Iowa DB DeJean

Donate To GopherHole

The post was about the running game and whether that can win a game....what does the called back interception have to do with that? See how reading comprehension works?
 

Some guy said:
That’s just flat out wrong.
Iowa plays one of the more conservative styles of defense in the nation.


They are almost exclusively 4 man rush.
Hardly ever blitz.
Hardly ever play man.
Simple zone coverages.



Being good and being aggressive aren’t the same thing
Click to expand...
I said "aggressive and opportunistic," as to Iowa's defensive style/mindset. I didn't mention blitzes, didn't specify coverage type. Iowa and Minnesota's defenses were quite similar in terms of yardage allowed, points allowed in 2022: both were among the very best in the nation. But despite this "global" stat similarity, Iowa had 87 TFLs (30th in FBS) while Minnesota had 47 (131st, dead last in FBS); Iowa had 35 sacks (27th) while Minnesota had 19 (118th); Iowa held a modest turnover advantage (23 to 19); both Iowa and Minnesota both had 15 interceptions, but Iowa ran 4 back for TDs, while Minnesota ran back 1 (against Syracuse); Iowa blocked 3 kicks, Minnesota was one of only 30 FBS teams that blocked none. Based on these meaningful differences (more pronounced in some respects like INTs and pick sixes, in 2021), I believe that Iowa plays more aggressively and opportunistically on defense, on average giving its offense somewhat better starting points in the field. Now, Iowa's offense is so frikkin' bad it rarely takes advantage of these gifts, ...
 

Gophergrandpa said:
I said "aggressive and opportunistic," as to Iowa's defensive style/mindset. I didn't mention blitzes, didn't specify coverage type. Iowa and Minnesota's defenses were quite similar in terms of yardage allowed, points allowed in 2022: both were among the very best in the nation. But despite this "global" stat similarity, Iowa had 87 TFLs (30th in FBS) while Minnesota had 47 (131st, dead last in FBS); Iowa had 35 sacks (27th) while Minnesota had 19 (118th); Iowa held a modest turnover advantage (23 to 19); both Iowa and Minnesota both had 15 interceptions, but Iowa ran 4 back for TDs, while Minnesota ran back 1 (against Syracuse); Iowa blocked 3 kicks, Minnesota was one of only 30 FBS teams that blocked none. Based on these meaningful differences (more pronounced in some respects like INTs and pick sixes, in 2021), I believe that Iowa plays more aggressively and opportunistically on defense, on average giving its offense somewhat better starting points in the field. Now, Iowa's offense is so frikkin' bad it rarely takes advantage of these gifts, ...
Click to expand...

You'll have to define "aggressive" then.

Creating TFL's, sacks, interceptions isn't a result of some aggressive Iowa scheme. It is actually the opposite.
 

tjgopher said:
You'll have to define "aggressive" then.

Creating TFL's, sacks, interceptions isn't a result of some aggressive Iowa scheme. It is actually the opposite.
Click to expand...
OK, how about this: "Iowa's defense is much more successful than the Gophers' at producing tackles for loss, sacks, pick sixes, blocked kicks and other disruptive stuff. Iowa is able to do this because they scheme to play the opposite of aggressively." Are we good?
 


Gophergrandpa said:
OK, how about this: "Iowa's defense is much more successful than the Gophers' at producing tackles for loss, sacks, pick sixes, blocked kicks and other disruptive stuff. Iowa is able to do this because they scheme to play the opposite of aggressively." Are we good?
Click to expand...

Yes, you've got it now.
 

Gophergrandpa said:
OK, how about this: "Iowa's defense is much more successful than the Gophers' at producing tackles for loss, sacks, pick sixes, blocked kicks and other disruptive stuff. Iowa is able to do this because they scheme to play the opposite of aggressively." Are we good?
Click to expand...
That’s true
But it isn’t what you said before which is why I responded to you
 

Some guy said:
That’s true
But it isn’t what you said before which is why I responded to you
Click to expand...
I was trying to please tjgopher with this new formulation. He and I agree on the basic stats (objective facts) about Iowa vs Minnesota defense, but we are somewhat at variance about what aggressive defensive play means. I’ve moved on. The stats are the stats. They mean something. I’ll let them speak for themselves.
 

Gophergrandpa said:
I was trying to please tjgopher with this new formulation. He and I agree on the basic stats (objective facts) about Iowa vs Minnesota defense, but we are somewhat at variance about what aggressive defensive play means. I’ve moved on. The stats are the stats. They mean something. I’ll let them speak for themselves.
Click to expand...
He and you aren’t in disagreement
You are in disagreement with the rest of society

A defense that doesn’t change what they do much and doesn’t blitz isn’t considered by anyone except you to be an “aggressive defense”
 



Some guy said:
That’s true
But it isn’t what you said before which is why I responded to you
Click to expand...
I actually think that the “opposite” of aggressively is passively. I’m giving you an alternate formulation so that you and I can move on instead of arguing semantics. I don’t actually believe that Iowa plays the “opposite” of aggressively. But we both can agree that, whatever the heck you want to call what Iowa does, it produces lots of TFLs, sacks, pick sixes and blocked kicks; and, whatever the heck you want to call what the Gophers do, it doesn’t produce much of those things. Those are objective facts.
 

Gophergrandpa said:
I actually think that the “opposite” of aggressively is passively. I’m giving you an alternate formulation so that you and I can move on instead of arguing semantics. I don’t actually believe that Iowa plays the “opposite” of aggressively. But we both can agree that, whatever the heck you want to call what Iowa does, it produces lots of TFLs, sacks, pick sixes and blocked kicks; and, whatever the heck you want to call what the Gophers do, it doesn’t produce much of those things. Those are objective facts.
Click to expand...
Lol

You are right you really are arguing semantics.


Iowa is one of the most conservative defenses in the country whether you like it or not
 

Some guy said:
He and you aren’t in disagreement
You are in disagreement with the rest of society

A defense that doesn’t change what they do much and doesn’t blitz isn’t considered by anyone except you to be an “aggressive defense”
Click to expand...
I think a defense that gets tons of TFLs, sacks and pick sixes is playing aggressively … it isn’t waiting for play to come to it. Iowa plays the same most of the time, aggressively attacking the offense. In this respect I disagree with all of society, I guess.

I wish, then, that the Gophers would start playing a really “conservative” defense so we could get some darn TFLs, sacks, pick sizes and blocked kicks.
 
Last edited:

Gophergrandpa said:
I think a defense that gets tons of TFLs, sacks and pick sixes is playing aggressively … it isn’t waiting for play to come to it. Iowa plays the same most of the time, aggressively attacking the offense. In this respect I disagree with all of society, I guess.

I wish, then, that the Gophers would start playing a really “conservative” defense so we could get some darn TFLs, sacks, pick sizes and blocked kicks.
Click to expand...
The gophers also play a conservative defense. Not quite as conservative as Iowa IMO.

Every football player plays “aggressively” by nature of the sport.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom