BHGP - That's football - Excellent Article

Benddontbreak said:
It’s the Jimmy’s and the Joe’s. The players we were once successful with are now playing in the SEC. If we had that 2002-2004 type roster now we would’ve been 12-1 or 11-2 this year. We can downplay the level of coaching/schemes in that era but the B1G as a whole was much better.
Click to expand...

I think Central and South Florida becoming viable D-1 programs hurt as well. If you are a two or three star recruit from Florida why would you venture North when you can just stay home.
 
SpiderRico said:
I disagree with the premise of the article. I don't think it has anything to do with coaches and I don't think it has anything to do with scheme. I do think, though, that it has EVERYTHING to do with players.

Go back to the years that Ferentz was 30-13 in the B1G and look at the players. On the offensive side, you had guys like Ladell Betts, Fred Russell, Jermelle Lewis, Mo Brown, CJ Jones, Dallas Clark, Bruce Nelson, Eric Steinbach, Robert Gallery, Brad Banks, Drew Tate, Albert Young, Scott Chandler. On defense, you had guys like Jonathan Babineaux, Matt Roth, Howard Hodges, Abdul Hodge, Chad Greenway, Grant Steen, Bob Sanders, Colin Cole. This list goes on and on.

I guarantee you that if we had players like that over the last 5 years, we wouldn't have anywhere near the record that we've had.
Click to expand...

People forget about how good Betts was. He had a lot more then just a cup of coffee in the NFL and there's a reason for it. I do think that it's a combination. It's not just any one thing. Sometimes it's a perfect storm of Ferentz being able to come at the time he did with that style and the competition being what it was. And the landscape has indeed changed. And he clearly hasn't changed along with it. At least not to the extent necessary. He has changed some. I think our style of play has left us pretty predictable as from the seats I had at some games I could hear the other teams LBs calling out not only was the play we were about to have be a running play but to which side it was going. No matter how good you are or bad they are if they know what your doing and "guess" right they can have a better then good chance at stopping it.

My bottom line is making a change at coaches now is pretty risky. You know Ferentz is what he is and I think this is as low as the program will be with him. With the ceiling being 10 games if they can just not lose to teams they shouldn't (ISU etc) The unknown of hiring a coach with a totally different style means 2-4 yrs before they are relevant and that's only if he hits a home run in recruiting a couple yrs in a row. Now if you brought in a Bret Bielema with his similar style knowing the recruiting land scape I think he'd be a pretty seamless transition. But if you brought in a Chip Kelly or someone like that style we just don't have the horses to run that or hit the home runs in recruiting that requires yr in and yr out to do.
 
uihawk82 said:
Very much agree. Until KF gets some running backs here who can plant their feet and cutback the running game is going to be less than avg. If they can get the running game to above avg the hawks will win 9 games a year.

Same with the defense, you cant let whole units graduate and not have experienced, good players ready to step in and expect to win. We need more athleticism in the back end at safety
Click to expand...

I agree. Our inexperience at the LB position showed bigtime this yr. And as far as the RB position we haven't had a gm breaker at the position in a long time. Sometimes I think the gm is passing Ferentz up like it did to Fulmer at TN.
 
Hawkfnntn said:
People forget about how good Betts was. He had a lot more then just a cup of coffee in the NFL and there's a reason for it. I do think that it's a combination. It's not just any one thing. Sometimes it's a perfect storm of Ferentz being able to come at the time he did with that style and the competition being what it was. And the landscape has indeed changed. And he clearly hasn't changed along with it. At least not to the extent necessary. He has changed some. I think our style of play has left us pretty predictable as from the seats I had at some games I could hear the other teams LBs calling out not only was the play we were about to have be a running play but to which side it was going. No matter how good you are or bad they are if they know what your doing and "guess" right they can have a better then good chance at stopping it.

