We live in an era of football innovation where sometimes the coaches grow into the stars and players are just pieces of the puzzle.
The key to winning in the modern age is the ability to constantly adapt. The skill of reading schemes and creating successful game plans is how games tend to be won.
Maryland embarrassed IU on Saturday and made the IU offense look borderline incompetent.
The question is, did Maryland display the blueprint to containing the Hoosiers or did the Terrapins simply play a great day of football?
To understand what makes this complicated, we need to look at how the Hoosier offense has fared this season against what types of defenses.
Indiana State opened the season in pure pass defense. They tended to have only three or four guys rushing and kept the majority of the team back in conservative coverage to stop Nate Sudfeld.
What ensued was an absurd 455-yard rushing performance by IU because the Sycamores gave the line of scrimmage away all game.
The next two weeks, Bowling Green and Missouri decided to learn from ISU and contain the run.
They loaded the box often, controlled Coleman early and gave Sudfeld room to pass.
In the first half of both games, the IU run game was generally contained while Sudfeld passed the ball consistently. He did not take over and dominate, but he was able to move the ball through the air with passer ratings of 143.14 in those games.
In the second half of both games, Coleman and the run game had much more success and the IU offense did their job. This is likely thanks to Sudfeld opening things up.
Against those two schemes IU had 88.5 more yards per game than against ISU and Maryland. It’s also important to keep in mind most of the Maryland yardage came in the garbage time fourth quarter.
So how did Maryland defend the Hoosiers?
Here is where it becomes interesting.
Maryland played a similar defense as Indiana State. It basically put all the line of scrimmage trust in the hands of three or four defensive lineman and sent everyone else back into coverage.
Maryland’s personnel is definitely much better than the Sycamores, and it may be the types of personnel that made the difference.
Quite often, Maryland played somewhat of a 4-2-5 scheme with only two traditional linebacker types, and everyone else in the secondary was either a defensive back or hybrid linebacker.
Sometimes Cole Farrand, who had 19 tackles, was the only true linebacker out there and everyone else was a “rover” type. They basically had a bunch of “Flo” Hardin builds on the field.
Therefore, on pass plays Maryland usually only sent four men, and everyone else out there was an athlete deep in pass defense. Sudfeld hardly had anyone to throw to.
On run plays, the Maryland defensive line absolutely manhandled IU’s offensive front and controlled the line. Then, the other seven men out there who were fast and athletic defenders were able to rush to the ball quickly, and multiple hats were around the ball carrier before IU could get much of a gain.
Yes, when there were pass openings Sudfeld seemed very off and had trouble connecting with his receivers. His 14-of-37 day is not just the result of a scheme, but the scheme definitely played a factor.
What does not add up is how the IU O-line was dominated by the Terrapin front. The offensive line is often viewed as one of the strong points for IU.
Maryland defensive coordinator Brian Stewart’s scheme would not have worked if the defensive line did not play as bizarrely well as they did. Stewart, who has been a defensive coordinator in the NFL, either put together a blueprint for beating IU or his defensive line played out of their element and bailed him out.
That is why it difficult to decipher whether or not this is how to beat IU. How many defensive lines can really control the line of scrimmage without help?
Now is where it becomes fun to watch.
Wilson and Johns are quality offensive minds who will also make adjustments to how teams play them. Talented players are essential but the scheme is what puts the talent in position to have any impact.
North Texas comes rolling in to Bloomington on Saturday and it is hard to have any read on this IU team.
My prediction: IU wins 35-14.
brodmill@indiana.edu
