Are these damning stats for Brian Ferentz?

[HawkGold]

I'm listening.
I'm saying that a D3 offense could of only barely done worse than our offense.
Can you hear me now? They could of only possibly scored 33 less points against ISU, Mich, PSU. They could of only possibly scored 3 less against Michigan. 12 less against PSU. That's not even a good D3 offense. THAT'S ANY OTHER OFFENSE.



Ding ding ding. Giving up the underneath stuff but keeping points off the board.
That's a huge problem when you play ball control. In doing so, you will only have so many tries to put points up. So you better be doing it every chance you get. Again if their 1 successful try out of 5 tries is a TD and you have 2 out of 5 for fg's, guess what? You still lose.
In other words ball control and field goals do not go hand-in-hand.

You are arguing with Dean. You have entered the twilight zone. There is no escape.

 

[hawkeyes87]

All you are doing is moving the goalposts all over the place...I mean you are all over the board,

Yeah, I'm the one that's moving those goalposts.

Here are your definitions of a 9-4 team, just from this thread.

First:

9-4 teams lose to top 25 teams and handle the rest of their business.

So far, so good. Then

Who do you think 9-4 teams are losing to? Do you think they are regularly losing to 6-6 teams, or do you think they are losing to other 8+ win teams?

Basically the same thing- "handle their business" has been replaced by the more specific implication that they aren't losing to 6-6 teams.

But then when I point out that 9-4 Iowa did lose to a 6 win team last year,

I'm trying to tell you that 9-4 teams are 9-4 for a reason, they AREN'T beating all the top 25 teams they are playing and they are probably losing 1 or 2 games to 7 win teams or less.

Hmm, suddenly your stance becomes 9-4 teams probably do lose to 6 (or 7) win teams? Hell, "losing 1 or 2 games", even?

Where did those goal posts go???

And, to answer your question:

For me to call a 9-4 team good, they'd have to have at least 1 "quality" / "prove-it" win - at least a top-25 - and no bad L's, or something similar.

Last year's 9-4 Hawks got the quality win in the bowl, but that was balanced by that PU loss. So, I'd call them above-average.

Maybe that's where we're disagreeing. Your sig has tiers that jump from "completely average" to good. I'd have more levels. Well, as I said, I'd look at "who'd you beat & lose to" as well.

 

[deanvogs]

I'm listening.
I'm saying that a D3 offense could of only barely done worse than our offense.
Can you hear me now? They could of only possibly scored 33 less points against ISU, Mich, PSU. They could of only possibly scored 3 less against Michigan. 12 less against PSU. That's not even a good D3 offense. THAT'S ANY OTHER OFFENSE.

It is too bad that you are being this obtuse. Penn St. offense struggled just as much vs Iowa's Defense. They were just the recipients of TO is the only reason they ended up winning.

 

[deanvogs]

Yeah, I'm the one that's moving those goalposts.

Here are your definitions of a 9-4 team, just from this thread.

First:



So far, so good. Then



Basically the same thing- "handle their business" has been replaced by the more specific implication that they aren't losing to 6-6 teams.

But then when I point out that 9-4 Iowa did lose to a 6 win team last year,



Hmm, suddenly your stance becomes 9-4 teams probably do lose to 6 (or 7) win teams? Hell, "losing 1 or 2 games", even?

Where did those goal posts go???

And, to answer your question:

For me to call a 9-4 team good, they'd have to have at least 1 "quality" / "prove-it" win - at least a top-25 - and no bad L's, or something similar.

Last year's 9-4 Hawks got the quality win in the bowl, but that was balanced by that PU loss. So, I'd call them above-average.

Maybe that's where we're disagreeing. Your sig has tiers that jump from "completely average" to good. I'd have more levels. Well, as I said, I'd look at "who'd you beat & lose to" as well.

When did I say that 9-4 teams ONLY lose to good teams? I am the one saying there are a ton of different ways to get to a 9-4 record, you are the one who seems to set some weird definition of what 9-4 record is actually a good/decent one.

 

[deanvogs]

You are arguing with Dean. You have entered the twilight zone. There is no escape.

That didn't take long for you to poke your nose in there. You must really miss me.

 

[HawkGold]

That didn't take long for you to poke your nose in there. You must really miss me.

Hugs...

 

[DBAHawkFan]

We are accumulating so many yards because our punt returner can't or won't catch a punt and allows our offense to start at the 10 yard line every possession.

Throw in opposing teams are playing Iowa defense against our offense, and we get a lot of 12 play 60 yard drives that stall for a punt, or 15 play 80 yard drives that end in FG.

