I do not understand.

[wartknight]

I'm not a doctor of the zone read, help me out here ont he first two plays. Could we have gotten better results if SR pulls it out and takes it outside?

View attachment 21972 View attachment 21971

Yes. No question. First play should have been a keep on SR's part. DE is slowplaying the read and if he can't outrun a DE then we shouldn't be running the offense anyway.

2nd play appears to be a "key" read meaning they are reading the LB. This can be a play call or an adjustment that happens if the LB is stacked or outside the box. What I'm wondering about here is if the OL is blocking the adjustment but SR didn't get the call. Usually the rule on Zone read is if the read key is being blocked, the QB should give. Without a pre-snap look on this though I'm not sure what the call should have been. Usually when ISU is reading LB's though there is some sort of route combo, either a 5 yard route where the LB was or a key screen on the edge. If this play is what I think it is, the key (now screen in some terminologies) should be thrown to the #1 WR since the LB is hanging in the box.
If you have the rest of play 2, does the #1 WR stop and wait for ball or does he continue blocking?

 

[The_Architect]

I'm not a doctor of the zone read, help me out here ont he first two plays. Could we have gotten better results if SR pulls it out and takes it outside?

View attachment 21972 View attachment 21971

The worst part about these two images is that on designed run plays the offensive line is already pushed back 1-2 yards behind the LOS. Those plays were going nowhere, period. Iowa owned the point of attack. Jet Sweeps were the only prayer we had running the ball.

 

[wartknight]

The worst part about these two images is that on designed run plays the offensive line is already pushed back 1-2 yards behind the LOS. Those plays were going nowhere, period. Iowa owned the point of attack. Jet Sweeps were the only prayer we had running the ball.

Actually I just watched the play. If SR keeps the ball he runs forever. The poor read on the backside DE forces the play wide where it is not designed to go. We got a huge push from the left side of the line and swallowed up the MLB for Iowa too, would have been a huge cutback lane (designed exactly this way on an inside zone run) had the DE not been squeezing. Because the DE is squeezing, SR should have kept. Boesen has the LB sealed in. SR keeps the ball and its him on a Safety after a 5 yard gain.

2nd play was just a plain zone read as well from a different formation. Unless he has been coached up not to, there is absolutely no reason for him not to keep the ball on this play.
Takes a ton of pressure off the OL if the QB is making the right reads

 

[Aclone]

Lots of insightful comment here.

I wonder, though, never having been a football coach...

Just curious. If you have three of your offensive linemen who are making either their first or second career starts, including your center (who spent all last season as a tackle), wouldn't it make sense to spend the first few series rushing the ball, in order to give them a chance to get their feet on the ground? Establish some sort of rhythm and sense of continuity?

I mean, I'd say that in some ways the benefits would be more long term than immediate--testing themselves against a solid interior, so that they learn where they need to work and make improvements, that kind of thing--but that would imply that, say, conference play is more important than the Iowa game...

Just wondering. I've never been an OL coach, let alone an OC, and I played basketball, not football. I do know, however, that there are reasons you continually feed the low post--even if your post player isn't immediately successful.

 

[BigLame]

Actually I just watched the play. If SR keeps the ball he runs forever. The poor read on the backside DE forces the play wide where it is not designed to go. We got a huge push from the left side of the line and swallowed up the MLB for Iowa too, would have been a huge cutback lane (designed exactly this way on an inside zone run) had the DE not been squeezing. Because the DE is squeezing, SR should have kept. Boesen has the LB sealed in. SR keeps the ball and its him on a Safety after a 5 yard gain.

2nd play was just a plain zone read as well from a different formation. Unless he has been coached up not to, there is absolutely no reason for him not to keep the ball on this play.
Takes a ton of pressure off the OL if the QB is making the right reads

So our QB is dinged up - do we really want to rely on him making reads that may yet continue for him to keep the ball? As was stated before, the recipe is out there for our offense. When ISU runs zone read, make the QB have to keep the ball. Iowa did this, and our QB did not keep the ball. Was he doing this as a result of poor reads, or was he doing this knowing he couldn't run very well due to being nicked up? Either way, it is not a good strategy. Hell, it basically is an absence of strategy. Only after 2 & 1/2 quarters of play did we show any consistent jet-sweep look. This opened up more than any of the zone reads in the first half. Later in the game (can't remember if 3rd qtr or 4th qtr) we ran more of a true option look, Sam kept it & had a decent run for a 1st down. That was a good play and it was because by then, Sam had not kept the ball that much.

I understand trying to be who we are (ISU football doing so). ISU is right now committed to being a zone-read team and will continue to run it. The Iowa game was evidence of that. No matter what, we will run the zone-read, even if our QB is dinged up and cannot run well, doggone it, we will still continue to run the zone-read. The QB was dinged up & it even affected his throwing, but heck, we are still going to have him run the ball as much as possible too. If this is the case, Sam should have sat & Rohach should have started. I was not in that camp before, but after looking over everything, if we are what we are (a zone read team no matter what), then we definitely should have made that choice.

 

[ThatllDoCy]

If Sam had an option to throw on the first play after reading the defense, he should have taken it. If he was instructed to hand it off not matter what it is on play calling.