My bottom line is making a change at coaches now is pretty risky. You know Ferentz is what he is and I think this is as low as the program will be with him. With the ceiling being 10 games if they can just not lose to teams they shouldn't (ISU etc) The unknown of hiring a coach with a totally different style means 2-4 yrs before they are relevant and that's only if he hits a home run in recruiting a couple yrs in a row. Now if you brought in a Bret Bielema with his similar style knowing the recruiting land scape I think he'd be a pretty seamless transition. But if you brought in a Chip Kelly or someone like that style we just don't have the horses to run that or hit the home runs in recruiting that requires yr in and yr out to do.
Click to expand...

I've seen this in other posts regarding Brett and Kirk having similar styles. So, it works for one guy, but not the other?
 
SpiderRico said:
I disagree with the premise of the article. I don't think it has anything to do with coaches and I don't think it has anything to do with scheme. I do think, though, that it has EVERYTHING to do with players.

Go back to the years that Ferentz was 30-13 in the B1G and look at the players. On the offensive side, you had guys like Ladell Betts, Fred Russell, Jermelle Lewis, Mo Brown, CJ Jones, Dallas Clark, Bruce Nelson, Eric Steinbach, Robert Gallery, Brad Banks, Drew Tate, Albert Young, Scott Chandler. On defense, you had guys like Jonathan Babineaux, Matt Roth, Howard Hodges, Abdul Hodge, Chad Greenway, Grant Steen, Bob Sanders, Colin Cole. This list goes on and on.

I guarantee you that if we had players like that over the last 5 years, we wouldn't have anywhere near the record that we've had.
Click to expand...


The problem if we had a roster with those guys we should absolutely embarras the west. What would happen though is we would find ourselves up 10-13 points with 10 minutes to go every week and we would be sitting on the edge of our seats praying to hold on. Maybe we hold on most of the time and go 10-2. Maybe we don't and we go 7-5.

The talent this year is why we lost to Minnesota and Wisconsin. Maybe even Nebraska. The coaching is why we lost to ISU and needed a miracle against Ball State.
 
BILLBUCKNER said:
When he was asked on the call-in show earlier this year why his team continues to run outside zone as its base play despite having a converted fullback as the primary ballcarrier, Ferentz says it's because that's what Iowa football is. That view of one particular play is beyond dangerous. It allows for something that isn't working to continue because it is dogmatic. To Ferentz, the zone running game is good in and of itself and cannot be removed, for the entire enterprise will come crashing down without it. If it is what you are and it is removed, you are nothi

This is the definition of insanity. KF has lost it. When you don't have the talent to run what you want. You adjust to what you have.
Click to expand...
This pretty much says it all.
 
PCHawk said:
The problem if we had a roster with those guys we should absolutely embarras the west. What would happen though is we would find ourselves up 10-13 points with 10 minutes to go every week and we would be sitting on the edge of our seats praying to hold on. Maybe we hold on most of the time and go 10-2. Maybe we don't and we go 7-5.

The talent this year is why we lost to Minnesota and Wisconsin. Maybe even Nebraska. The coaching is why we lost to ISU and needed a miracle against Ball State.
Click to expand...

Wisconsin was a "House of Cards" that got exposed big time.

They were completely one-dimensional and I would argue other than M Gordon, it wasn't obvioius to me that they had more talent than us.

I was at the Badger game and everyone in my immediate area was completely dumbfounded/****** that we never went downfield in the first half. Their corners were in man coverage not just in the 2nd half, but the first half too. Instead of pressuring them deep we were throwing 8 yard-sideline patterns to KMM and all he could do was step out of bounds after the catch.

I tuned in later that evening to hear Podolak question the very same thing the average fan could clearly see from their seats. Frustrating as hell.
Gary Anderson said after the game that he was glad time ran out because they couldn't stop Iowa in the second half.

Did you see how Ohio St. challenged Wisky's corners almost immediately in the title game? That is good coaching. A coach and an OC who can actually game plan and are on the same page. Not in conflict.

We almost always seem to have the wrong game plan in place. Pass when we should run (see Maryland). Run when we should pass (see Wisconsin).

