Ben Bruns KU Game Recap on Iowa Everywhere

cayin

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 11, 2006
6,454
5,611
113
You're going to have to explain which teams "packed it in".

The 3 big wins were Kansas, KSU and TCU.

Kansas sucked.

KSU followed up a 45-0 loss to us with a 31-32 loss to Baylor (doesn't seem like packing things in).

WVU was 5-3 when they visited and then went on to win their bowl game 24-6.
WVU had major covid issues for that game, that is what i mean by packing it in. Poor choice of words, but teams with covid issues typically did not play well
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSYclone22

JM4CY

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 23, 2012
26,314
48,154
113
America
Kansas State losing to Baylor is actually bad. Baylor during COVID year sucked. They only beat Kansas, and then that Kansas State game that year.

Which makes our home game against Baylor look even worse, being down big to that Baylor team and needed a huge comeback to win.
The lengths you go to find ways to be negative are sometimes truly astonishing.
 

IowaState88

Active Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 9, 2022
172
139
43
Yeah, we don't throw the ball down the field. I can't find air yard numbers right now but I can assure you we aren't anywhere near the top of that. I could live with the interceptions 30 yards down the field. It's those 8 yard outs getting picked off that are killers. FWIW, SP+ doesn't have us ranked above like 63 in any offensive category and the best ones are drives that lose yards and drives that get at least one first down. In other words, our best areas, analytically, are things that don't mean anything in regard to production. Also, we are 130/131 on ST which isn't really shocking, but is certainly damning.
130/131 is so so bad. I knew we were bad on ST but I truly didn’t think we were nearly dead last.

Honestly thought punting and kick/punt coverage have been OK so just goes to show how poor the kick game has been.
 

Billups06

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 18, 2006
728
280
63
The lengths you go to find ways to be negative are sometimes truly astonishing.
No kidding. I believe we had 3 consecutive possessions, in the first half, that all ended in interceptions (one that Baylor may have returned for a TD). Then we scored TD's on 3 consecutive possessions in the 3rd quarter. Weird game.
 

CoKane

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Oct 26, 2013
16,554
8,537
113
Cedar Rapids
Players or coaches had claimed that WSU had been simulating the snap. They had been caught doing that before and that defensive coaching staff has since been caught doing it since.
It happened the next season when we played OU and he joined their staff
 

CoKane

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Oct 26, 2013
16,554
8,537
113
Cedar Rapids
Yeah, we don't throw the ball down the field. I can't find air yard numbers right now but I can assure you we aren't anywhere near the top of that. I could live with the interceptions 30 yards down the field. It's those 8 yard outs getting picked off that are killers. FWIW, SP+ doesn't have us ranked above like 63 in any offensive category and the best ones are drives that lose yards and drives that get at least one first down. In other words, our best areas, analytically, are things that don't mean anything in regard to production. Also, we are 130/131 on ST which isn't really shocking, but is certainly damning.
Holy ****, who is worse
 

Dirtguy4CY

Active Member
May 4, 2022
108
80
28
Somebody mentioned in one of the game threads that pass protection from the running backs didn't drop off with Brock out of the game. Literally 2 plays later Silas absolutely whiffed on a defender.
Silas is terrible in pass protection, like shouldn't be on the field bad pass protection.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JM4CY

Tre4ISU

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 30, 2008
27,251
7,593
113
Estherville
Holy ****, who is worse
ULM
That's tough though. I'm not going to kill Manning or Campbell for trying dial back Purdy's running. He was beat to hell after about 5-6 games as a Fr. It's one thing to be a good runner as a QB. But he still took way to many direct shots as a runner.
Yeah, I totally get trying to keep your QB healthy but this is all over the country. Teams want to use their QB as a running threat but they don't want him to get hit. That'd be great in theory but after a little bit, it doesn't work because people figure out that they won't actually run.

So, you either use it and live with the consequences, or quit spending time on it. It takes quite a few reps away from other stuff that is sustainable.
 

