Ferentz in Close Games: A Fair Analysis
- Thread starter expos1994
- Start date
hawkfaninTX
Well-Known Member
symantics. let's not miss the point that it is hard to find coaches that have even a .500 avg in "close" games no matter where you are coaching. even the best managers year-in and year-out in baseball have varying records in 1-run ball games with virtually the same managerial tactics. is it safe to say that most of the successful years are because the team is benefiting from a great closer/bullpen? would it be not to far off to equate the importance of a closer/bullpen to the importance of a great kicker/special teams? i think you can connect the dots with where i am steering the conversation & i rest my case, thank you.
-if you are struggling to follow, i beg you to ask me to explain.
ChosenChildren
Well-Known Member
I already did the work. I used 7 points or less for Tressel, because I do not have the familiarity with the Ohio State games like I do with Iowa games over the years. In games of 5 points or less, Tressel is 16-7, which is outstanding (.695)
You can trust me on the paperwork.
Is Tressel a better coach than Ferentz? I'm not sure about that. If Tressel had coached at Iowa the past 10 years and Ferentz at Ohio State, what would the records be? You tell me.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your frustration with Ferentz and his staff, but the "7-23" stuff is just over the top. Plus, it all depends on a definition of a "close game", which is EXTREMELY subjective.
There are numerous ways to analyze a coaching staff. Is this a very good coaching staff? I believe it is. Is it a great staff? I don't think they have earned that brand, at least not yet. Is he worth the money that they are paying him? Apparently, or they wouldn't pay it.
One final interesting stat: Ferentz is third ALL-TIME in bowl wins among Big Ten coaches. Only Paterno (24) and Alvarez (8) are ahead of him. He'll pass Alvarez if he stays at Iowa. I think that is an impressive statistic.
I'll give you the last word.
You can trust me on the paperwork.
Is Tressel a better coach than Ferentz? I'm not sure about that. If Tressel had coached at Iowa the past 10 years and Ferentz at Ohio State, what would the records be? You tell me.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your frustration with Ferentz and his staff, but the "7-23" stuff is just over the top. Plus, it all depends on a definition of a "close game", which is EXTREMELY subjective.
There are numerous ways to analyze a coaching staff. Is this a very good coaching staff? I believe it is. Is it a great staff? I don't think they have earned that brand, at least not yet. Is he worth the money that they are paying him? Apparently, or they wouldn't pay it.
One final interesting stat: Ferentz is third ALL-TIME in bowl wins among Big Ten coaches. Only Paterno (24) and Alvarez (8) are ahead of him. He'll pass Alvarez if he stays at Iowa. I think that is an impressive statistic.
I'll give you the last word.
HawkPhreek
Well-Known Member
No, I agree actually great comparison. I'm not saying KF needs to fired or is a bad coach. My thoughts are these. If you know your own coaching style (Your going to play close games). Don't little things matter even more ? Why are we so poor at some of them? Special teams, Two minute Drill , Clock Management. If you have a successful coach and 12 year coaching staff is it wrong to expect us to be better or as good as the opponent in these areas?
Last edited:
ChosenChildren
Well-Known Member
Now you're talking, Phreek. I have to go to bed but I think this line of analysis is the way to go.
I think the question you are asking is, how does this coaching staff improve?
Why not win more of the close games, since we know Iowa is going to be in a lot of them?
I never said that they couldn't improve. Heck, they should improve.
Perhaps they will improve with a different QB. I never thought Stanzi was great. Good, yes; great, absolutely not. I don't think Ferentz has had a truly great QB at Iowa (several good ones, but no great ones). Fry had one (Chuck Long); Ferentz hasn't had his
"Chuck Long" yet. When he does, it might get really interesting. I sure hope so.
I think the question you are asking is, how does this coaching staff improve?
Why not win more of the close games, since we know Iowa is going to be in a lot of them?
I never said that they couldn't improve. Heck, they should improve.
Perhaps they will improve with a different QB. I never thought Stanzi was great. Good, yes; great, absolutely not. I don't think Ferentz has had a truly great QB at Iowa (several good ones, but no great ones). Fry had one (Chuck Long); Ferentz hasn't had his
"Chuck Long" yet. When he does, it might get really interesting. I sure hope so.
