Not trying to play armchair OC here. My only question would be that at some point cant you dial up some sort of complexity or something different? I understand the inside zone identity. But what learned in football, as a player and now someone who's coaching it at the youth level, up front, it that when youre outmanned in talent/size/depth (either or all) that's when you have to find a way to create numbers and angles with pin/pull, power, trap, double teams, etc. in partnership with designed run game. Zone is too much of a read/rythem system that when it aint working or youre just overmatched physically, it's really really hard. That'd by my only question.
This. It has been my complaint on Langs the past 4 games. Instead of "over matched physically" I used aggressive D. I like your term better. When we played defenses whose from 7 over matched our OL we struggled. We were unable to exploit their D and ultimately lost 2 of the last 4. I would say in the game we have done "well" i.e. win we simply had better depth and conditioning that allowed us to win i.e. Illinois, Indiana and Purdue........ Langs was also able to exploit their "over matched" i.e. worn done D...
People have screamed, and been ridiculed, on the board for calling out Langs the past few games. People have screamed to the bolded above as well. It appears that Langs wants to run the ball, but for a lack of better wording doesn't "know how". He needs to find a way to run on teams who are, for all intensive purposes, over matching our OL.....