A positive look at the coming football season -- some possibilities

[desihawk]

Let me outline a few more thoughts to sway at least the cautiously optimistic guys--

1. You will find a better player (upgrade via experience or talent) at EVERY spot compared to last year. You may choose to quibble about 1-2 (Center, and 1 CB) but in general Iowa will field a better team. (I posted this early on in Jon's original depression inducing thread and to my delight didn't come across any responses to change my opinion)

2. If you look closely at last year's clusterduck of a record, the takeaways aren't as terrible (for the future) as the record shows. That for intents and purposes was a 6-win team despite an anti-qb and no passing game whatsoever. Keep in mind that the run game production when looked at in this light wasn't that horrible.

3. The D that all pundits had written off in the preseason (of 2011) as crap ended up being not so crappy managing a respectable total D ranking despite being put out to dry.


To those of you inquiring about my hallucinogen of choice, here is the recipe-- Put 1, 2, and 3 together, throw in a new QB (making the assumption that he will end up ranked in the top-75 at season-end), and a new special teams coach. You will endup seeing O and D units that are quite likely to rank in the top-50.

Those who insist on wallowing in a morass by assuming that teams with the worst QB in NCAA are destined to be perpetually saddled only with such QBs, that a coach who has produced top-10 finishes 25% of the time in the last decade has become senile beyond redemption, that an OC with an unrivalled record (Total O ranking) in the last decade has lost his marbles, you are welcome to do so. I suspect however that those of you who would like to see Iowa football ascend will end up pleasantly surprised this fall.

 

[WinOneThisCentury]

Let me outline a few more thoughts to sway at least the cautiously optimistic guys--

1. You will find a better player (upgrade via experience or talent) at EVERY spot compared to last year. You may choose to quibble about 1-2 (Center, and 1 CB) but in general Iowa will field a better team. (I posted this early on in Jon's original depression inducing thread and to my delight didn't come across any responses to change my opinion)

2. If you look closely at last year's clusterduck of a record, the takeaways aren't as terrible (for the future) as the record shows. That for intents and purposes was a 6-win team despite an anti-qb and no passing game whatsoever. Keep in mind that the run game production when looked at in this light wasn't that horrible.

3. The D that all pundits had written off in the preseason (of 2011) as crap ended up being not so crappy managing a respectable total D ranking despite being put out to dry.


To those of you inquiring about my hallucinogen of choice, here is the recipe-- Put 1, 2, and 3 together, throw in a new QB (making the assumption that he will end up ranked in the top-75 at season-end), and a new special teams coach. You will endup seeing O and D units that are quite likely to rank in the top-50.

Those who insist on wallowing in a morass by assuming that teams with the worst QB in NCAA are destined to be perpetually saddled only with such QBs, that a coach who has produced top-10 finishes 25% of the time in the last decade has become senile beyond redemption, that an OC with an unrivalled record (Total O ranking) in the last decade has lost his marbles, you are welcome to do so. I suspect however that those of you who would like to see Iowa football ascend will end up pleasantly surprised this fall.

I couldn't agree more. When you also consider last year's team was 4-2 after six games, with one loss being decided by divine intervention (Central Michigan)...and the other by dropped passes and offensive ineptitude. Also note, 5 of those six teams when to bowl games...granted only one was a decent bowl or BCS...but still they play postseason football. My belief is that the 2012 team was so irrevocably changed by losing the left side of their offensive line against Penn State, that it simply created a domino effect that impacted not only the offense, but put the defense on the field time and time again, with little to no rest...and typically a shorter field for the opposing offense. Our punter didn't exactly help that much either. It wasn't just the fact that we couldn't run the ball after the injuries, we couldn't protect either. Our lack of depth was made extremely transparent...that is something that is also changing when you look at the 2013 team...both the OL, RB, DL, and DB positions have young talent that at least got their feet wet last year.

With all that happened last year...and the battle to put a team on the field...they still almost beat Purdue, Indiana, and Nebraska. I just don't think people realize that the 2012, if they could have kept Scherff and Donnal healthy, would have won 7-8 games.

 

[LESHawk]

Iowa didn't lose one of the worst QB's in D1. They have one of the worst game day coaches in D1, and he's still here.

