[David1979]

The tough thing about their QB is he can escape pressure and pick up big chunks of yards with his legs.

 

[nu2u]

I would bet that D coaches are spending equal time and emphasis on tackling drills as time spent on schemes this week.

Any opposing fan watching their team play PSU the past year has certainly screamed at the TV at least a half dozen times about a missed open field tackle resulting in a 1st down to keep a drive alive or long gainer and later wondered what the outcome may have been if the tackles were made. Barkley is one tough SOB to tackle in open field.

 

[Scott559]

Bottom line for me is win in the trenches and you have a damn good shot at winning, PSU owned Iowa in the trenches last year, everything else snowballs from there.

 

[hawkbleeder]

Well, I think that depends on what look PSU is giving Iowa on first down. If they go 3 WR and a TE, yeah... because I've seen what happens when other teams pick on our LBs.



And that's fair, and good and great IF it is working. What do we do if it is PSU 10, Iowa 0 in the first quarter and the base defense is both bending AND breaking?


Ok, ok, I know, Pepperman is planning for the worst here... if nothing goes right, we weren't winning this one anyway, and I get it. I'm just saying / asking, can Iowa avoid going down by being more aggressive? Do people agree with me that when you're an underdog sometimes you need to roll the dice?

All I know is that we're getting burned on big plays right now (that's not Iowa defense/football) and so the focus for the defense has to be on fundamentals vs rolling the dice...maybe the rolling of the dice is on the offensive side of the ball (aka more passing out of necessity). Can we win a high scoring shootout? That's what I'm wondering right now as they're gonna focus on shutting down our run and I have more faith in our O than our D.

 

[Dauminator]

Certainly, I believe this offense will take chances when they see one.

Defense comes down to needing more sound tackling and positioning. If we improve in that area, we have a chance. If not, we're probably on the low end of a shootout. I do think we can score on this team.

 

[redghost1974]

Iowa's best bet is to get penetration by the front seven. Barkley is really tough to bring down and fast so you can't let him get a head of steam. Also, their WRs aren't great. There are 5 things you need to worry about with PSU's offense, Barkley, Barkley, Barkely, McSorley and their TE.

What he said. Front 4 don't penetrate, or at least hold the line of scrimmage, put this one in the L column. We are also need some favorable turnovers.

 

[Wadzinator]

let's go back to Michigan last year what did we
do on defense do we approach psu that way

 

[bagdropper]

Considering how plain brown wrapper UNT and UW were, I think we're going to see a lot more ISU game on offense as far as Iowa is concerned, but more of it.

Defense...I just don't see Iowa doing anything more than protecting the weakest part of the defense like the first 3 weeks. The front 4 must get pressure on McSorley or Iowa will give yards to protect against the big play like the first 3 games.

 

[Hawk and Awe]

Penn State is really good - but nothing I have seen demonstrates them to be world beaters.

Biggest question for the game will be the one I would bring up against any team - pass defense. If we can't get pressure and the secondary doesn't improve we aren't going to keep up with any talented team regardless of the "calculated risks" we take.

That goes for every team in the country I've seen this year except Alabama... You just can't go head-to-head with that defense.

 

[cleotishaywood]

Considering how plain brown wrapper UNT and UW were, I think we're going to see a lot more ISU game on offense as far as Iowa is concerned, but more of it.

Defense...I just don't see Iowa doing anything more than protecting the weakest part of the defense like the first 3 weeks. The front 4 must get pressure on McSorley or Iowa will give yards to protect against the big play like the first 3 games.

McSorely will make you pay if the pocket collapses and he takes off.

 

[hexumhawk]

Think PSU defense is not a juggernaut and can be scored on. Obvious question, can we outscore them as I think we can put up 28 on them.

Knowing Iowa, we stay base for most of the game and try to shorten the game some on offense with ball control. I think that is where PSU is most vulnerable; up the middle.

Defense just needs to get off the field when it has the opprotuinty. Think we will rush our 4 and keep #9 in the lanes. He plays better on the move.

 

[David1979]

Think PSU defense is not a juggernaut and can be scored on. Obvious question, can we outscore them as I think we can put up 28 on them.

Knowing Iowa, we stay base for most of the game and try to shorten the game some on offense with ball control. I think that is where PSU is most vulnerable; up the middle.

Defense just needs to get off the field when it has the opprotuinty. Think we will rush our 4 and keep #9 in the lanes. He plays better on the move.

PSU's defense looks much better this year than last year.

 

[kceasthawk]

PSU's defense looks much better this year than last year.

Maybe, but nobody really knows what PSU has at this point. The only team they've played with a pulse is Pitt, and judging by their play last week, their not worth a damn this year either. As much as these nailbiters are hard to sit through, I'd love to see another walkoff field goal by the Hawks. Lets make it three times a charm!

 

[West Dundee Hawkeye]

Maybe, but nobody really knows what PSU has at this point. The only team they've played with a pulse is Pitt, and judging by their play last week, their not worth a damn this year either. As much as these nailbiters are hard to sit through, I'd love to see another walkoff field goal by the Hawks. Lets make it three times a charm!

I hope Iowa fly's to the ball like we did against Michigan. Not blitzing but attacking the edge. Iowa shut down Jabril Peppers. Michigan could not get the edge. I don't think Michigan rushed for 100 yards. This leaves Iowa open to the play action pass but Iowa moved to fast for Michigan. Ferentz called a fantastic game against Michigan.

 

[Muskie5]

Iowa needs to just stay in base and play zone. Easier to contain Barkley that way. PSU doesn't want to grind (which 4-3 cover2 makes teams do), they want to hit home runs. People on here keep saying we need to be more aggressive, but that is exactly what killed us last year. 'Aggressiveness' killed us on the first TD when King 'aggressively' bit on the double move. Then we 'aggressively' ran our Raider package and Nelson apparently forgot that he has to be the 'force/contain' player in it and allowed Barkley to get outside (which you can't do against him). Then we 'aggressively' ran a corner blitz and Mabin whiffed and either Snyder or Bower blew coverage on that side (because Bower was sitting in zone and Snyder came up in man on the wide-out). Then we aggressively played 'man-under' meaning Bower had to cover Barkley in man. There isn't too many LB's in the country that could cover Barley in man, but they also ran double slants to literally 'pick' Bower (one of the them'chipped' him) who had to run under it to clear himself while Barkley got a huge headstart on his wheel route. The next week they just played solid 4-3 cover2 which keeps all the throws 'under' and allows the corners to come up to 'force' which they did really well. If we were in 'base' all the time last year, 3 of those big plays never happen. I think PP will see that also.

 

[Muskie5]

Oh, and while I was watching the replay of last years PSU game, I noticed that on Barkley's long TD pass, he did the exact same thing Wadley did against N. Texax.... I think if he gets away with doing that this year, we will have some pretty irate fans!

 

[thewop]

They beat Pitt 33-14 and it was 21-6 going into the 4th. Pitt actually outgained them and they held Barkley to less than 100 rushing. Pitt gave up 59 to OSU. No reason Iowa can't put up 30.

I gotta quit reading this. I'm going to get my hopes up...

 

[Nihilist Rodgers]

does Iowa match up with Penn State??.. Michigan's O's played to your strength...Michigan's QB's is a pinata full of of mistakes just waiting to get hit by a fat 8 year old with a candy addiction. McSorely, Giseki, Barkley, Blacknall (destroyed you last year) Hamilton, and Johnson can beat any single Iowa defender in space. That is not the case when PSU played/s UM or OSU, they have 6-7 kids on each D that will play in the NFL.. 4 that will start.

PSU will simply have to have a lousy game.. fumbles, int's, missed blocks, dropped punt snaps.. which can happen on the road.

But I'll counter you. PSU DB's are lights out.. picking every pass in sight.. we go 7 deep at DT and 5 deep at DE. You have a young QB who has never lined up against any D half as talented as PSU (your former QB did plenty of times) It's a lot to ask of your team to beat a far more experienced team with higher end athletes across the board.

If odds makers knew that both Iowa and Penn State played equal games to their ability the line would be 15-16 points.. This is really about how mentally tough PSU is, if they are mature enough to go out and execute in a tough college stadium it will be game over.

 

[Nihilist Rodgers]

Maybe, but nobody really knows what PSU has at this point. The only team they've played with a pulse is Pitt, and judging by their play last week, their not worth a damn this year either. As much as these nailbiters are hard to sit through, I'd love to see another walkoff field goal by the Hawks. Lets make it three times a charm!

the same group of guys beat OSU, Iowa, Wisky, and played USC to the wire.. Penn State lost 4 starters and only one of those kids (Godwin) is being replaced by a by a kid who doesn't project to be better.

