And you think Iowa has fallen

[Mademyaccount4u]

--------Let's just see how this recruiting class plays out.

I already know. Our most talented players ever (2002) got owned in the Orange Bowl for 4 quarters...we are LIGHT years away from being able to compete with the big boys.

Great points cincyhawk!!!

We were ahead at the end of the first and tied at half, hardly "owned" for 4 quarters.

 

[Mademyaccount4u]

I'll try again. Iowa has enough money with the BIG conference money to do what it wants. And if it wants to fire KF, it can. It would be painful from a money perspective but it can be done. If I were the AD id tell him he can't get blown out against UM and he has to win 2 of the last three plus the bowl game or he's out. Period. We need to start expecting more and creating a culture of winning.

Or spend that money on building Taj mahal's for dorm rooms and facilities, so that more players want to visit/commit. Hell, even spending that money on additional recruiting coaches would make far more sense. Ferentz is obviously able to win, and more often, when he has talented players.

 

[cincyhawk]

One more thing, If you say Iowa can't get that level of recruits, we have off of successful seasons before. And forced them out of the program as fat cats. Also we do find good diamond n the rough players -- see our NFL players -- but we don't have a roster full of good players because they are rarer than highly-rated recruits.

 

[Mademyaccount4u]

They have no QB or RB. Thus they can't move the ball, thus they can't control the game, this their D gets tired, and they lose.

Sounds familiar, except that for MSU, that's an anomaly that I'm sure they will fix in recruiting this year. At least they are trying.

Iowa on depth and talent -- "the cavalry's not coming".

It really comes down to if you belive in this axioms:

1. 5* players are rated such because of their skill level. They are farther along in their progression as football players than their peers at their position.

2. It is easier to win football games if your team is skilled at football.

If you have 55 5 * players and one of them doesn't work out, you have a better chance of replacing him with a good player from the other 54 5*s. Thus your skill level stays high and is easier to win games.

If you have 0 5* and one diamond in the rough walk-on/low-level recruit (like Jewell or Tevaun Smith) and the next man in is a diamond n the rough who hasn't been cut yet you have less skilled players and it is harder to win.

The thing is our coach acknowledges this. He calls it margin for error. He says it's small at Iowa. The logical thing to do is increase the margin for error. He won't, because he's a bad recruiter.

The other thing is that the recruit ratings matter -- the teams that consistently recruit well win more often than teams that do not.

Last night our four years of 85 scholarship players got roasted by a team with 81 schollies of only 2 years. That means their coach has developed their payers to 3.5 times the skill of Iowa players in half of the time that Ferentz has had to develop is players, with fewer players to work with.

So either the Ferentz is a bad coach because he doesn't develop players quickly enough, or he's a bad coach because he doesn't start with players skilled enough to develop in a competitive time period (before they graduate).

Here's the other thing: recruiting the way Ferentz does - by largely ignoring recruiting ranking - is like trying to beat the market. The efficient market hypothesis states that it is impossible to do this consistently, and any period in which you do beat the market is pure chance. Iowa has five really good years out of 19. Ferentz beat the market by chance those years with good players that were rated low.

Agreed, if Iowa is able to get good players they do well, generally. Having middle of the road recruiting classes the last few years really shows how much the up tick in recruiting will help.

 

[STLhawkeye20]

Okay, I'm hoping you can help me here. Given we just went through one of the best seasons in the history of Iowa, and thus, not likely to make many coaching changes. How do you suppose Iowa is going to produce in the passing game? They have some young receivers that may become great, but after Iowa lost Vandeberg and Kittle had his injuries, most of us knew what was coming.

As for the recruiting angle, it's amazing that Iowa has done what they have in the past, given the facilities they had the last 20 years. Last year was the first recruiting cycle where we got to see some positives come from being on par with most other teams, not 20 years behind. Iowa will get more recruits, hell they went after some good 4/5 star players, landing some and still in the mix for some more.

I get where you're coming from, but start looking at things with your head and not your heart. PSU beat OSU which just beat the piss out of Nebraska. Iowa won't lose by this much to Michigan, because of play style, and should beat Illinois and probably Nebraska. There are many "talented" teams that have gotten their asses handed to them recently FSU, Nebraska, USC and MSU come to mind.

I'm sorry man but you're missing my point.

First I would like to respond to your question "How do you suppose Iowa is going to produce in the passing game?"

I don't have unrealistic expectations. I don't expect 400 yard, 4 touchdown, zero interception games from Beathard on a Saturday to Saturday basis. You're right that we lost a key component of our passing game (Vandeberg), but everyone knows that injuries happen in football. You can't use injuries as an excuse; Vandeberg's been out for two months now and Beathard should be building rapport and comfort with other receivers.

Second, I think that the passing game's trouble is driven by the coaching staff's lack of creativity. The majority of our passing plays, at least the passing plays that are down the field, come on predictable 3rd and longs. It isn't difficult to defend the passing game when you know exactly when it's coming.

I think the passing game could seriously benefit from more creativity and imagination in terms of play calling.

And I'm sorry, but the successes/failures of the other teams you mentioned are simply irrelevant.

