Ferentz game management staples

[nickhawk]

The buzz all preseason is that the offense has been practicing the no huddle a lot, but I am still not convinced that Coach Ferentz will use a lot of the no-huddle or hurry up offense in actual games.

The offense as a whole can’t do much worse than they did last year, and I think they will be improved, especially if Weisman and the O-line stay healthy all year and Powell can really emerge as a deep threat.

If Coach Ferentz really proves that he is willing to open up the offense this year and use more no huddle, here are a few other Coach Ferentz coaching staples that I hope he considers changing this year as well:

1. Always taking the ball on offense to start the game if the Hawks win the toss – this habit has annoyed me for years. To me, the only time this philosophy makes sense is if there is a major wind to deal with or you have a juggernaut offense that can score the majority of the time on the 1st drive (ala 2002 team).

2. Never being aggressive when the Hawks get the ball with under 90 seconds left in the half. The pattern is usually to run the ball 3 times or take a knee and head into the locker room. After the game, the typical Ferentz response is that they ran it on 1st down and if they would have broken a long run, then he would have considered being more aggressive. I don’t buy that excuse – break the pattern and at least attempt some down field passing.

3. Punting when inside the opponents 40 yard line. Bottom line is that most times choosing to punt only nets about 15-20 yards in field position, with most punts resulting in touchbacks. I know that there is big difference if the Hawks are facing a 4 & 3 vs. a 4 & 10 inside the opponents 40, but the issue is being confident enough in the offense to go for it.

 

[thetrza]

Thumb tacks.

 

[ShadasRevenge]

So they're going to practice using the no-huddle for at least half the time in spring and fall ball - and then not use it in actual games?

Makes sense.

I do agree with taking the ball to start the game though. I do wish he'd defer and take it to start the 2nd.

 

[deanvogs]

The buzz all preseason is that the offense has been practicing the no huddle a lot, but I am still not convinced that Coach Ferentz will use a lot of the no-huddle or hurry up offense in actual games.

The offense as a whole can’t do much worse than they did last year, and I think they will be improved, especially if Weisman and the O-line stay healthy all year and Powell can really emerge as a deep threat.

If Coach Ferentz really proves that he is willing to open up the offense this year and use more no huddle, here are a few other Coach Ferentz coaching staples that I hope he considers changing this year as well:

1. Always taking the ball on offense to start the game if the Hawks win the toss – this habit has annoyed me for years. To me, the only time this philosophy makes sense is if there is a major wind to deal with or you have a juggernaut offense that can score the majority of the time on the 1st drive (ala 2002 team).

2. Never being aggressive when the Hawks get the ball with under 90 seconds left in the half. The pattern is usually to run the ball 3 times or take a knee and head into the locker room. After the game, the typical Ferentz response is that they ran it on 1st down and if they would have broken a long run, then he would have considered being more aggressive. I don’t buy that excuse – break the pattern and at least attempt some down field passing.

3. Punting when inside the opponents 40 yard line. Bottom line is that most times choosing to punt only nets about 15-20 yards in field position, with most punts resulting in touchbacks. I know that there is big difference if the Hawks are facing a 4 & 3 vs. a 4 & 10 inside the opponents 40, but the issue is being confident enough in the offense to go for it.

Some people don't understand football. This exactly strategy is what directly led to the win last year in Solider Field. So ok, it was the 44 yard line, but either way, we punted, and pinned NIU at the 1 yard line. We got the 3 and out (after nearly getting the safety). NIU punted, and guess what, we started with the ball at the 24 yard line, and scored the winning TD.

I know people HATE it when we punt inside the 40 or 50 yard line, but there is a very specific reason for it, and that is field position. Does it work all the time? No of course not, but neither does going for it, and giving the other team the ball at the 40 or 50 yard line.

 

[thetrza]

Paper Clips

They did the same practice of the no huddle all offseason last year. They had it in the bag since the year before.

Printer Ink

Have some feel good story walk on senior at the top of a preseason depth chart, not tell media or fans who it is, let us guess who the real starter is until after week two.

The Easy Button

The end of the first half drives ended in a turnover or downs each time they tried it last year.