Our defense is actually doing a good job of 3 & Outs this year, so our offense is getting more chances than they usually do. Imagine if our defense was their usual bend but don't break....the games would take 90 minutes and have 4 possessions

 

[EstronHawkKing]

How many consecutive seasons are you going to throw this out there, Estrogen?

Enough to get under your skin, appears I am successful

 

[Stanzi]

I just wanted to stop by and say that BF sucks and I'd be surprised if we have more than 300 total yards in any game the rest of the season. No imagination. Unable to adjust in-game. Stubborn.

 

[deanvogs]

I just wanted to stop by and say that BF sucks and I'd be surprised if we have more than 300 total yards in any game the rest of the season. No imagination. Unable to adjust in-game. Stubborn.

I'll bet any amount you want that Iowa will gain 300 yards again this season.

 

[InGoodCo]

I'll bet any amount you want that Iowa will gain 300 yards again this season.

They still play Nebraska.

 

[homes]

Yep, and Brian even let us in on the secret about the offense when he said the offenses "JOB" was to protect the defense. That is Kirk's directive from above, period, end of story. Don't put the defense in bad spots, protect them at all cost.

In Big Ten games since 1999, the Hawks are 92-74. They have won 65 games by more than a touchdown (I defined as being greater than 7 points), and won 27 games by a touchdown or less. They have lost 37 games by more than a touchdown, and lost 37 games by a touchdown or less.

Before 2010, their record in games decided by a touchdown or less is 17-16.

Since 2010, which is mid-point in Ferentz's career (and also the year they lost all Big Ten games by less than a touchdown - ugh), their record in games decided by a touchdown or less is 10-21.

Finally, in the past 5 1/2 seasons, in games decided by a touchdown or less, their record is 6-13. And, of their 19 losses over that time period, 13 of them have been by a touchdown or less. So, even by a 2 to 1 margin, their losses have been close.

Three takeaways. One, when Iowa wins, they tend to win big (which could be a function of them beating up on the teams they're supposed to beat). Two, Iowa plays a lot of close games, but has lost more than they've won (27-37), with far more close losses than close wins in the past 10 years than in the first 11 years, which has continued to this year. Three, even more recently, of their total losses, they have been of the close variety (more than 2 to 1), which probably helps explain why this is more acutely frustrating, they have been so close, they just can't close the deal more times than not.

Think about that, in the past 5 1/2 years, if their record in close games was 13-6, not 6-13, their record would be

2014 - Instead of 4-4, 7-1 Big Ten West Champs
2015 - 8-0, hard to improve on that. Big Ten West Champs
2016 - Instead of 6-3, 4-5
2017 - Instead of 4-5, 6-3
2018 - Instead of 5-4, 7-2 Big Ten West Champs
2019 - Instead of 1-2, 3-0 In the running.

As to Number 2 and 3, why is that? Is it playing not to lose? Is it rising to the occasion and playing good teams tough, but ultimately not having enough to win them? Some of both (in the same game)?

 

[hawkeyes87]

I don't have numbers / stats but I'd probably sum it up as Iowa's 4th qtr / crunch-time offense has frequently failed, while the opponents' has frequently succeeded.

When your approach in evenly matched games is to keep it close, you can't lose that late-game battle.

 

[Knight78]

I was at a holiday party last year. A high school player in Iowa who is being recruited many schools father was there. He was telling us that every visitation they took at a Big 10 school , that every head coach told them that they hope Brian Ferentz is the next coach at Iowa.

OK. I'm not a huge fan of Brian Ferentz, but I take issue with the assumption here (that many on this forum have opined) that Brian will be the next coach.

1) How can anyone make that assumption? Do you honestly believe that? How can a current head coach at any BCS school name his successor? (Can you name one?)

2) If Brian does become the next head coach, how can you assume that he will run the same offensive and defensive schemes? How can you be so sure that the offensive scheme isn't affected (dare I say controlled) by what Kirk wants? After all, even when we brought in an OC from Texas who ran a completely different game there, the basis of the offense didn't change a lot.

Some coaches bring in assistants and turn them loose. You can see it in some of the teams around the country where the teams get reinvented when a new OC or DC come in. tOSU is an example. It has been demonstrated here that even though a new OC comes in, the offense is not reinvented - only slightly changed.

 

[EstronHawkKing]

OK. I'm not a huge fan of Brian Ferentz, but I take issue with the assumption here (that many on this forum have opined) that Brian will be the next coach.

1) How can anyone make that assumption? Do you honestly believe that? How can a current head coach at any BCS school name his successor? (Can you name one?)