I can handle an occasional walloping from a blue blood; I can even handle a defeat (at home) from a weaker team in the non-conference, although it probably shouldn't happen.

What I can't handle is the pattern of incompetence demonstrated by this coaching staff. That's the difference between our program and the ones you mentioned. When their leaders are demonstrating patterns that they are unwilling to change, then they move on and go in a different direction.

Given the talent we had coming back, the expectations coming into this season, the chance to build onto the program's success in terms of another great bowl appearance and parlaying that success into more recruiting success, the fact that we've laid an egg this season fits directly into the pattern that is Iowa football under Ferentz and I've had it.

 

[Playmaker]

------We were ahead at the end of the first and tied at half, hardly "owned" for 4 quarters.

I was there, and the last 2 quarters made it feel like we were pretenders.

 

[Mademyaccount4u]

I'm sorry man but you're missing my point.

First I would like to respond to your question "How do you suppose Iowa is going to produce in the passing game?"

I don't have unrealistic expectations. I don't expect 400 yard, 4 touchdown, zero interception games from Beathard on a Saturday to Saturday basis. You're right that we lost a key component of our passing game (Vandeberg), but everyone knows that injuries happen in football. You can't use injuries as an excuse; Vandeberg's been out for two months now and Beathard should be building rapport and comfort with other receivers.

Agreed, injuries do happen. I guess I believe that, at Iowa, it's hard to replace some of the players when they are injured. If this were a team stacked with talent at WR or a blueblood then I would agree. As it is, Iowa doesn't have the talent or depth to cover up these losses.

Second, I think that the passing game's trouble is driven by the coaching staff's lack of creativity. The majority of our passing plays, at least the passing plays that are down the field, come on predictable 3rd and longs. It isn't difficult to defend the passing game when you know exactly when it's coming.

I think the passing game could seriously benefit from more creativity and imagination in terms of play calling.

I don't know, you're probably right. I stated earlier(in this thread or another) that I don't really know what to say about the passing game. The O-line and receiving core are both F'ed. I can't argue with some of it as most of the stuff worked last year, but I understand why our running game isn't great, as they can just stack the box.

And I'm sorry, but the successes/failures of the other teams you mentioned are simply irrelevant.

I can handle an occasional walloping from a blue blood; I can even handle a defeat (at home) from a weaker team in the non-conference, although it probably shouldn't happen.

I'm simply stating that Iowa is doing better than a lot of teams with far more advantages, be it talent etc. It's relevant, because the coaching staff is doing better than these other teams.

I can't handle defeat from weaker teams in the non-con. I could hardly look at anything Iowa related for about two weeks outside of the NW game, after the NDSU loss.

What I can't handle is the pattern of incompetence demonstrated by this coaching staff. That's the difference between our program and the ones you mentioned. When their leaders are demonstrating patterns that they are unwilling to change, then they move on and go in a different direction.

Given the talent we had coming back, the expectations coming into this season, the chance to build onto the program's success in terms of another great bowl appearance and parlaying that success into more recruiting success, the fact that we've laid an egg this season fits directly into the pattern that is Iowa football under Ferentz and I've had it.

Iowa has changed drastically over the last few years. If you don't see that then I don't know what to say. You might even say that some of the changes (KOK leaving) may have been worse for the program.

Maybe I'm crazy, but the trajectory of Iowa is looking up. You may not see it this year, but I suspect by the end of next year things should be looking up, even more so if Iowa gets a solid pro-style OC.

 

[Mademyaccount4u]

------We were ahead at the end of the first and tied at half, hardly "owned" for 4 quarters.

I was there, and the last 2 quarters made it feel like we were pretenders.

They certainly destroyed us in the second half, I'm not sure any team would have beaten them. That was the beginning, of what Alabama is now, at USC.

 

[HomerChampless]

One more thing, If you say Iowa can't get that level of recruits, we have off of successful seasons before. And forced them out of the program as fat cats. Also we do find good diamond n the rough players -- see our NFL players -- but we don't have a roster full of good players because they are rarer than highly-rated recruits.

I tend to think Iowa gets adequate athletes on a regular basis. The current team is the exception.
The problem is how Iowa coaches misuse (in almost every case not use) that talent.

 

[eveningnewsteam]

I tend to think Iowa gets adequate athletes on a regular basis. The current team is the exception.
The problem is how Iowa coaches use that talent.

No doubt. Schemes on both sides are dreadful.

 

[Ickehawk]

I tend to think Iowa gets adequate athletes on a regular basis. The current team is the exception.
The problem is how Iowa coaches misuse (in almost every case not use) that talent.

It's almost the same team they fielded last year that went 12-0 in the regular season, especially on defense...so try something else, because this gets old.....

 

[HawkeyeWalker]

I tend to think Iowa gets adequate athletes on a regular basis. The current team is the exception.
The problem is how Iowa coaches misuse (in almost every case not use) that talent.