I have been convinced, there is no doubt, Kentucky must have one of the worst coaches in D1 basketball, they lost in the first round of the NIT. I know that the players and player injures had nothing to do with their loosing. Without doubt the UK should fire the coach.

 

[NCHawker]

1. Iowa offense will be the most productive since 2002 featuring a balance between a strong run game and opportunistic passing to slot receivers and TE. At season-end Total O will be ranked in the top-50. (Basis: Powerful OL, stable of runners, good slot receivers, excellent TEs, QB who throws catchable ball.)

2. Iowa defense will throttle the run and force teams to beat them in the air. At season-end Total D will be ranked in top-50. (Basis: Larger, talented, deeper DL. 3 senior LBs.)

3. Iowa will deploy genuine weapons at Kick-off (Canzeri) and punt-return (Cotton) and it will pay dividends. (Basis: None but I can hope. If I see Martin manley back on kick-offs, I will be ticked off.)

4. Iowa will win at least 3 games by more than 3-TDs. (Basis: See 1, 2, 3.)

5. Northwestern will beat us. (Basis: They are clever and good. We are on occasion clever or good, usually neither, at least on that day.)

6. Iowa will stay in the running to play in the B1G championship until the very last week. (Basis: No dominant team with talent disparity in Legends. Iowa stacks up very well with no major holes that I see.)

While the above are not predictions per se, I see absolutely nothing right now that precludes them -- nothing except the sudden emergence of an anti-QB -- which from all accounts is not in the cards this time around.

First of all who the samhell do you think you are posting anything positive? Wow the cujones you got. Who needs the likes of you challenging us in our comfortably numb state of doubt.

 

[trj]

I am gonna stick with my 7-5 prediction.......with 2014 being the year the KF era comes to a crossroad.

 

[Montanahawk]

A couple of things that strike me right away about this upcoming season is that last year we came into the season as the 100th most experienced team(per Phil Steele) out of 123 FBS team or so. We were a very inexperienced team, especially on the lines. This year everyone of our starters on both lines have at least one start under their belts. We had no experienced running backs except Canzeri who ended up with a season ending injury. So, on the OL, at RB we have multiple players with playing/starting experience that we lacked last year. Similarly, on the DL we'll be significantly more experienced(although still quite young). The least experienced position is QB...which stings....but, I'm largely with KF in that I don't think a few snaps in garbage time really helps a QB that much.

Huge transitions and changes on the coaching staff. We had a new DL, OL, DB, LB, DC and OC coaches. Either guys new to the staff or coaches who moved position group assignments. Some of that is still going on but you have much more stability and arguably, higher competency, at several positions. Especially at Db where I breathed a sigh of relief when it was announced Phil Parker would be back coaching the DB's...some really un-Iowa things went on with the safeties last year.

I really do think it's much more likely the team, the offense in particular, will be on the same page this year. A significantly tougher schedule will reduce the effect of the better experience and a smoothing transition on the scoreboard, but I think this is a 7-5 team that probably would have won 9 games last year.

 

[Makavelihawk]

I have been convinced, there is no doubt, Kentucky must have one of the worst coaches in D1 basketball, they lost in the first round of the NIT. I know that the players and player injures had nothing to do with their loosing. Without doubt the UK should fire the coach.

You win for the dumbest analogy in history.

Congrats.

 

[njq3]

I see at best 2 wins next season. Sorry.

 

[ICHawk24]

I could see top 50 in offense and defense happening, and winning 7 or 8 possible. Most successful years under Kirk surprised us.

 

[HawkeyeWalker]

I see at best 2 wins next season. Sorry.

Sucks for you. Actually...should be great to be so pleasantly surprised next year...

 

[OUTofTOWNHAWK]

I have been convinced, there is no doubt, Kentucky must have one of the worst coaches in D1 basketball, they lost in the first round of the NIT. I know that the players and player injures had nothing to do with their loosing. Without doubt the UK should fire the coach.

How many years has Kentucky had the same problems?

 

[LESHawk]

You win for the dumbest analogy in history.

Congrats.