Last edited:
Ahawkalypse
Well-Known Member
i like how both of you guys are basically arguing the same point just using different stats/avenues to get there. We all know that Kirk and Co play close games. They play up to the good teams and down to the bad teams. This will keep us in games we shouldnt be in, and keep us from blowing out teams that we should. Knowing this, we should be able to do all the little things that help us win all of these close games. The little things such as penalties, turnovers, clock management. If we play to these things I think we could really improve our overall record.
hawkfaninTX
Well-Known Member
again i will try not to be too redundant here, but if you do not have beef with his managerial tactics, but do with his ability within games (time management) and special teams improvement - I personally think it is unfair to judge ferentz on this year in those particular categories. I may be in the minority here but think the majority of the blame falls on the team.
follow me a few steps down the rabbit hole:
Our QB basically lived in the film, who else matched his dedication? Do you think DJK was in there? ARob? we now arrive at my first point: The team was not on the same page at the end of the game. No matter how much the coaches can prep the team it is up to them to follow up that prep with film study and individual implementation.
A different story all together unfolds for special teams contribution. most of our "designated" special team contributors ended up contributing significantly in starting roles by mid season. again- attempt to follow me here: we needed a "next man in" for our "next man in." Many of these contributors were getting their feet wet before being properly introduced with time to adjust through the nondescript "preseason" of college football known to us as the "non-conference" part of the schedule.
Finally, even though within the special teams itself it deserves a paragraph of its own. The kicking situation entering the season (while squinting) appeared to be great with a preseason watch list participant Daniel Murray with a more than capable backup (trent mossbrucker) who had one of the best accuracy of big 10 kickers in '08 as a freshman spelling murray. Enter Michael Meyer walk-on true freshman who kicked 14-17 FG's. on the surface not to bad all things considered, but one of his three FG's missed was in the tOSU game (17-20), and an XP in the Wisky game (30-31). need's some improvement for sure.
any thing i missed, or maybe you feel there is more to this story?
HawkPhreek
Well-Known Member
(The az extra point was big to) I'm not saying those points are wrong. There are suppose to be things that benefit the team having a tenure coaching staff. How is our 2 minute drill terrible and that is being nice. With a 3rd year QB, and a 12 year coaching staff ?
hawkfaninTX
Well-Known Member
I can see your point, but if it was me explaining this phenomenon i would still place this under my first point (the lightyears of difference between our QB and remaining players as far as game prep/film study goes)
hawkfaninTX
Well-Known Member
I think that XP vs Arizona was mossbrucker's miss.
spudhawk
Well-Known Member
I like your point about managerial styles, what I want to see from KF and company is more aggressiveness all the time, but especially against lower competition. 2 minute drill sucks, use it when you have a 2 score lead for an entire period. Special teams suffering- take a bigger hand in that yourself (This may have happened for all we know), About to sit on that 10 point lead at halftime- get a staff member to convince you otherwise.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
I would think that if you really break down the wins and losses that the COACHING STAFF were directly responsible for (IE terrible coaching resulting in a loss, and excellent coaching resulting in a win) that we would be looking at 10 W and 10 L or something to that sort. Most of these games in the end rest on the execution of the players on the field. The coaches can call a perfect play, but a QB can overthrow, a LT can whiff a block, a WR can drop the ball, a RB can miss read a wide open cut back lane. They can also call a terrible play, and the ball bounces right, and we get a huge play out of it. Take Michigan St '08 for example. There is no way we don't get that first down, if the players execute the play. As it stands, a player blew a block, and bam Greene is stuffed, game over.
ChosenChildren
Well-Known Member
Couldn't agree more. Coaching is way overrated in these close games. It comes down to players and execution.
Example: Chuck Long executed beautifully in close games; Matt Sherman, not so much.
Example: Chuck Long executed beautifully in close games; Matt Sherman, not so much.
KnightHawk9
Well-Known Member
I like this analysis. All year long I was getting so tired of hearing ESPN talk about how terrible Iowa's record has been in games decided by 5 points or less. That's unfair though because you don't get any credit for a "close win" if you score the icing TD. For example, in the Insight Bowl, we get credit for a close win, but if Reisner gets into the endzone, we no longer won a close game. How does that make sense to anybody actually watching the game?