The top 6-7 players on Iowa's 22 starters are very good...like most years (and most will have at least peak at the NFL), the next 11-12 starting players are more than adequate...like most years... but here's the problem(along with miserable offensive schemes, routes, formations, and playcalls)...the bottom 4-5 players starting are lower level MAC talent and there is no depth....poor recruiting over the last 3-4 years has caught up.

If you wanna run the offense and defense we run...you better have great offensive and defensive lines and great/fast outside linebackers and very good safety play.

Iowa's biggest issues...in order

1) offensive strategy, playcalls, formations, schemes (1-2 passes beyond 15 yards per game puts 9 in the box and massive qb pressure on every 3rd and medium-long)
2) outside LB and Safety Play / Talent
3) Oline pass blocking (not all on oline..see #1)
4) Pressure on opposing QB (tough to gamble on blitz/pressure...see #2)
5) Oline run blocking (see #1 and the fact every good defense we face know when and where we are going to run)

It's all connected, and it's unfixable with the combination of coaching we have with overall talent we have.

 

[cincyhawk]

I tend to think Iowa gets adequate athletes on a regular basis. The current team is the exception.
The problem is how Iowa coaches misuse (in almost every case not use) that talent.

I disagree with you - we rarely get athletes. Our guys often are described as slow, lacking separation, and gritty players with high motors. Those are all synonyms for non-athletic player.

 

[STLhawkeye20]

There are so many kids out there nowadays who dream of playing college football that it's amazing we don't have "athletes."

 

[HawkeyeWalker]

It's almost the same team they fielded last year that went 12-0 in the regular season, especially on defense...so try something else, because this gets old.....

But it's not the same team at the key positions mentioned in my post. Oline, overall LB play/talent, and safety play/talent is down.

Those positions have to be good/great to run the offense/defense schemes we play.

I'm as big of a KF supporter that still exists (and it's not as strong as in the past, due mostly to him retaining Davis and not improving recruiting enough). But if you clearly don't have the talent at key positions to run your desired schemes....you change the damn schemes to help your players you have...

 

[HawkeyeWalker]

I disagree with you - we rarely get athletes. Our guys often are described as slow, lacking separation, and gritty players with high motors. Those are all synonyms for non-athletic player.

We do get athletes, but it's usually at the "big guy" positions...Oline, Dline, TE, sometimes LB.

We probably have more overall talent at WR(inexperienced due to an OC/HC that won't get them the ball or even try) and RB than we have had in a while...the problem is we are far weaker at the core positions Iowa typically is strong at (Oline, LB, and Safety).

 

[Mademyaccount4u]

We probably have more overall and talent at WR(inexperienced due to an OC/HC that won't get them the ball or even try) and RB than we have had in a while...the problem is we are far weaker at the core positions Iowa typically is strong at (Oline, LB, and Safety).

Agreed, I'm hoping that it will translate into more success the next few years. We have some solid young O-linemen that will be, in my opinion, much better than what we are fielding now. If scheme can be tweaked enough on offense the WR should be at least adequate next year. RB, TE, most of the LB core look great. The problem spots will be DL and CB, though the CB's look talented.

 

[HawkeyeWalker]

Agreed, I'm hoping that it will translate into more success the next few years. We have some solid young O-linemen that will be, in my opinion, much better than what we are fielding now. If scheme can be tweaked enough on offense the WR should be at least adequate next year. RB, TE, most of the LB core look great. The problem spots will be DL and CB, though the CB's look talented.

I'm only half with you. I have seen zero ability of this staff to "tweak" anything, especially on offense. I also don't see a lot of promise in what we have seen from OLB and losing King will hurt badly. the only hope is that (due to neccessity) the players we are not seeing are an upgrade (which would also be upsetting and further the notion that we don't play the better athlete).

I am as down as I've been on KF and the program as I've been in 18 years.

 

[Mademyaccount4u]

I'm only half with you. I have seen zero ability of this staff to "tweak" anything, especially on offense. I also don't see a lot of promise in what we have seen from OLB and losing King will hurt badly. the only hope is that (due to neccessity) the players we are not seeing are an upgrade (which would also be upsetting and further the notion that we don't play the better athlete).

I am as down as I've been on KF and the program as I've been in 18 years.

Yeah, I'm not sure what's going on with the Leo position, there are some young talented players that, in my opinion, would probably cover up mistakes with their athleticism that current players are making.

 

[cincyhawk]

We do get athletes, but it's usually at the "big guy" positions...Oline, Dline, TE, sometimes LB.

We probably have more overall talent at WR(inexperienced due to an OC/HC that won't get them the ball or even try) and RB than we have had in a while...the problem is we are far weaker at the core positions Iowa typically is strong at (Oline, LB, and Safety).

At rb, yes. At WR, I ust don't see any evidence of what you claim. They can't outrun anyone. They can't ake quick cuts and get open nderneath. They don't make acrobatc catches and adjustments to the ball. They don't jump all over the pave and expand the target window. They drop more balls than they catch. It could be experience , but even blind squirrels find a nut every once in awhile, they'd have lucked into some athletic plays by now.

Other than tight end, our line has not had the quickness that you expect out of athletic big men this year. I just don't see it, and really haven't seen it for a long time.