And KF still thinks his defense should have won games this year, despite losing three NFL linebackers and returning virtually the entire offense from one year ago. Want proof? Read this quote from him after the Wisconsin game.

"They made a couple of plays that we couldn't execute. That's what winning teams do." And that is surprising? One of those plays I am sure he is referring to was executed by the best RB in college. No, KF you lost the game in the first half when we only scored 3 points because of your ridiculously predictable, conservative and ill-conceived game plan.

"We had to change the menu a little bit in that second half." That is as close as we got to an admission from KF that his (or somebody's) game plan sucked.

So I respectfully disagree that we lost due to talent. At least against Wisconsin.

IMO coaching cost us games against ISU, Wisconsin and Nebraska. Possibly Maryland. The West division was not good this year. And neither were we. But we underachieved. And that includes from the sidelines.
 
I asked myself this question; Does Vint really know what he is talking about or does he merely write as if he does?

When he says " The zone isn't run like Iowa runs it anymore, at least at the college level. " Why should I just take him at his word? I don't watch enough football to know the answer, and when I do watch, I can't tell.

-----
However I thought this paragraph was pure geneous

" When he was asked on the call-in show earlier this year why his team continues to run outside zone as its base play despite having a converted fullback as the primary ballcarrier, Ferentz says it's because that's what Iowa football is. That view of one particular play is beyond dangerous. It allows for something that isn't working to continue because it is dogmatic. To Ferentz, the zone running game is good in and of itself and cannot be removed, for the entire enterprise will come crashing down without it. If it is what you are and it is removed, you are nothing. "
 
Billbuckner - He sure wasn't motivated to get his a** to Iowa City and get busy....please remember he was careful not to burn his NFL bridges by remaining at Baltimore for close to TWO MONTHS before turning a screw for Iowa....you could say that he was extending his middle finger from day ONE.
 
bigjim said:
I agree. Our inexperience at the LB position showed bigtime this yr. And as far as the RB position we haven't had a gm breaker at the position in a long time. Sometimes I think the gm is passing Ferentz up like it did to Fulmer at TN.
Click to expand...

Or Fry for that matter.
 
Playmaker said:
Billbuckner - He sure wasn't motivated to get his a** to Iowa City and get busy....please remember he was careful not to burn his NFL bridges by remaining at Baltimore for close to TWO MONTHS before turning a screw for Iowa....you could say that he was extending his middle finger from day ONE.
Click to expand...

This is blatantly false. An exaggeration of time, and with no understanding of the amount of air travel to and fro during the transition
 
skinnykilmer17 said:
Wisconsin was a "House of Cards" that got exposed big time.

They were completely one-dimensional and I would argue other than M Gordon, it wasn't obvioius to me that they had more talent than us.

I was at the Badger game and everyone in my immediate area was completely dumbfounded/****** that we never went downfield in the first half. Their corners were in man coverage not just in the 2nd half, but the first half too. Instead of pressuring them deep we were throwing 8 yard-sideline patterns to KMM and all he could do was step out of bounds after the catch.

I tuned in later that evening to hear Podolak question the very same thing the average fan could clearly see from their seats. Frustrating as hell.
Gary Anderson said after the game that he was glad time ran out because they couldn't stop Iowa in the second half.

Did you see how Ohio St. challenged Wisky's corners almost immediately in the title game? That is good coaching. A coach and an OC who can actually game plan and are on the same page. Not in conflict.

We almost always seem to have the wrong game plan in place. Pass when we should run (see Maryland). Run when we should pass (see Wisconsin).

And KF still thinks his defense should have won games this year, despite losing three NFL linebackers and returning virtually the entire offense from one year ago. Want proof? Read this quote from him after the Wisconsin game.

"They made a couple of plays that we couldn't execute. That's what winning teams do." And that is surprising? One of those plays I am sure he is referring to was executed by the best RB in college. No, KF you lost the game in the first half when we only scored 3 points because of your ridiculously predictable, conservative and ill-conceived game plan.