2) If Brian does become the next head coach, how can you assume that he will run the same offensive and defensive schemes? How can you be so sure that the offensive scheme isn't affected (dare I say controlled) by what Kirk wants? After all, even when we brought in an OC from Texas who ran a completely different game there, the basis of the offense didn't change a lot.

Some coaches bring in assistants and turn them loose. You can see it in some of the teams around the country where the teams get reinvented when a new OC or DC come in. tOSU is an example. It has been demonstrated here that even though a new OC comes in, the offense is not reinvented - only slightly changed.

You make very good points, but why was Brian given the OC position when he had no experience with it in the past? He got it because of his father.

 

[hawkeyes87]

OK. I'm not a huge fan of Brian Ferentz, but I take issue with the assumption here (that many on this forum have opined) that Brian will be the next coach...
...
2) If Brian does become the next head coach,

Seems like you don't really believe your own premise. If you did, why bother with (2)?

 

[MoseSchrute]

I don't think many people want 7 or 8 wins a year. I think most feel like if we win 7 or 8 a year in our down years, then that aint bad. Of course you have to sprinkle in the '15, '09, '02 and '04 type seasons as well or the 7/8 win years start to ring hollow.

We got to 9 wins last year. We won 12 games 4 years ago. Over the last 5 years Iowa is tied for the 15th most wins of all P5 schools. It all has context, as we are NOT in a '05-'07 swoon right now. People are freaking out about the 2 losses way too much right now. I had Iowa at 4-2 after the first 6 games before the season, and I'd bet so did 90% of people on here. The season isn't over, there is a long ways to go. Now if we end up 6-6, then obviously freaking out is justified, but right seems too early to be freaking out.

I think it is this team's habit of always coming short in the big moments that really gets to people. Almost every time they get an opportunity to step up in the conference, they fall short. Yes they have played the spoiler in some great games, but the missed opportunities to really move up in the pecking order start to weigh heavy. 15th most wins means little when you lose all the big ones that can change the course of the program.

 

[4thngoal]

It is too bad that you are being this obtuse. Penn St. offense struggled just as much vs Iowa's Defense. They were just the recipients of TO is the only reason they ended up winning.

Ok, from square 1. Then I'm done because I have better things to do than try and get someone to see or understand something they won't or can't.
PSU struggled as much as we did. That's your argument. Well, given they are 4th in total defense and we are 5th (didn't I say at the beginning of the year we could very well be a top 5 defense? Congratulations Hawks). I bet they did struggle. Again nobody with half a brain is saying anything but good about our defense.
We good with that?
We are 65th in total offense. One spot above Appalachian State.
So my contention that we look like a division 3 school trying to pull an upset isn't that far off base. I made that reference without even looking. I bet if one did some digging they could substantiate or extremely close to my statement. Unless you think the 65th ranked division 1 is a whole lot better than the #1 ranked division 3?
Still ok?
So where exactly do you see the problem?
Stopping others from scoring?
Putting up points ourselves?
Because if you are doing both well, you are winning. It's that simple.

 

[homes]

I think it is this team's habit of always coming short in the big moments that really gets to people. Almost every time they get an opportunity to step up in the conference, they fall short. Yes they have played the spoiler in some great games, but the missed opportunities to really move up in the pecking order start to weigh heavy. 15th most wins means little when you lose all the big ones that can change the course of the program.

They are that close to having won multiple division titles but they can’t finish it off. It would be a great investigative piece to go back over the past 10 years and evaluate the close losses. I bet there are no more than 2-4 plays in each game where the chance to pull it out or to grab a lead presented itself or where the defense needed a stop and it didn’t happen.

Take last year. Penn State. Stanley misses a wide open TJ and the botched play at the goal line. Purdue. Failed to get first downs that could have iced the game. NW. Fumbled in back to back possessions in the fourth quarter. Execution on those plays did not guarantee victory but not executing them meant defeat.

2017. Penn State. The defense couldn’t make a stop on the last drive. That’s just off the top of my head.

At some point you expect them to not succeed. You’re so conditioned to it. At least you’re no longer surprised.

 

[oldhawk12]

It is too bad that you are being this obtuse. Penn St. offense struggled just as much vs Iowa's Defense. They were just the recipients of TO is the only reason they ended up winning.

If you cannot see the incredible deficiencies in this program from an offensive, game management, recruiting, pr, personnel, coaching staff administration, scheduling philosophy and on and on...then you are simply a homer and you would be happy watching damn near anything. What has been going on here for years is a fraud