Kansas Game Thoughts (Defense specifically)

[CoachHines3]

not shocking

 

[CascadeClone]

And I'm sure this is going to be a hated take, but even before all the injuries... I've never been super impressed with our LB room. From a purely athletic standpoint. From a character, work ethic, etc, there's no issues there.

But from an ability to run laterally side to side and cover ground? Or be able to be a deep dropper in the pass game?

I think this is kind of by design. The safeties are basically faster, lighter LBs in this system, aren't they?

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

So, we were not injured versus West Virginia, and Baylor? Or even Tech last week, who has a pretty good offense and needed a last second TD to score 23? UCF essentially scored 21. West Virginia had what, 16?

So I'm sorry, the injury thing is valid, of course.

But its also a cop out. Because we've been injured for a while now and largely we were still playing well defensively. Largely.


It comes down to two-3 things which aren't easy but are true.

1) We 've not developed a pass rusher since Will McDonald. We tried to address it in the portal, I know, but in terms of recruitment, we don't apparently have anyone who at least on 3rd down, can win consistently.

2) I've already talked about our LB's and their overall limitations. The injuries and experience make that part worse but even with our starters.. again. They're not conference title winning standard IMO.

3) Our secondary, while very good, outside of Porter, lacks top end speed for corners and safeties.



This defensive scheme is designed to hide all of that. Through confusion, being unique, etc.

When you get found out, it looks really bad.

Long term... we've got to become more athletic on defense. We're not competing with Texas and Alabama or even Tech whose spending big. But we need to be able to upgrade there. Because right now it feels like anytime there is a hole in a run fit or coverage, its a TD. Not a 40 yard gain but just a straight TD.

Our secondary wasn't getting beat because of speed, they were giving up huge plays because they were blowing their coverage assignments. Just my two cents but it looks like our secondary knows we have a huge void in the second layer and they are getting sucked up to try to help. That opens things up over the top big time.

 

[CyGuy5]

Our secondary wasn't getting beat because of speed, they were giving up huge plays because they were blowing their coverage assignments. Just my two cents but it looks like our secondary knows we have a huge void in the second layer and they are getting sucked up to try to help. That opens things up over the top big time.

This was pretty evident on Kansas’ first TD. That ball was thrown right to where Freyler should have been but instead he was way out of position. Thought it was going to be a free pick until I realized the ball was way over his head

 

[ScottyP]

I'm so sick of the multiple TEs at this point. Klotz is the only one that blocks well and he is playing on one leg (according to Campbell).

Does the staff not trust any receivers besides Noel, Higgins and Brown? The rest are only used as blockers.

 

[MartyFine]

Injuries have taken their toll on the defense. I'm not sure lining up with 4, 5, or 6 D-lineman was going to change anything Saturday. Credit to Daniels also.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

I don't know what people think JH needs to do but our LB situation is driving our defensive issues. His scheme relies heavily on the LB's and the star position to make plays. The D lines job is to chew up blockers and create favorable numbers for the LB's to make plays. Even when our LB's blitz you can see that there is some uncertainty and delay. Long story sort, the game is just WAY too fast for those boys right now and they need time to develop. Our second level doesn't have an interception all season and they've forced 1 fumble.

 

[Clark]

Oh, and just for clarity, there's nothing about a 3-3 set that says you can't generate pressure. It just requires great athletes to do so organically. It's pretty rare that we only rush 3 guys, we often send an LB from somewhere -- but the talent gap there prevents them from regularly making plays.

This is the thing, most good pressure teams in the NFL have 3 man fronts (though generally more 3-4 than 3-3, but that too is changing) The problem is more personnel related though I do wonder why it doesn't seem like ISU has a dedicated pass rushing linebacker like Wisconsin had with Van Ginkel or Leo Chenal. That level of player doesn't grow on trees obviously but the undersized d-end/oversized linebacker isn't exactly rare in these parts.

When we switched to the 3-3-5 years back, Campbell said it was to get his best 11 players on the field. Well, this must no longer apply because going with 3 linebackers right now is not getting your best 11 on the field.

A 4-2-5 would make so much more sense. But we all know how stubborn Campbell is with the "if it's broke let's keep doing it" philosophy. It's getting pretty old, to be honest.

Heacock and ISU have gotten so much notoriety from popularizing the 3-3-5 that I wonder if subconsciously that is having an impact.

They may also not have the right types of defensive tackles to run a 4 man front, it's a much different role than a nose guard in a 3 man front.

 

[1SEIACLONE]

Out of all the things we can complain about, the lack of OL development still continues to cost us....look at what Leipold has done in just a few seasons at Kansas (I understand this year has not been great from a wins and losses perspective but they've all been close losses)....KU's OL bullied our DL (PLEASE STOP RUSHING 3).

KU's OL is more developed than ours in just 4 seasons and Campbell's had 9 seasons to get this thing at least respectable and it continues to be bad. I'm not calling for Campbell's head but you can understand the frustration there.