It's really hard to understand how we do not know how to plan and execute an Offense that they have been working on all spring/fall, for at least one drive.

 

[klamath632]

I'm not a doctor of the zone read, help me out here ont he first two plays. Could we have gotten better results if SR pulls it out and takes it outside?

Most doctors will tell you that pulling it out and taking it outside is not a viable method.

 

[The_Architect]

Actually I just watched the play. If SR keeps the ball he runs forever. The poor read on the backside DE forces the play wide where it is not designed to go. We got a huge push from the left side of the line and swallowed up the MLB for Iowa too, would have been a huge cutback lane (designed exactly this way on an inside zone run) had the DE not been squeezing. Because the DE is squeezing, SR should have kept. Boesen has the LB sealed in. SR keeps the ball and its him on a Safety after a 5 yard gain.

2nd play was just a plain zone read as well from a different formation. Unless he has been coached up not to, there is absolutely no reason for him not to keep the ball on this play.
Takes a ton of pressure off the OL if the QB is making the right reads

Good stuff.

 

[khardbored]

So our QB is dinged up - do we really want to rely on him making reads that may yet continue for him to keep the ball? As was stated before, the recipe is out there for our offense. When ISU runs zone read, make the QB have to keep the ball. Iowa did this, and our QB did not keep the ball. Was he doing this as a result of poor reads, or was he doing this knowing he couldn't run very well due to being nicked up? Either way, it is not a good strategy. Hell, it basically is an absence of strategy. Only after 2 & 1/2 quarters of play did we show any consistent jet-sweep look. This opened up more than any of the zone reads in the first half. Later in the game (can't remember if 3rd qtr or 4th qtr) we ran more of a true option look, Sam kept it & had a decent run for a 1st down. That was a good play and it was because by then, Sam had not kept the ball that much.

I understand trying to be who we are (ISU football doing so). ISU is right now committed to being a zone-read team and will continue to run it. The Iowa game was evidence of that. No matter what, we will run the zone-read, even if our QB is dinged up and cannot run well, doggone it, we will still continue to run the zone-read. The QB was dinged up & it even affected his throwing, but heck, we are still going to have him run the ball as much as possible too. If this is the case, Sam should have sat & Rohach should have started. I was not in that camp before, but after looking over everything, if we are what we are (a zone read team no matter what), then we definitely should have made that choice.

This seems to me to be exactly right. You just can't run the zone read unless you have a mobile QB. If your QB is gimpy, it takes away roughly half your options.

Is it possible that Iowa knew SR was banged up coming into the game, and the players were instructed to take away the hand-off? (forcing the poor guy to run on 1 foot?)

The only POSSIBLE reason an OC would do this, as far as I can see, is the "identity" thing mentioned above. (ie, the idea being "it's worth it to get the experience" even though it will likely cost you the game) Even if that's the case (and that would be giving Mess a lot of credit . . .), I doubt it's worth it.

 

[Yellow Snow]

This seems to me to be exactly right. You just can't run the zone read unless you have a mobile QB. If your QB is gimpy, it takes away roughly half your options.

Is it possible that Iowa knew SR was banged up coming into the game, and the players were instructed to take away the hand-off? (forcing the poor guy to run on 1 foot?)

The only POSSIBLE reason an OC would do this, as far as I can see, is the "identity" thing mentioned above. (ie, the idea being "it's worth it to get the experience" even though it will likely cost you the game) Even if that's the case (and that would be giving Mess a lot of credit . . .), I doubt it's worth it.

I'm more of the belief that Sam told Mess he was "good to go" before the game. What player wouldn't say that? Unless i couldn't walk, i'd say "coach, i'm fine". Sure, my ankle may be sore, but until I get out there and give it a shot, i'm ALWAYS going to say i can play.

It's quite possible Mess called the first two plays assuming Sam could be effective running the ball. Perhaps Sam even told him so? The fact that Sam missed the reads that would have led to some solid positive yardage isn't necessarily on Mess. Now, if I was Mess, I would have revisited the "are you OK" conversation after the first series was over because for whatever reason Sam didn't do the right thing.

 

[CycloneBob]

Thanks to all the informative posts concerning execution or lack of it. Here's the point, though, as seen by 99% of the fans that don't have that depth of knowledge. In attending ISU football for close to 50 yrs., I don't recall the fan base as pumped as they were for the UNI opening game. Result - the team laid an egg!. The team had 2 weeks to right the ship, show some adjustment. The fan base came, again, but not as pumped as for the first game. Result - the defense showed some improvement but overall the team laid another egg. Now, the team has close to another 2 weeks to show some improvement and promise. Result - ???? While some fans get into the "X & O's", 99% don't; they just want to see a good product. We better see an improved product, or we're going to loose a lot of the fan support that took years to get.

 

[Tre4ISU]

This has enraged me throughout the Rhoads era.

I do not understand why you take the ball, unless offense is your clear strength. It never has been under Rhoads, but he insists on taking the ball anyway. I see no advantage. If you defer, you get to come out and hit your opponent first, setting the tone, and you get the ball to start the second half. IMO, that is a gigantic advantage in a close game.

I agree. I would also like to know how many times our defense has allowed a TD on the opening drive. My pure guess would be not much.