BHGP - That's football - Excellent Article
- Thread starter NCHawker
- Start date
Is that why Stanzi improved every year he was at Iowa? Or Why Tate was much, much better in 2005 than he was in 2004? Or why even Rudock was better this year than he was last?
People see what they want to see, but the facts don't back up your claims on this one Jon.
Maybe Jon was just being a little too colorful using the term "robots", perhaps "game managers" would be a more appropriate. I would agree that this coaching staff has consistently displayed the ability to coach our quarterbacks into submission. The longer we coach them, the more risk averse they become. Think about it, some of our most exciting quarterbacks over the years had the luxury of having very little talent behind them at the (2) position, thus giving them freedom to play without concern of losing the starting job.....
This is very debatable. 2013: 204-346 59.0% 18-13 2383 126.5 (QBR) 2014: 211-337 62.6% 16-5 2404 135.2. Yardage is basically identical. INTs were the only significant improvement, but TDs were also down. Completion % was higher, but yardage only increased 21 total yards. Two pretty damn similar seasons, IMO. Jake is what he is. There's not much of a "ceiling" or room for improvement.
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.
BILLBUCKNER
Well-Known Member
Excellent obserbvation. We also use a fb at tb even though we have seen we had an explosive RB because KF prefers to play it safe and avoid a fumble. We no longer field a return threat at PR because of fear of fumble. KF plays out of fear.
DesMoinesHawki
Well-Known Member
Great article ... And it twisted the knife just a bit more knowing THIS is what Iowa football has become ... and this is how it will remain under Kirk ... It's funny (not ha ha funny) but I honestly get tired of talking/writing about everything that is wrong with Iowa football. Any remaining excuses I had went out the window this season ...
As you probably noticed in the article, iowa fared very poorly in turnover margin this year. Partly due to defense and partly due to fumbles by iowa. Wadley really did screw up there. He's one skinny guy at this point as well. Iowa didn't have much for options at RB this year.
I provided the ppg in each of those seasons so your analysis is pointless. Iowa scored more points in 2005 than they did in 2004. They scored more points in 2010 than they did in 2009. They scored more points in 2014 than they did in 2013.
The difference in those seasons is pretty obvious. Lose the entire defensive line from the 2004 team and the 2005 team couldn't stop anyone. Lose most or all of the linebackers from the 2009 and 2013 teams and the defenses in 2010 and 2014 suffered multiple late game drives allowing points and an inability to get off the field.
Look, the offense at it's best in the Ferentz era would be considered "decent". But this idea that the quarterbacks have gotten worse is just ludicrous and isn't supported in any single statistical category.
I think Jon does make a good point about Wisconsin and as they've shown, you can make a pretty good offense out of a running game and pro-style offense. So I guess I disagree with Jon that Iowa needs to get away from using the full back and start using a spread formation. Kirk Ferentz loves the zone running scheme but I just don't think it works as a staple play anymore. Iowa gets a lot of credit for having good o-lines but their rushing stats over the years wouldn't lead you to that conclusion.
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.
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.
SpiderRico
Well-Known Member
We can all make stats and whatnot fit into whatever narrative we want....that's the beauty of stats.
But just look at the NFL draft picks, All-Big 10 and All-American selections, the individual award winners, etc.....and compare the number from the 2001-2005 time period with the 2006-2014 time period. Maybe it's developmental, maybe it's not being able to find the late-bloomers....maybe it's a little of both.
Based on what Kirk likes to do on both offense and defense, I'd say there are 3 positions that have suffered mightily the last 10 years that have caused this decade of average (or suckitude....take your pick)....
1. RB - We had AY and Sims in 2007, but the horrendous experiment that was Jake Christiensen cancelled both of them out. And in 2008, we had Greene. Since then, it's been pretty much dogcrap at RB.
2. DE - Other than Clayborn, we haven't had a DE that could wreck havoc in the opponent's backfield. Before that, though, we had guys like Matt Roth, Howard Hodges, Derrick Robinson, etc. Having that kind of guy allows your LBs to roam free. Just ask Hodge and Greenway circa 2005 how much they missed a dominant DE.
