Great stuff here from Jay. I learned a lot. Enjoy!
https://cyclonefanatic.com/2017/09/the-sunday-after-uni/
https://cyclonefanatic.com/2017/09/the-sunday-after-uni/
(New feature) The Sunday After: UNI
- Thread starter ChrisMWilliams
- Start date
Thanks for the great content Chris. Excellent analysis and great use of the videos. I was really concerned about the front 7 after watching that first UNI drive, but Lima and the linebackers really settled in. I have really learned to appreciate run fits by a defense. Too many times in recent years our defenders ran themselves out of plays or into poor angles.
I'm not sure if we can totally play Iowa's game against them, but we have to find a way to grind at least 100-125 yards or so on the ground to have a chance. I also expect to see a lot more of DeShaunte Jones.
I'm not sure if we can totally play Iowa's game against them, but we have to find a way to grind at least 100-125 yards or so on the ground to have a chance. I also expect to see a lot more of DeShaunte Jones.
I completely agree on the bubble screens. They can't be a staple, but I like it when they are taking what the defense gives them, the play-action is huge. I'm thinking playcalling was conservative because we don't need to show everything against UNI.
Articles like this is why everyone should donate on Patreon.
I agree. These plays are more risky than they may appear. Once, the pass to Lazard was inadvertently thrown backwards (for a potential fumble). Once, the receiver was crushed as he received the pass (again, potential for a fumble). Almost always these were low yardage plays. If they are "like a running play", then run the ball wide on a pitchout. (like ISU did to start the second half, for a big gainer.
Insightful stuff.
I like the analysis of “effective” vs. “Ineffective” bubble screen.
“More often it is stoned as the horizontal action takes too long to develop and the blocking receiver has a poor blocking angle. It is a conservative and ill-conceived play that has been proliferated in college football, much to my chagrin …. with example of “only type of this kind of play I advocate”: The play action creates a flow that is in conflict with the delivery of the horizontal pass AND the horizontal pass is thrown with vertical movement in progress.“
I like the analysis of “effective” vs. “Ineffective” bubble screen.
“More often it is stoned as the horizontal action takes too long to develop and the blocking receiver has a poor blocking angle. It is a conservative and ill-conceived play that has been proliferated in college football, much to my chagrin …. with example of “only type of this kind of play I advocate”: The play action creates a flow that is in conflict with the delivery of the horizontal pass AND the horizontal pass is thrown with vertical movement in progress.“
Great analysis. I learned quite a bit, and was surprised by Jay's suggested way to attack Iowa. Not sure I totally agree with that yet by the way, but it was definitely intriguing to think about.
I generally agree on the horizontal pass game. I've always HATED the horizontal passing game. Last night it about got our WRs killed on numerous occasions, and had one of them went down with an injury, or led to a fumble or INT, I would have been ticked off with the coaching staff.
With that being said, this coaching staff knows 100x more than I do, so I figure they know what they're doing. So is it the case that even if these plays may not gain much, they can still be very effective in stretching the defense out from sideline to sideline and therefore opening up the middle more? That's the only thing I can think of why you'd run them. And for whatever reason, ISU has ALWAYS been terrible at blocking them, no matter what coaching staff we've had.
Now..... about the next game. With Iowa's very stout front 7, and ISU's inability to run very well against even UNI last night, and Iowa's questionable DBs.... the consensus would be for ISU to have to come out against Iowa and pass, pass, pass, and then pass again. So it's interesting to hear Jay's opposite take on this. I don't agree with him that we need to run twice as much as we pass, but I will say that if we can't at least make the run game a threat and if we become completely one dimensional, we will lose. So we will have to be able to run.... at least a little bit.
I generally agree on the horizontal pass game. I've always HATED the horizontal passing game. Last night it about got our WRs killed on numerous occasions, and had one of them went down with an injury, or led to a fumble or INT, I would have been ticked off with the coaching staff.
With that being said, this coaching staff knows 100x more than I do, so I figure they know what they're doing. So is it the case that even if these plays may not gain much, they can still be very effective in stretching the defense out from sideline to sideline and therefore opening up the middle more? That's the only thing I can think of why you'd run them. And for whatever reason, ISU has ALWAYS been terrible at blocking them, no matter what coaching staff we've had.
Now..... about the next game. With Iowa's very stout front 7, and ISU's inability to run very well against even UNI last night, and Iowa's questionable DBs.... the consensus would be for ISU to have to come out against Iowa and pass, pass, pass, and then pass again. So it's interesting to hear Jay's opposite take on this. I don't agree with him that we need to run twice as much as we pass, but I will say that if we can't at least make the run game a threat and if we become completely one dimensional, we will lose. So we will have to be able to run.... at least a little bit.
I would like to see one of these vertical passes with a pump fake sometime. Just seems like teams line up deep to make it look like the play is available, and then move up or charge the LOS when the ball is snapped. Might be able to run right past the DB for a huge play.
On the clip showing Montgomery's running play (the one where he bowls over a defender), I think he's lucky that he didn't draw a penalty for initiating helmet contact. He really ducked his head in there and delivered a smack.
For some reason spearing rarely gets called on the ball carrier. I remember an ISU db getting called for spearing an Iowa TE on a helmet to helmet hit where the TE was the one that put his head down.
Nice read. Thank you for the content. Really helps to explain things that the common football fan like myself don't pick up on while watching the game.
Really good stuff.
IIRC the years ISU has beaten Iowa they've been able to run a bit so it makes sense.
And the way ISU is going to be able to beat the fast paced Big 12 teams is to play in a way that disrupts their rhythm, i.e. running the ball and making things difficult up front. May as well get reps at it this week.
IIRC the years ISU has beaten Iowa they've been able to run a bit so it makes sense.
And the way ISU is going to be able to beat the fast paced Big 12 teams is to play in a way that disrupts their rhythm, i.e. running the ball and making things difficult up front. May as well get reps at it this week.
I'm an idiot. But wouldn't trying to beat Iowa at their own game be equivalent to McGregor trying to beat Mayweather by out boxing him?