CoKane

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Oct 26, 2013
16,554
8,537
113
Cedar Rapids
ULM

Yeah, I totally get trying to keep your QB healthy but this is all over the country. Teams want to use their QB as a running threat but they don't want him to get hit. That'd be great in theory but after a little bit, it doesn't work because people figure out that they won't actually run.

So, you either use it and live with the consequences, or quit spending time on it. It takes quite a few reps away from other stuff that is sustainable.
Ah gotcha. Thats not surprising
 

allfourcy

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2012
6,477
2,583
113
Listen to Ben Bruns on Iowa Everywhere. Looks like Kansas ran Cover 4 and dared us to run the ball and we couldn't. He said all they did the whole game was take away deep and seam passes, which they did. Our receivers couldn't get adequate separation.

Losing J-brock ended up being a deciding factor and our TEs aren't helping in the running game.

But, after all that we still did enough to win on offense, our special teams just did us in.

Lance Leipold is a great coach and he pretty much copied Iowa's defense against us.
So for the unknowledgeable, does that mean anyone that runs Cover 4 will eliminate any downfield passes at all? And other than a thousand crossing patterns or WR screens, what do we have to look forward to?
 

joefrog

Well-Known Member
Apr 29, 2008
7,531
1,753
113
Clive, Iowa
So for the unknowledgeable, does that mean anyone that runs Cover 4 will eliminate any downfield passes at all? And other than a thousand crossing patterns or WR screens, what do we have to look forward to?
Pain.

Or, our coaches could watch the Niners/Rams game from last night and figure out ways to get X the ball behind blockers in WR screens, or setup some jet sweeps with Noel. Experiment with Rus in the backfield as a blocker on passing downs. I mean, something new.

Or, just go into the game without a healthy Brock, but call the game exactly as you would with a healthy Brock, even with last week's results and a week of practice.

I wonder what the braintrust decides?

I bet they put it all on our defense, and KSU figures out a way to exploit our LBs to keep drives alive.
 

isufbcurt

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2006
22,515
30,896
113
43
Newton
So for the unknowledgeable, does that mean anyone that runs Cover 4 will eliminate any downfield passes at all? And other than a thousand crossing patterns or WR screens, what do we have to look forward to?

Cover 4 = 4 deep, each deep defender covers 1/4 of the field. Basically it's don't get beat deep and keep everything in front of you.
 

tzjung

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 2, 2007
2,047
1,054
113
43
Ankeny, IA
Cover 4 = 4 deep, each deep defender covers 1/4 of the field. Basically it's don't get beat deep and keep everything in front of you.

The thing with a cover 4 is that if you have route trees that flood as zone, they should be wide open. We didn't see that. We saw long developing crosses across the field which do work, but it was the only strategy used. In addition, KU just kept thier LB's back, waited for the cross to hit and then tackled them for a short gain.
 

Rural

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2010
38,194
28,364
113
The thing with a cover 4 is that if you have route trees that flood as zone, they should be wide open. We didn't see that. We saw long developing crosses across the field which do work, but it was the only strategy used. In addition, KU just kept thier LB's back, waited for the cross to hit and then tackled them for a short gain.

The kid, in general , holds the ball way too long.

We are really slow at things for trying to throw 4 yard passes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carlisle Clone

ZRF

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2015
928
610
93
The thing with a cover 4 is that if you have route trees that flood as zone, they should be wide open. We didn't see that. We saw long developing crosses across the field which do work, but it was the only strategy used. In addition, KU just kept thier LB's back, waited for the cross to hit and then tackled them for a short gain.

There's two reasons why those don't "work" (at least consistently for us).

We run minimal protection sets with some of the narrowest splits in college football. Teams have figured this out; Baylor used very wide splits to give their ends rushing angles and KU followed suit. Because of those narrow splits, the ends aren't even that wide (narrower than what they would be to angle toward the QB). It puts INSANE pressure for our tackles to get off the ball immediately and create/preserve some semblance of a pocket and that's NOT happening. Dekkers is under pressure in under 2 seconds on a large majority of the snaps.