And the offensive play calling still leaves a lot to be desired....let's be real, this isn't a Mouse thing, Campbell loves bland and boring football...that's great if you have an OL who can block and your rushers can get chunk yardage...the sad reality though is once Kansas got up 14-7, I knew we had already lost....yes we came back against Iowa and UCF, but their offenses are not nearly as good as Kansas'.

KU has a better offensive scheme than we do because they incorporate the QB running the ball into the offense, which ISU has refused to do since we had Purdy running it in his first year out of an RPO set. In the world we live in the QB in college football has to run the ball, it just creates so many more problems for the defense to prepare for, and I am not talking about a QB that scrambles and tucks the ball and runs while passes, but designed QB runs. For some reason this staff is afraid to expose our QB to running with it, most likely to protect him from injury, but you have to do it to keep the defense honest. You do that by running QB boots, RPO's and even a QB draw out of a passing set when they are playing man to man.

 

[FeedBreece]

I think we’re all aware that injuries have taken a toll. But how does the defense go from still being able to play at a very high level the way it was through much of the Tech game, to that? I get a couple more guys were out, but not to that extent where you would expect that major of a drop off.

 

[1SEIACLONE]

I think we’re all aware that injuries have taken a toll. But how does the defense go from still being able to play at a very high level the way it was through much of the Tech game, to that? I get a couple more guys were out, but not to that extent where you would expect that major of a drop off.

The defense had a bad game and the staff of KU exposed and took advantage of it. They kept running their wideouts on deep corner patterns and that caused Freyler to either choose one side or the other to cover, and the QB had so much time in the pocket that he would then throw the ball to the other side. When the LBers started to drop to help out, KU would then throw to the slot receiver cutting underneath. When the QB can just sit in the pocket and scan the field to find the open guy, the DB's really have no chance to stop the pass unless the QB makes a poor decision. That is why teams put pressure on the QB and do not give him time, which we are not doing while rushing only 3 players.

 

[Trashman12345]

It’s a failure of coaching honestly to think the players we have can effectively run this defensive scheme. Our linebackers were playing 1A football 1-2 years ago. Maybe change the game plan

Along with the inexperienced LB's...how long has the LB coach been coaching that position?..

 

[harimad]

I thought today was by far the toughest Cyclone game I have watched in about two years (this and the Memphis bowl game most likely). Offense to me was not the primary problem. The running game was fair, and I could argue Hansen should have had more carries. Rocco's one int was bad, but he did lead drives for points.

Defense - friends of the Cyclone fanatic board, I want to have an honest discussion about our defense and the way it's currently constructed. I have had it with the 3 man front defense. I welcome your feedback too. Reasons listed below:

1) Sacks are one of the defense equivalents of "explosive plays" for that side of the ball. See below, we are ranked #109th in total defensive sacks this year. The teams ranked around/near us in the 109th in sacks you ask? Virginia, Rutgers, South Alabama. Not exactly great programs. We have had weeks this year with zero sacks, and today was one of those games.

NCAA College Football FBS current team Stats | NCAA.com

Discover the current NCAA FBS Football leaders in every stats category, as well as historic leaders.

www.ncaa.com

2) 3 man front Personnel Issue- I would submit if you have an Enyi Uwazurike in the middle (NFL player), and a Will McDonald (budding star NFL guy), you can absolutely do the 3 man front. It worked, because those guys were so damn good. They freed up everyone else in the linebacker level and secondary to play well too. JR Singleton is a nice player, so is Dom Orange - but we do not have the stars on the D line to play like this.

3) 3 man front Scheme Issue (rush defense) - Today we are playing Kansas. Kansas has a dual threat quarterback and NFL caliber running back. Why, oh why would we willingly give up a massive advantage to them on running plays? They got 6 yards automatically per carry b/c we had 3 down linemen and they had 5 men blocking. Our linebackers are not good enough in space with this scheme, and its kicking the crap out of guys like Dom and JR, asking them to butt heads with a guard and center on every play. (2 on 1)

4) 3 man front Scheme Issue (pass defense) - Today was a rough day for the secondary. It was rough in part b/c we got zero pressure on the quarterback. Skinner is a heck of a WR. However, when we rush 3 and we ask Myles Purchase to cover for 6 seconds, is that fair to him? I would say that we ask our corners to do too much sometimes in asking them to cover for so long. I have seen enough of 3 down lineman play patty cake with offensive tackles and the QB has enough time to make a sandwhich in the pocket.

There are some nice pieces at linebacker for us too. I like Beau Goodwin, and Cael Brezina, and Ebel. But in sticking to a 3 man front that means more pressure on the LBs. Should we be putting more pressure on the LBs with the injury situation right now?

Maybe i'm off on this one. We better have a couple of transfers incoming at Linebacker and at Defensive End. The current guys are making it hard against talented squads like Kansas. The Kennard Snyder guy is nowhere to be found, neither is Ikenna Ezeogu.

I've spoken about this before in game threads. But my personal feeling is this: the whole reason Heacock switched to a 3-3 front was that he felt his best players were on the sideline because of scheme. So he changed the scheme and got his horses on the field. The results were amazing, to the point that he had other coaches coming to camps to learn more about it.

