We must be, again, one of the smaller lines in the conference.

I’m really curious to see if our new OC implements the ‘packaged plays” concept, which would make good use of agile, quick ensemble play up front. It makes sense if only because of our RB situation, the maturity of the QB, and Davis’ sabbatical and up-tempo preference.

“Oklahoma State’s favorite “run package” was to combine an inside running play, like the inside zone, with both a quick receiver screen to one side and an individual route to a singled-up Justin Blackmon. It made for a kind of three-on-one fast break adapted to football.”

More on ‘packaged-plays’, here:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8287610/packaged-plays-rethinking-concept-modern-play-calling

Jalen Chambers isn’t on the official roster yet; where’s he from? cf. http://www.hawkeyesports.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/iowa-m-footbl-mtt.html

Marc, wasn’t Nolan MacMillan a redshirt freshman in the 2010 season? He started the first 6 games that season and the Hawks were 5-1. As the season went on he was on the sidelines due to injury and the Hawks were 3-4. Certainly he has been hampered by injuries but he should not be forgotten.

The whole ‘packaged plays’ bit gets a little overstated. It’s simply redoing what has been done, but with a few nuances. Fans tend to overhype things like this because they tend to “overthink” the X’s and O’s of college football and they forget that the REAL key to college football is teaching and learning. That is a big reason why Iowa has enjoyed the success it has had under Ferentz.

As for any issues of compatibility of the “packaged plays” philosophy with Ferentz’s apparent philosophy, they both place an emphasis on simplicity and execution. Furthermore, a mainstay for both is the ability to show one thing (like run-blocking), but do the opposite (like pass). That undermines some of the keys that a defense reads and reacst to. Lastly, BOTH require making post-snap reads, particularly by the quarterback. That is the very reason why pro-style offenses can be so difficult for quarterbacks to learn … because they not only have to concern themselves with pre-snap reads (thereby influencing what audibles they might call) but they also have to contend with post-snap reads so that they can distribute the ball to the right guy.

There are simply two facets that Iowa really hasn’t implemented. The first is the only real significant nuance that ‘packaged plays’ have added to the game … and that is to allow a QB’s post-snap reads to influence whether the offense runs or passes the ball. Even then, pro-style offenses have already implemented this idea, at least when the O features a QB who is mobile … a mobile QB can make that read and opt to run the ball himself. That’s arguably a significant reason why the Iowa O was so potent with Brad Banks behind the helm.

The second difference is that due to the inherent simplicity of ‘packaged plays,’ it allows the O to play around more with tempo. That way they can dictate the pace of the game more and do more to potentially catch opposing Ds in particular personnel groups.

Of course, Iowa already seems to be playing around with the idea of manipulating tempo more. Hopefully it won’t be to the detriment of our D (because fast-tempo Os often leave their Ds on the field too long).

A ‘stick and draw’ (an example of a packaged play run by OSU to destroy OU last year) that Brown discusses) is not your father’s option play, and it’s not traditional pro-style post-snap reads.

The fundamental difference is to set up *one guy* (MLB here) and run a play that is run-pass neutral. As the OSU OC noted, they scored on two fades to Blackmon that were, in fact “run plays”. Brown discusses how the packaged play in fact dispenses with the notion of singular “run” or “pass” plays.

This is Holgersen’s core innovation to the Mumme/Leach (his mentors since Iowa Wesleyan) passing game; Dana thought that there was no reason to subordinate the run game, as Leach does (because it works for Leach and a key to his system is the simplicity of practicing a sharply prescribed number of plays). (Leach’s playbook is smaller than KOK’s was.) Whereas a traditional pro-style game (KOK’s, e.g.) introduces constraint plays designed to exploit a cheating defender *on sequential plays*, a packaged play incorporates the constraint *within the same play*.

I completely agree that optionality is nothing new to football, but this is a far cry from a sprint-out QB reading a DE or OLB in the old 5-2 or 4-4 days, or even reading the tackle in Meyer’s or Kelly’s inside zone, or certainly the post-snap passing options introduced by Walsh.

I also completely agree that the running QB creates numbers at the POA, as does a packaged play. But this innovation creates numbers at three places simultaneously on the same play — 30 yards apart. This, I think, is why Brown suggests it’s a true forward step in offensive thinking, one that’s two years old, and one that has yet to be stopped by any defense that could not simply overwhelm the line of scrimmage physically. (OSU v. Oregon in the bowl.)

Hence my disagreement with your point that there’s nothing new under the sun here. Clemson certainly didn’t know what to do with it in the Orange Bowl. Gruden was nearly overcome, he was so impressed.

Davis’ unusual comments about our lack of speed/separation ability with our wideouts is another hint to me that he has been watching Holgersen tape for a couple of years. We do have the QB to pull off aspects of this scheme, though he lacks Charlie Strong’s running ability.

I think that some of the suggested “newness” of the packaged-plays has plenty to do with perception. However, as I did indicated, there are some new aspects in the nuances. Whether or not one wishes to elevate those nuances to being considered revolutionary is, by an large, up to the individual.

Also, isolating some attention on an individual isn’t new to game-planning either. Let’s say that you have some really dangerous TEs, but you can also flash the threat of run. In such an instance, with the OL showing “run” … if the QB wants to go to the mid-center of the field, he needs to read the positioning of the MLB. If the MLB is disciplined and does a good pass-drop … then the QB likely won’t throw to the TE over the middle, but rather will opt for a shorter route or opt for the perimeter. Of course, if the MLB reads run and cheats … then the TE (or WR running a deeper slant) is in store for a bigger gain. If the MLB takes too deep of a drop, then outlet and/or delayed screen to the RB underneath is a brilliant option.

The above illustrates a pretty common scenario (even to Iowa football), where the QB makes a post-snap read that is strongly influenced by the positioning of a particular defender. In fact, in pro-style Os, some progressions involve the QB making several of those very types of post-snap reads.

It appears to me that the nature of the post-snap read isn’t as new or as important as the other aforementioned nuance/wrinkle provided by the ‘packaged-plays.’ And that concerns the run-pass option … but now it’s not just the QB who might be running the ball. Also, the added element of the outlet screens makes it that much more effective too. However, the added option of the check-down screen pass isn’t as new as some folks seem to indicate. The reason why this latter nuance is more significant is because defenders are classically trained to either read run or read pass …. and then to react accordingly. The fact that the QB now can see that a defender reads things one way, post-snap, and still have freedom to opt for the opposite is the beauty in the nuance’s simplicity. And, the reason why the nuance is that much more effective is because the play can be fundamentally VERY simple … and thus the O can execute it very cleanly and consistently. The problem with complexity on O is that there are already a lot of moving parts … and thus, if you make things even more complex, it often makes things that much harder to execute.

Will Iowa execute ‘packaged-plays?’ I don’t know. As I’ve indicated above, it’s not at all philosophically different from what Ferentz “believes in.” Furthermore, if you look at the skill set of Iowa’s current group of RBs, it would be a wrinkle that matches our personnel really well.

OK. I really like the comments about the “packaged plays”.
But how does the line block on the packages? They should be blocking down field on runs to maximize the yardage gains. But they have to remain within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage on passing plays. How do they resolve that fundamental contradiction in the packaged play concept? That is even more important since many defenders read the offensive tackles for an early read on the plays intent.

Keep up the great work with the excellent comments.