 

[ShadasRevenge]

Some people don't understand football. This exactly strategy is what directly led to the win last year in Solider Field. So ok, it was the 44 yard line, but either way, we punted, and pinned NIU at the 1 yard line. We got the 3 and out (after nearly getting the safety). NIU punted, and guess what, we started with the ball at the 24 yard line, and scored the winning TD.

I know people HATE it when we punt inside the 40 or 50 yard line, but there is a very specific reason for it, and that is field position. Does it work all the time? No of course not, but neither does going for it, and giving the other team the ball at the 40 or 50 yard line.

Are you trying to say there is some risk/reward in the game of foot-ball, and that not every situation in every game is black and white?

 

[deanvogs]

Are you trying to say there is some risk/reward in the game of foot-ball, and that not every situation in every game is black and white?

I am just dumbfounded by some. I re watched the NIU game, and I'm thinking to myself how bad everyone would have jumped KF if that punt didn't work out. Or better yet how much fans would have jumped GD for calling a running play on 3rd and 10 from the 24 if Bullock had gotten stuffed (instead he had a 24 yd rushing TD for the game winner).

 

[OUTofTOWNHAWK]

Some people don't understand football. This exactly strategy is what directly led to the win last year in Solider Field. So ok, it was the 44 yard line, but either way, we punted, and pinned NIU at the 1 yard line. We got the 3 and out (after nearly getting the safety). NIU punted, and guess what, we started with the ball at the 24 yard line, and scored the winning TD.

I know people HATE it when we punt inside the 40 or 50 yard line, but there is a very specific reason for it, and that is field position. Does it work all the time? No of course not, but neither does going for it, and giving the other team the ball at the 40 or 50 yard line.

I wouldnt say they dont understand football. There are more coaches than not that do not use the punt game like KF does. Thats just kirks football and some dont agree with it. The big problem last year is Iowa didnt have an elite punter like they have in the past. If you are goint to punt inside the 40 you need to be able to pin them inside the 10 or there is no point. If you fail to do that a couple times then there is no point trying anymore.

 

[NEIChawk]

Post it Notes.....that helps alot....

 

[PCHawk]

I am just dumbfounded by some. I re watched the NIU game, and I'm thinking to myself how bad everyone would have jumped KF if that punt didn't work out. Or better yet how much fans would have jumped GD for calling a running play on 3rd and 10 from the 24 if Bullock had gotten stuffed (instead he had a 24 yd rushing TD for the game winner).

I think the running play on 3rd and 10 with the game on the line was a really bad call even tho it worked.

 

[HawkeyeShane]

Fiddle sticks...

I just wanted to say it...I didn't have anything to say after that.

 

[FreedComanche]

I think the running play on 3rd and 10 with the game on the line was a really bad call even tho it worked.

I was glad it worked, but a running play has a low probability of picking up ten yards unless you have a 25 year old Jim Brown playing against college players. So.............it was a very dumb call. Again, glad it worked.

FreedComanche

 

[hawkfan340]

The buzz all preseason is that the offense has been practicing the no huddle a lot, but I am still not convinced that Coach Ferentz will use a lot of the no-huddle or hurry up offense in actual games.

The offense as a whole can’t do much worse than they did last year, and I think they will be improved, especially if Weisman and the O-line stay healthy all year and Powell can really emerge as a deep threat.

If Coach Ferentz really proves that he is willing to open up the offense this year and use more no huddle, here are a few other Coach Ferentz coaching staples that I hope he considers changing this year as well:

1. Always taking the ball on offense to start the game if the Hawks win the toss – this habit has annoyed me for years. To me, the only time this philosophy makes sense is if there is a major wind to deal with or you have a juggernaut offense that can score the majority of the time on the 1st drive (ala 2002 team).

2. Never being aggressive when the Hawks get the ball with under 90 seconds left in the half. The pattern is usually to run the ball 3 times or take a knee and head into the locker room. After the game, the typical Ferentz response is that they ran it on 1st down and if they would have broken a long run, then he would have considered being more aggressive. I don’t buy that excuse – break the pattern and at least attempt some down field passing.