Gee! Thank you! But the general consensus seems to be, when any team looses, it is the coach's fault. If this is true, (It is not, ) then my facetiously written statement has merit. While coaches may sometime influence the outcome of a game, it is up to the players to win or loose. So it was with the UK. So it is with Iowa.

 

[Stanzi]

Gee! Thank you! But the general consensus seems to be, when any team looses, it is the coach's fault. If this is true, (It is not, ) then my facetiously written statement has merit. While coaches may sometime influence the outcome of a game, it is up to the players to win or loose. So it was with the UK. So it is with Iowa.

There's all sorts of "loose" in this post.

 

[PCHawk]

How many years has Kentucky had the same problems?

This is so true. I blame most of last years loses on having a head case for a qb and attrition at rb and dline. I blame consistant loses to inferior opponents on the coaches.

If we would have randomly ****** away the central Michigan game without years of previous examples of doing the exact same thing, I wouldn't have thought much of it. But that's not the case.

 

[MoseSchrute]

^Kirk's strategy of limiting the number of possessions and shortening the game allows Iowa to have a chance against more talented teams, and also allows lesser talented teams to have a good chance against Iowa. If you're going to play that way, you have to win the turnover battle, have great special teams, and you damn well need to make your offensive possessions count for something.

 

[PCHawk]

^Kirk's strategy of limiting the number of possessions and shortening the game allows Iowa to have a chance against more talented teams, and also allows lesser talented teams to have a good chance against Iowa. If you're going to play that way, you have to win the turnover battle, have great special teams, and you damn well need to make your offensive possessions count for something.

Don't forget the part about needing good clock management in close games.

 

[eyekwah]

^Kirk's strategy of limiting the number of possessions and shortening the game allows Iowa to have a chance against more talented teams, and also allows lesser talented teams to have a good chance against Iowa. If you're going to play that way, you have to win the turnover battle, have great special teams, and you damn well need to make your offensive possessions count for something.

Jon or someone hit on the fact Iowa was not very good on 1st down last season, especially after the PSU game. One can cite many reasons; make shift offense line, injured running backs, and lack of experience. Based on this spring it sure sounds like Iowa has three running backs and an offensive line with experience and some depth. Hopefully that will cure the first down problems.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

If I was to lay it out there as to how I'd predict how this team is going to be next season (and it's still April) I'd rather a fellow fan be as optimistic as can be rather then the opposite. He wasn't saying take it to the bank or Vegas. I hope he's right and this team plays some dominant smash mouth football on O and takes advantage of the D when they try to take away the run. The success of this team really won't need to look any further then how the O and D lines perform. The Oline needs to be strait up dominant because I don't think that witch ever qb gets the reigns will be able to be leaned on. At least not at first. I think the D will be good so long as the Dline is better and I don't think they can be worse. I think they are deeper bigger and stronger with an off season of being coached up. So we'll see..

 

[LESHawk]

This is so true. I blame most of last years loses on having a head case for a qb and attrition at rb and dline. I blame consistant loses to inferior opponents on the coaches.

If we would have randomly ****** away the central Michigan game without years of previous examples of doing the exact same thing, I wouldn't have thought much of it. But that's not the case.

Regarding the Stanzi post, I have always had trouble with A, B, and what is the name of that other letter? Regarding your post, it was my thought that the loss to CM was really bad officiating in the last 49 seconds of the game. However, losing to teams when Iowa should win occur no matter the warning coaches may use. The young men playing the game, read the statistics and think they should easily win. Such is seldom the case. Mental attitude makes a vast difference. In 2011 following the Michigan Iowa game, Kirk said to Hoke, "Iowa played well today." Hoke replied, "Teams always play well against Michigan."

 

[HawkeyeDenis]

There is cause for Hawkoptimism, but tempered with reality. Iowa had one of the younger teams in the conference last year. This year Iowa returns more players than almost any other program in the B1G. The seventeen or 18 returning players (starters, experienced) are larger and experienced. I would guess without looking that Iowa returns more than almost any team they face this year.

Iowa 6-6 with a shot at 7-5. A 10 win season probably has better odds than better than a 10 loss season. Both are extreme long shots. I can see 4-8 but not 2-10.