"We had to change the menu a little bit in that second half." That is as close as we got to an admission from KF that his (or somebody's) game plan sucked.

So I respectfully disagree that we lost due to talent. At least against Wisconsin.

IMO coaching cost us games against ISU, Wisconsin and Nebraska. Possibly Maryland. The West division was not good this year. And neither were we. But we underachieved. And that includes from the sidelines.
Click to expand...


The possibly Maryland is a pretty big possibly too considering how well we were running the ball on them.
 
Jon you couldn't be more wrong in your twitter rant about the offense. Not the fact that overall it's been pretty mediocre, on that we agree.

but the 2005 offense was much better than the 2004 offense. The 2010 offense was much better than the 2009 offense. The 2014 offense was much better than the 2013 offense.

I really can't believe a stat-minded guy like you went with the "win more games" card. Either your Ferentz hatred has blinded you to the obvious, or you're being intentionally obtuse. The difference in wins between those seasons has been the defense.

Iowa ppg ranking: 2014: 71st, 2013: 81st; 2010: 48th, 2009: 87th; 2005: 36th, 2004:68th.
 
blind resume: below are the passing stats for the starting qb's for the 2004, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2013, and 2014 seasons. Tell me which seasons are best:

204-346, 59% compl %, 2,383 yards, 18tds, 13 int's

221-345, 64.1% compl %, 3,004 yards, 25tds, 6 int's

233-375, 62.1% compl %, 2,786 yards, 20tds, 14int's

211-337, 62.6% compl %, 2,404 yards, 16tds, 5int's

171-304, 56.3% compl %, 2,417 yards, 17tds, 15int's

219-352, 62.2% compl %, 2,828 yards, 22tds, 7int's
 
blind resume: below are the rushing stats for the 2004, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2013, and 2014 seasons. Which seasons are the best:

557 carries, 2339 yards, 4.2 ypc, long of 43, 18tds

428 carries, 871 yards, 2.0 ypc, long of 47, 10tds

479 carries, 1,876 yards, 3.9 ypc, long of 60, 20tds

454 carries, 1,485 yards, 3.3 ypc, long of 43, 13tds

449 carries, 1,929 yards, 4.3 ypc, long of 75, 16tds

436 carries, 2,096 yards, 4.8 ypc, long of 71, 19tds
 
This was a phenomenal piece by Patrick...truly incredible, IMO. Now, I may say that partly because it's exactly how I view the KF era right now...and have written and said many of the same things.

But Patrick's take and twist on the variables and a few other anecdotes...just phenomenal.

In one sense, I hate the phrase 'the game has passed X by' because coaches don't forget the game...however, this article underscores what I have been feeling, in that the game is passing Kirk by if he chooses to keep doing the same things he has always done. Iowa's chances for success doing things that way are minimal.
 
OK, for those saying it's the Jim's and the Joe's...let's play that side.

Iowa is no longer unique in developing the lesser talent they get. Wisconsin has done more with similar talent the last 10 years than Iowa. So we have a recruiting and or development problem then...not really gonna win on this one in the face of this last decade of average
 
Iowa has had one player rush for 1000 or more yards since the start of the 2009 season, or the last six years.

Wisconsin: 8
OSU: 5
Nebraska: 5
MSU: 4
MICH: 4
MN: 2
ILL: 1
IND: 1
 
Clark said:
Jon you couldn't be more wrong in your twitter rant about the offense. Not the fact that overall it's been pretty mediocre, on that we agree.

but the 2005 offense was much better than the 2004 offense. The 2010 offense was much better than the 2009 offense. The 2014 offense was much better than the 2013 offense.

I really can't believe a stat-minded guy like you went with the "win more games" card. Either your Ferentz hatred has blinded you to the obvious, or you're being intentionally obtuse. The difference in wins between those seasons has been the defense.

Iowa ppg ranking: 2014: 71st, 2013: 81st; 2010: 48th, 2009: 87th; 2005: 36th, 2004:68th.
Click to expand...

Iowa QB's turn into robots the longer they are there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top