3. Punting when inside the opponents 40 yard line. Bottom line is that most times choosing to punt only nets about 15-20 yards in field position, with most punts resulting in touchbacks. I know that there is big difference if the Hawks are facing a 4 & 3 vs. a 4 & 10 inside the opponents 40, but the issue is being confident enough in the offense to go for it.

Number 3 has been a complaint for me over the years, but I do remember the team going for it more in these situations in 2012. Since the O sucked goat balls, maybe it was just desperation thing, but I'm hopeful there was some level of evolution-of-KF behind it.

And yes, I do remember the regression vs. Nebraska.

 

[NCHawker]

Safety Pins

I share all the observations of the OP. Never understood the slow/knee before the half either. I think this O will look a lot different than anything we've seen in Iowa city since Hayden came out that Saturday in 1979 against Indiana in the spread formation.

 

[PJHawk]

Football data has been compiled (a la baseball's Money Ball) that show's Kirk's conservative brand of football isn't actually playing the odds its actually just the opposite. Very early last season Bill O'Brien learned he had absolutely no FG kicking game and went for it on every fourth down in opponents territory. That's playing the football odds and it worked very well for him - too bad other coaches cannot catch on to it as it makes for better football.

 

[hawkfan340]

Some people don't understand football. This exactly strategy is what directly led to the win last year in Solider Field. So ok, it was the 44 yard line, but either way, we punted, and pinned NIU at the 1 yard line. We got the 3 and out (after nearly getting the safety). NIU punted, and guess what, we started with the ball at the 24 yard line, and scored the winning TD.

I know people HATE it when we punt inside the 40 or 50 yard line, but there is a very specific reason for it, and that is field position. Does it work all the time? No of course not, but neither does going for it, and giving the other team the ball at the 40 or 50 yard line.

That was one instance where punting worked out. However, there are robust statistical studies that show this is not the proper strategy in general.

 

[deanvogs]

That was one instance where punting worked out. However, there are robust statistical studies that show this is not the proper strategy in general.

Please link these robust statistical studies, I am interested in reading. I would love to see the statistics on going for 4th and 12 from the 40 or 50. I would almost be willing to bet that the opposing team has a higher % to score on their next possession if the team failed to convert, than the team has of scoring itself on that drive.

 

[deanvogs]

Football data has been compiled (a la baseball's Money Ball) that show's Kirk's conservative brand of football isn't actually playing the odds its actually just the opposite. Very early last season Bill O'Brien learned he had absolutely no FG kicking game and went for it on every fourth down in opponents territory. That's playing the football odds and it worked very well for him - too bad other coaches cannot catch on to it as it makes for better football.

Call me crazy, but I don't care for 45-41 games. Just like I don't care for 9-8 baseball games. Give me a 28-27 game any day of the week, in which the D's make plays, and the offense isn't able to just run up and down the field like a pop warner football game. I have never found Oregon to be fun to watch.....

 

[uihawk82]

3. Punting when inside the opponents 40 yard line. Bottom line is that most times choosing to punt only nets about 15-20 yards in field position, with most punts resulting in touchbacks. I know that there is big difference if the Hawks are facing a 4 & 3 vs. a 4 & 10 inside the opponents 40, but the issue is being confident enough in the offense to go for it.

Nothing wrong with punting from the 36-39 if it is fourth and long depending on time and score. giving the ball to the opponent near your 40 if you dont make it is tough.

A punt from there downed around the 10-13 yards line is very good change in field position.

If you have the ball on the 30 yard line go for it, or if it is at the 38 and 4th and short go for it as higher chance of reward.

 

[PCHawk]

Please link these robust statistical studies, I am interested in reading. I would love to see the statistics on going for 4th and 12 from the 40 or 50. I would almost be willing to bet that the opposing team has a higher % to score on their next possession if the team failed to convert, than the team has of scoring itself on that drive.

That's not how it works. You would have to compare their chance to score if you don't get the 1st with their chance if you punt. Then compare your chance to score if you punt (0%) with your chance to score if you go for it. Then you compare those numbers.