I've been waiting for him to make a similar move this year because of all the injuries to the linebackers and it's been frustrating to watch him stick to the scheme instead of the personnel.

I don't know that our best players are our defensive linemen; but I certainly know they currently aren't the linebackers. I'm not sure why he stood pat with a historic season on the line. And now that opportunity is gone.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

I think we’re all aware that injuries have taken a toll. But how does the defense go from still being able to play at a very high level the way it was through much of the Tech game, to that? I get a couple more guys were out, but not to that extent where you would expect that major of a drop off.

Zero pressure on the QB. Some of the route tree's KU was able to run was insane.

 

[isucy86]

I don't know what people think JH needs to do but our LB situation is driving our defensive issues. His scheme relies heavily on the LB's and the star position to make plays. The D lines job is to chew up blockers and create favorable numbers for the LB's to make plays. Even when our LB's blitz you can see that there is some uncertainty and delay. Long story sort, the game is just WAY too fast for those boys right now and they need time to develop. Our second level doesn't have an interception all season and they've forced 1 fumble.

I feel the delay rush is intentional a good share of the time. Either the LB is acting as a spy or he is waiting to see if there is a designed roll-out and then comes strong.

Personally, I hate when we go with a spy. Feel like it creates an 11 on 10 (defenders) situation because that spy is not a pass defender. And unless the QB actually runs, he's not providing any pass rush.

 

[isucy86]

KU has a better offensive scheme than we do because they incorporate the QB running the ball into the offense, which ISU has refused to do since we had Purdy running it in his first year out of an RPO set. In the world we live in the QB in college football has to run the ball, it just creates so many more problems for the defense to prepare for, and I am not talking about a QB that scrambles and tucks the ball and runs while passes, but designed QB runs. For some reason this staff is afraid to expose our QB to running with it, most likely to protect him from injury, but you have to do it to keep the defense honest. You do that by running QB boots, RPO's and even a QB draw out of a passing set when they are playing man to man.

The staff would probably love a Jaylon Daniels type threat a QB. But it's hard to find guys who can run AND pass at such a high level. Just look around college football and it seems like 80% of the dual threat 4/5 star QB's are busts at the college level because they aren't college throwers.

So I feel like the staff is always going to recruit and play their best throwing QB. Because the reality is in above average offenses, the QB is an above average thrower. But he doesn't have to be a running threat. Obviously, option QB's are the inverse.

 

[cymac2408]

I was just going to respond with the injuries to the LBs, and if I'm not mistaken our DL has seen some of that as well, which means our front 6 is decimated. That means the secondary has to get more involved in the run game, which, combined with the front 6 getting virtually no pressure, leaves the passing game wide open.

And I know people want to say "just try something other than the 3-3-5" - but 1. scheme isn't going to help much when you're already scraping the bottom of the barrel to find healthy bodies just to fill positions; and 2. introducing a new defensive scheme nearing the end of the season when your defense has been practicing and playing one scheme for their entire career at ISU probably isn't going to have the positive effect people think.

I believe at the beginning of the year CMC stated that we were going to see more 4 man front. Which would mean that they had been practicing a 4 man front. IMO it would be a failure to any coaching staff to not practice another scheme in case another coaching staff has solved your initial scheme.

 

[1SEIACLONE]

The staff would probably love a Jaylon Daniels type threat a QB. But it's hard to find guys who can run AND pass at such a high level. Just look around college football and it seems like 80% of the dual threat 4/5 star QB's are busts at the college level because they aren't college throwers.

So I feel like the staff is always going to recruit and play their best throwing QB. Because the reality is in above average offenses, the QB is an above average thrower. But he doesn't have to be a running threat. Obviously, option QB's are the inverse.

I agree I would rather have a QB that can throw over running the ball, but KSU did a lot of running the ball with Howard over the past couple of years and he is not what I would call a duel threat QB. Everyone wants to say you need a Lamar Jackson to do it, no, you need a scheme that allows the QB to run the ball enough to keep the defense from crashing down. Purdy was a great runner that first season and then we took that away from him, wanting him to give the ball and not take the hits.

 

[SolarGarlic]

I think we’re all aware that injuries have taken a toll. But how does the defense go from still being able to play at a very high level the way it was through much of the Tech game, to that? I get a couple more guys were out, but not to that extent where you would expect that major of a drop off.

Smith at safety is clearly a massive downgrade from Verdon. He was bad against UCF and unplayable against KU.

 

[CyPack]

KU scored on 6 straight possessions and 5 of those were touchdowns. Thats unbelievable, even with the injuries on defense. I do think there is something to the 3 man front and not getting any sort of pressure on the QB and having difficulty against the run. At this point it just isn't working the way it did a few years ago. I think at least for the rest of the season moving primarily to a 4 man front would put the best guys on the field and limit the LBs on the field and allow the best or healthiest 2 out there.

At this point in time there HAS to be a change, continuing the same thing after what happened against KU would be insanity. They do run 4 man fronts occasionally as a change up but I think they need to go the other way and run a 4 man front primarily and then switch a 3 man a few times as a change up. Gotta do something. Here's hoping they are willing to do it.