BHGP - That's football - Excellent Article

[Clark]

wow, pretty obvious Clark is a troll or knows nothing about football.
To present that it was our defense's fault is beyond stupid. How many great defences are the field 90% of the game? W/ no offensive options or drives this season, our defense never had a chance. Too not recognize how the offense and defense play into one another is quite comical to read.
Take that you einsteins

Who said anything about fault? If anything, it was the defenses "fault" that they won so many games in 2004, 2009, and 2013, which was my entire point.

This years offense gained more yards and scored more points than last years offense did, fyi.

 

[PCHawk]

Unfortunately, I'm not sure there is a direct correlation between QB statistical success and winning football. I agree that Iowa coaches improvisation (viewed as risk) out of its QBs. Our QBs often become pre-snap read robots--where they make and execute their pre-snap reads regardless of institutional football or what is actually occurring the play.

By coaching the risk out of our QBs, we also coach the play-making our of them. What's better, a QB that makes safe and conservative throws, avoids turnovers but also doesn't make plays, or a QB that turns the ball over a little more but is able to improvise and make plays. This "safe" offense, often bogs down, without a very strong running game. We did pretty well with 2004 Tate and 2009 Stanzi running around trying to make plays.

Our defensive scheme is predicated on the belief that college offenses aren't capable of consistently executing 15 plays to move 80 yards for a touchdown. Yet, our offense is designed to try and do exactly that.

Kinda like our offense's goal it to win the field position battle but our defense and special teams don't place any value on field position.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

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.

Spider, there were approximately 20 players on the two deeps in 2010 that currently play in or have played in the NFL or got a shot in an NFL camp. Iowa managed a 7-5 regular season. You can debate on whether it is or isn't the scheme. I believe it is the scheme because it hasn't been adapted or updated in 16 seasons and when talent is close to equal and the other guy can predict what you will do and when, on a good percentage of plays, you will struggle. Keep in mind that DJK is not one of those approximately 20 NFL'ers, as he somehow managed to not get a sniff by the NFL.

And to be honest, it really don't care which scheme kfootball chooses to use (again, I believe the scheme is part of the problem), I just expect a coach in his (now completed) 16th season to win. This season was embarrassing. For crying out loud, the BTN studio shows rarely discussed Iowa this season, other than game highlights, and I presume it was out of respect for kfootball, because there wasn't much good TO say.

 

[Malachiman]

Who said anything about fault? If anything, it was the defenses "fault" that they won so many games in 2004, 2009, and 2013, which was my entire point.

This years offense gained more yards and scored more points than last years offense did, fyi.

So compare this years schedule to last years... level of competition, etc.

 

[Hawkcrush]

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.

Ummm, Who recruits the players?

 

[HomerChampless]

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.

We all know that's not KF, though. He has formulas for success that he's implemented from before the first practice of the season. If successes aren't achieved, it's because,in his opinion, his formulas aren't executed properly. Execution. Execution. Proper execution wins the game.

 

[Hawkcrush]

Who said anything about fault? If anything, it was the defenses "fault" that they won so many games in 2004, 2009, and 2013, which was my entire point.

This years offense gained more yards and scored more points than last years offense did, fyi.

Clark, you are obviously a stats person, and have made the point about the defense being the problem. In that we can agree, however if we new going into the year we had to replace 3 lbs and our d was going to struggle, and we had all this statistical data to show we don't win without defensive dominance, it would stand to reason then we needed to improve on o. However KF effectively did nothing to change our O, in his that's football way. It is his fault for not recruiting better, especially at the lb and rb position. Yes, his scheme works only when all the stars lineup, problem is they don't often enough to pay 4 mil a year.No way Wiscynshould be eating our lunch like they are.

 

[ShemHawk]

Unfortunately, I'm not sure there is a direct correlation between QB statistical success and winning football. I agree that Iowa coaches improvisation (viewed as risk) out of its QBs. Our QBs often become pre-snap read robots--where they make and execute their pre-snap reads regardless of institutional football or what is actually occurring the play.

By coaching the risk out of our QBs, we also coach the play-making our of them. What's better, a QB that makes safe and conservative throws, avoids turnovers but also doesn't make plays, or a QB that turns the ball over a little more but is able to improvise and make plays. This "safe" offense, often bogs down, without a very strong running game. We did pretty well with 2004 Tate and 2009 Stanzi running around trying to make plays.

Our defensive scheme is predicated on the belief that college offenses aren't capable of consistently executing 15 plays to move 80 yards for a touchdown. Yet, our offense is designed to try and do exactly that.

I'll take the QB that can make plays any day of the week. Stanzi had much better stats in 2010, and it really felt like the staff was trying to tune him up for going to the NFL. But in 2009, not only did Stanzi make plays and create real moments on the field, but the rest of the team just looked like they had faith no matter what happened. Five INTs against Indiana? No prob, Manzi can bring us back. You didn't see receivers getting frustrated, running backs or lineman getting frustrated, because they were never out of the game. You didn't see the defense mad about having to go back on the field, because this was 'Merica and the next offensive possession was going to be a touchdown. That all changed in 2010...maybe not completely, but enough. And this year looked a lot like 2010 in terms of body language and frustration.

 

[NCHawker]

So often for about 1/2 the games, Iowa seems to just run its offense with the only intention to pick up the 1st down on 3rd or 4th down. There is no detectable sense of urgency. They don't seem intentional. They just seem to have the ball because...well..because it's their turn to have the ball. Just give the defense a rest and see how deep you can punt the ball.

Do the coaches intend that - of course not. But I have seen enough Iowa football to know that this is what Iowa does so often that you have to wonder if they just don't know how to be intentional about scoring... Well sure they do...we see it when they fall behind. So we see it in 1/2 the games during the season ..... for about 1/2 the game.

ITs gotten beyond old.

 

[Clark]

Clark, you are obviously a stats person, and have made the point about the defense being the problem. In that we can agree, however if we new going into the year we had to replace 3 lbs and our d was going to struggle, and we had all this statistical data to show we don't win without defensive dominance, it would stand to reason then we needed to improve on o. However KF effectively did nothing to change our O, in his that's football way. It is his fault for not recruiting better, especially at the lb and rb position. Yes, his scheme works only when all the stars lineup, problem is they don't often enough to pay 4 mil a year.No way Wiscynshould be eating our lunch like they are.

I think you are misunderstanding me. The defense has almost never been the problem at Iowa, with 2005 being the lone exception. My point is, you can't say things like Drew Tate was better in 2004 than he was in 2005 just because the team won more games in 2004. They won more games in 2004 because the defense was amazing that year. Had Iowa had the 2004 defense in 2005, they'd at least been a BCS team.

My biggest complaint of Ferentz is that he doesn't adapt his philosophy for what kind of team he has (the lone exception I can think of was this years fieldgoal kicking troubles leading to him going for it more on 4th down).

 

[doughudd]

The team record gets worse as the QB gets more experience under KF. Is it a coincidence? Tate's record was worse every year. JVB's record was worse every year. So far JR's record has been worse every year. Stanzi's 2010 was worse than 2008 or 2009. Banks and Chandler only started 1 year. Iowa's top ten finishes in 2002-2004 were all with first year starters at QB.

We are negatively coaching the QB position, as the article says, and it's the opposite of how Hayden Fry would have done it. Hayden's teams generally got better as the QB got more experience. Chuck Long and Matt Rodgers for example each had their best year record wise their final year.

Tate got a concussion in 2005 against isu and in 2006 missed games because of leg injury so that's what happened to him. JVB got GD his senior season, any questions why his stats went down?