This means he's needing to throw the ball quickly. The problem is those long developing routes don't work with our protection. When you watch the film many of our guys aren't even IN to their breaks, thus not available targets. It's putting a young quarterback in a position to fail. Considering how poor the schema is Dekkers has performed admirably, though he needs to learn (in this offense) to throw the ball away more,

I'm not sure what games/film Campbell and Manning are watching as it apparently isn't the same as the games I have. We have GOT to put some TEs/blockers on the line to chip the ends and/or widen the splits. We are making it WAY too easy for opposing ends to lineup outside our tackles, angle toward our QB (in a standing stance), and tee off on Dekkers. We also need to give our QB more hot route options. We can't have 5 guys running 3-4 second routes when he has to have the ball out in two. Manning also has WAY too many guys running to the same level of the field. Can we make it any easier for a team to defend 4-5 receivers with minimal defenders? Guys are able to peel off their man and turn every throw into a "double coverage" situation.

Now, in theory, the defensive alignments should/could be neutralized with running at/inside the ends. The offensive line has been abysmal to get any sore of forward push. It's time for the staff to acknowledge the obvious and make proper adjustments. If they don't, it's going to be a VERY ugly season.
 

isufbcurt

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2006
22,515
30,896
113
43
Newton
The thing with a cover 4 is that if you have route trees that flood as zone, they should be wide open. We didn't see that. We saw long developing crosses across the field which do work, but it was the only strategy used. In addition, KU just kept thier LB's back, waited for the cross to hit and then tackled them for a short gain.

Long developing routes have been the problem for many years.

We also run to many slow developing running plays, we've had most success when we run direct fast developing running plays.
 

ScottyP

Special Teams Coordinator
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jan 24, 2007
2,863
3,671
113
Urbandale, IA via Ogden
Those shallow crossing routes take a long time to develop. If we have enough protection to complete those passes, we should have enough time to complete deeper passes.
 

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
6,581
6,738
113
I think "freaking out" is a bit strong. I think most people just want to see some acknowledgement of some sort that maybe there're changes in philosophy or changes in scheme or something. A lot of people are watching games and with their eye they can tell it's not working but there's not much acknowledgement from anyone that matters, in words or actions, that something needs to change. Speaking for myself, I've been pretty down on what we've been doing offensively for a few years now and my point was that once we don't have a top 2-3 back in college football like we had for 6 straight years, we would have some struggles. Now, we don't have that and we can't manufacture anything. So, to me, this isn't just this year as much as it's been a few years and I can't say we've gotten better at anything offensively. Hutch is great but the next two best WRs we've had here were brought in by Rhoads, the OL hasn't gotten better since Rhoads, QB has probably been better because of Purdy he turned out to not be able to play here forever. I don't necessarily want to see anyone fired or anything either but it's getting hard to imagine that after this long there's going to be a positive shift. I hope there is and I hope Manning and Campbell adjust things in the offseason and really look at what we're doing and re-work some things but I just don't know if that will happen.
There's two reasons why those don't "work" (at least consistently for us).

We run minimal protection sets with some of the narrowest splits in college football. Teams have figured this out; Baylor used very wide splits to give their ends rushing angles and KU followed suit. Because of those narrow splits, the ends aren't even that wide (narrower than what they would be to angle toward the QB). It puts INSANE pressure for our tackles to get off the ball immediately and create/preserve some semblance of a pocket and that's NOT happening. Dekkers is under pressure in under 2 seconds on a large majority of the snaps.

This means he's needing to throw the ball quickly. The problem is those long developing routes don't work with our protection. When you watch the film many of our guys aren't even IN to their breaks, thus not available targets. It's putting a young quarterback in a position to fail. Considering how poor the schema is Dekkers has performed admirably, though he needs to learn (in this offense) to throw the ball away more,

I'm not sure what games/film Campbell and Manning are watching as it apparently isn't the same as the games I have. We have GOT to put some TEs/blockers on the line to chip the ends and/or widen the splits. We are making it WAY too easy for opposing ends to lineup outside our tackles, angle toward our QB (in a standing stance), and tee off on Dekkers. We also need to give our QB more hot route options. We can't have 5 guys running 3-4 second routes when he has to have the ball out in two. Manning also has WAY too many guys running to the same level of the field. Can we make it any easier for a team to defend 4-5 receivers with minimal defenders? Guys are able to peel off their man and turn every throw into a "double coverage" situation.