3. FS - We used to produce free safeties like they were going out of style....and were constantly sending them to the NFL. We haven't had a good free safety in a LONG time.
Now, as far as the "is it the coach or players" argument....I will concede one point to the "it's the coach" crowd.....unlike when KF was dominating the B1G, we don't have Carl Jackson coaching RBs, Joe Philbin coaching the OL, Ron Aiken coaching the DL or Phil Parker coaching the DBs (full time anyway). I'd say that probably has A LOT to do with the lack of player development over the last decade.
But just look at the NFL draft picks, All-Big 10 and All-American selections, the individual award winners, etc.....and compare the number from the 2001-2005 time period with the 2006-2014 time period. Maybe it's developmental, maybe it's not being able to find the late-bloomers....maybe it's a little of both.
Based on what Kirk likes to do on both offense and defense, I'd say there are 3 positions that have suffered mightily the last 10 years that have caused this decade of average (or suckitude....take your pick)....
1. RB - We had AY and Sims in 2007, but the horrendous experiment that was Jake Christiensen cancelled both of them out. And in 2008, we had Greene. Since then, it's been pretty much dogcrap at RB.
2. DE - Other than Clayborn, we haven't had a DE that could wreck havoc in the opponent's backfield. Before that, though, we had guys like Matt Roth, Howard Hodges, Derrick Robinson, etc. Having that kind of guy allows your LBs to roam free. Just ask Hodge and Greenway circa 2005 how much they missed a dominant DE.
3. FS - We used to produce free safeties like they were going out of style....and were constantly sending them to the NFL. We haven't had a good free safety in a LONG time.
Now, as far as the "is it the coach or players" argument....I will concede one point to the "it's the coach" crowd.....unlike when KF was dominating the B1G, we don't have Carl Jackson coaching RBs, Joe Philbin coaching the OL, Ron Aiken coaching the DL or Phil Parker coaching the DBs (full time anyway). I'd say that probably has A LOT to do with the lack of player development over the last decade.
Which one of Tate's teams had the best defense? Which one of Stanzi's teams had the best defense?
It's as if you people don't understand that there are two sides of the ball
The way we coach the QB position it's probably not possible for us to have a good record unless we have a borderline great defense. It is possible for other teams however. Baylor is a good example. Baylor gave up 700 yards to a bad Texas Tech team so their defense sucks but still a pretty good team.
TO margin has very little to do with success or failure of the season under KF. In the last 6 years, our worst TO margin was our best overall season (2009, Orange Bowl champs at +2 in TOs for the entire season, 51st in the country). Our best TO margin was 2012 (4-8, +12, 14th in the country).
Statistically, the 2010 defense was FAR superior to the 2009 version. Total yards, points allowed, and rushing D put them well near the top for historic bests at Iowa. The '09 unit had a very good pass D but was ranked far lower in every other significant statistical category. Try again, Einstein.
SpiderRico
Well-Known Member
Each game, though, is different. You have to look at turnover margin each game. You could have a game where you are -4 in turnovers and lose and then the next 4 games you are +1 in turnovers and win every one of them. At that point in the season you are 4-1, with an even turnover margin.
I know for a fact that in the NFL (and since KF coaches like an NFL coach, this stat probably means more than it does for other college programs), there are 2 factors above all else that determine wins and losses. The first one is turnover margin and the second is redzone defense. The teams that win the turnover margin and hold teams to field goals instead of TDs in the redzone win at a tremendous rate.
For Iowa, I believe those two factors will always be the deciding factors in whether a KF coached team wins or loses.
The 2009 defense allowed 15.4 ppg. the 2010 team allowed 17.0. the 2009 defense allowed 277 ypg, the 2010 defense allowed 332. The 2010 offense scored 6 more points per game than the 2009 offense and gained almost 50 more yards per game.
Try again, Einstein.
M
mysteron
Guest
Actually stats don't matter. Wins and losses matter. There is no clause in Kirk's contract that gives him 300,000 for awesome player stats. . . . Ummmmm . . . Uhhhhhh . . . now that I think about it there probably is.
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
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