 

[kceasthawk]

the same group of guys beat OSU, Iowa, Wisky, and played USC to the wire.. Penn State lost 4 starters and only one of those kids (Godwin) is being replaced by a by a kid who doesn't project to be better.

And lost to Michigan, who Iowa beat at Kinnick, which means NOTHING. How you played those teams last year, means absolutely nothing this year. So many things happen in games that change momentum, and the course of games. Two teams could play three times during the season, and the result might never be the same. You don't get to bring your margin of victory from last season to Kinnick. This years team has beaten up one below average team, and two horrible teams. Thats their resume for 2017.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

Well, I think that depends on what look PSU is giving Iowa on first down. If they go 3 WR and a TE, yeah... because I've seen what happens when other teams pick on our LBs.



And that's fair, and good and great IF it is working. What do we do if it is PSU 10, Iowa 0 in the first quarter and the base defense is both bending AND breaking?


Ok, ok, I know, Pepperman is planning for the worst here... if nothing goes right, we weren't winning this one anyway, and I get it. I'm just saying / asking, can Iowa avoid going down by being more aggressive? Do people agree with me that when you're an underdog sometimes you need to roll the dice?

First and foremost, Iowa has to slow the PSU running game. If PSU runs at will, then Iowa will have to expend extra resources to slow it ... then that opens up more opportunities for the PSU passing game. Thus, Iowa needs safeties and cbs to be smart about their keys ... and come up in run support when needed ... but otherwise, we need to contain the running game with 7 guys in the box. Much easier said than done. The DEs need to be disciplined and smart ... and the help has to be there ... because the read-option can take away a DE. That then gives the OL the numbers advantage against the guys they ARE blocking.

Furthermore, in coverage, the Hawks needed to prevent chunk yardage play.

As was stated nicely by a prior poster - if Iowa can force PSU to truly EARN every point they get .... then PSU will possess the ball a long time ... but that will also reduce the number of total possessions IF the Hawk O can possess the ball too. Thus, there is a distinct possibility that Iowa could keep this a closer and lower scoring affair ... and, in such a case, Iowa could find itself in a position where the game is "winnable."

Will they win it? Who knows? Can they win it? Sure. Could they lose it? ... odds favor this latter possibility ... but it doesn't guarantee it either!

 

[Johnsoda123]

And lost to Michigan, who Iowa beat at Kinnick, which means NOTHING. How you played those teams last year, means absolutely nothing this year. So many things happen in games that change momentum, and the course of games. Two teams could play three times during the season, and the result might never be the same. You don't get to bring your margin of victory from last season to Kinnick. This years team has beaten up one below average team, and two horrible teams. Thats their resume for 2017.

And they gave up over 300 yards to the below average team and were outgained by them. This guy is just a kid I assume. I mean who goes to another teams board and brags they are going to roll you.

 

[Herkmeister]

Generally I'm an up front guy, but this keep in mind this is Penn State and playing outside the law is something to which they're accustomed.

I'd talk to the kitchen staff at the Coralville Marriott and be sure their QB & RB get food poisoning.

 

[rivalhawks]

I actually think that Kirk's conservative nature is what often gives us a puncher's chance against a lot of teams that are heavy favorites against us. Typically our bend but don't break defense doesn't give up big plays which forces the opponent to sustain long drives before scoring. When we have the ball, we like to run often and eat up the clock.

Altogether this has the effect of shortening the game and reducing the amount of possessions each team has. The shorter the sample size of possessions, the larger the variability of outcomes. In other words, when the game is shortened, the underdog has a better chance. This is why we seemingly play up or down to our competition.

I don't see the offense or defense doing anything far out of their comfort zone. The players are coached a certain way, and if they execute well they're going to have a decent chance to win.

I have always found it ironic that our same philosophy on D (of trying to make the other team sustain a 15 play drive wo a turnover etc) is the exact same thing we aim for on O.

 

[Pepperman]

I have always found it ironic that our same philosophy on D (of trying to make the other team sustain a 15 play drive wo a turnover etc) is the exact same thing we aim for on O.

I especially think that was the case with the GD offense given how horizontal it was and how he effectively made every play a running play, which only invited the safeties to creep further towards the LOS. I think it is better now that we are back to more of a KOK traditional offense with vertical threats (even those balls that go incomplete have the defense worrying about the threat)