Now, in theory, the defensive alignments should/could be neutralized with running at/inside the ends. The offensive line has been abysmal to get any sore of forward push. It's time for the staff to acknowledge the obvious and make proper adjustments. If they don't, it's going to be a VERY ugly season.
So WHY do we use the narrow splits in the first place? Is that to facilitate runs up the middle? Whats the theory for the uninformed?
 

Billups06

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 18, 2006
728
280
63
So WHY do we use the narrow splits in the first place? Is that to facilitate runs up the middle? Whats the theory for the uninformed?

The narrow splits were heavily utilized over the previous seasons when we we had Kolar, Allen, and Soehner. Essentially putting a hat-on-hat and getting Breece 1v1 with a DB. It was a unique scheme to prepare for with the talent we had at TE and RB as they were all threats in the passing game.

I'm surprised we've seen that 'scheme' as much as we have this year given the attrition of the players mentioned above. The narrow splits (with 2 TE and 1 FB) puts more defenders in a small space which I feel is holding our running game back (at least the last two games) and puts unneeded pressure on Dekkers.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: CascadeClone

Tre4ISU

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 30, 2008
27,251
7,593
113
Estherville
There's two reasons why those don't "work" (at least consistently for us).

We run minimal protection sets with some of the narrowest splits in college football. Teams have figured this out; Baylor used very wide splits to give their ends rushing angles and KU followed suit. Because of those narrow splits, the ends aren't even that wide (narrower than what they would be to angle toward the QB). It puts INSANE pressure for our tackles to get off the ball immediately and create/preserve some semblance of a pocket and that's NOT happening. Dekkers is under pressure in under 2 seconds on a large majority of the snaps.

This means he's needing to throw the ball quickly. The problem is those long developing routes don't work with our protection. When you watch the film many of our guys aren't even IN to their breaks, thus not available targets. It's putting a young quarterback in a position to fail. Considering how poor the schema is Dekkers has performed admirably, though he needs to learn (in this offense) to throw the ball away more,

I'm not sure what games/film Campbell and Manning are watching as it apparently isn't the same as the games I have. We have GOT to put some TEs/blockers on the line to chip the ends and/or widen the splits. We are making it WAY too easy for opposing ends to lineup outside our tackles, angle toward our QB (in a standing stance), and tee off on Dekkers. We also need to give our QB more hot route options. We can't have 5 guys running 3-4 second routes when he has to have the ball out in two. Manning also has WAY too many guys running to the same level of the field. Can we make it any easier for a team to defend 4-5 receivers with minimal defenders? Guys are able to peel off their man and turn every throw into a "double coverage" situation.

Now, in theory, the defensive alignments should/could be neutralized with running at/inside the ends. The offensive line has been abysmal to get any sore of forward push. It's time for the staff to acknowledge the obvious and make proper adjustments. If they don't, it's going to be a VERY ugly season.
My man.

Personally, I've never understood narrow splits. I suppose it would limit interior DL mobility but otherwise it seems useless. I feel the same about the wide splits as well unless you have an ultra-mobile, ultra-talented line and you're carrying that throughout the entire field.

@ZRF said basically everything I've been trying to say. Essentially, we compress the field. Now, compressing the field isn't always bad if you have the right personnel. As a 49ers/Michigan fan, I've watched Harbaugh do it for years. What you can do with that is add a bunch of gaps in short space, therefore making the defense more shallow and delivering the RB to the secondary much easy. If you're blockers are really good at what they do, this is a nightmare for opposing defenses because you either have to have your LBs play conservative and allow 5-6 yards a lot or you play them aggressively and hope your safeties clean up messes on the regular. To me, our personnel doesn't seem to fit this. I'd much rather we looked at spreading teams out to give our line a chance.

I think for this offense to find success, they have to get more vertical. Route combos need to be much more varied in their level and we're going to have to put some DBs in conflict. Right now, they face no conflict.
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron