Brian Ferentz - How do you like me now?

[tksirius]

I think this misses the point of Iowa's game plan. We're 10th in the nation in time of possession. We want to grind it out, wear them down, and give our best unit time to rest. That contributes to our defense being in the top 5 for both scoring and yards.

Looking at the stats, we can only do 9 spots better than that on offense. Interestingly, two of those are occupied by Wisconsin and Michigan, 40th and 28th respectively in scoring offense. We're at 56th (30.9ppg). To me, that seems about right. It's pretty difficult for a ball control offense to put up more than 40 points in a game and it seems like our offense has at least one head scratcher of a drive every game that leaves points on the field. If we kick a field goal on those drives, we're Wisconsin at 33ppg. If we score a TD, we're Michigan at 36ppg. That puts us about 80-90% of the way there. Spot on with the 30.9ppg we were in 2015. I'll take that if it's done consistently, but I would love to see that last 10-20% that would make us a truly dominant team.

If you've made it this far, God bless you for making it through my ramblings.

Sorry, but that is such a fucking stupid argument. The better your defense is, the more your offense will be on the field, thereby increasing their time of possession and more opportunities to gain yards.

If it was the other way around like you claim, Iowa's offense would be ranked a hell of a lot better than 76th in total offense, 75th in rushing offense, and 69th in passing offense.

Iowa's defense is ranked 5th in scoring D, 2nd in rushing D, 19th in passing D, and 3rd in total D. Iowa's time of possession is ranked 11th in the country due to the defense being so damn good, not the other way around. Only a turd muffin would think so.

Once again, Iowa's offense is living off of a stellar defense. If Iowa's defense was ranked in the 60s and 70s like the offense, our offense would probably be ranked in the 100s.

 

[deanvogs]

Sorry, but that is such a fucking stupid argument. The better your defense is, the more your offense will be on the field, thereby increasing their time of possession and more opportunities to gain yards.

If it was the other way around like you claim, Iowa's offense would be ranked a hell of a lot better than 76th in total offense, 75th in rushing offense, and 69th in passing offense.

Iowa's defense is ranked 5th in scoring D, 2nd in rushing D, 19th in passing D, and 3rd in total D. Iowa's time of possession is ranked 11th in the country due to the defense being so damn good, not the other way around. Only a turd muffin would think so.

Once again, Iowa's offense is living off of a stellar defense. If Iowa's defense was ranked in the 60s and 70s like the offense, our offense would probably be ranked in the 100s.

Dude, we get it you hate Kirk and Brian. You really should stop though with this crap because you are just making yourself look really stupid here. Iowa's offensive efficiency numbers are off the charts, and their Points per possession are really good as well. Iowa plays a ball control game, and acting like Iowa needs to average 480 YPG is just flat out dumb.

 

[tksirius]

Dude, we get it you hate Kirk and Brian. You really should stop though with this crap because you are just making yourself look really stupid here. Iowa's offensive efficiency numbers are off the charts, and their Points per possession are really good as well. Iowa plays a ball control game, and acting like Iowa needs to average 480 YPG is just flat out dumb.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I just posted. You know that claiming our defense is top 5 in the country due to our time of possession is total fucking idiocy. Stop being a jackass.

Yards per pass attempt: 61st
Yards per rush attempt: 78th
Yards per play: 66th

 

[tksirius]

Furthermore, an offense's scoring statistics should be a lot better when their defense is consistently putting them in great field position. This isn't that difficult to understand.

Only a Ferentz groupie would attempt to give the offense credit for a spectacular performance by the defense.

 

[N8theGr8]

The better your defense is, the more your offense will be on the field, thereby increasing their time of possession and more opportunities to gain yards.

That is the counterpoint to what I'm saying, but the other part of the reason why our offense doesn't put up many yards is that they don't need to. When they have good field position given to them by the defense, they don't have as much field to move the ball (currently 28th in the country).

Once again, Iowa's offense is living off of a stellar defense. If Iowa's defense was ranked in the 60s and 70s like the offense, our offense would probably be ranked in the 100s.

We would also have an entirely different strategy as a team, so yes, it would look quite different, but not in the way you're saying. We'd probably score around the same or less, but move the ball quite a bit more as we lose the field position battle. So higher total offense ranking and lower scoring offense ranking.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I just posted. You know that claiming our defense is top 5 in the country due to our time of possession is total fucking idiocy. Stop being a jackass.

Our defense is top 5 in the country primarily because it's a really damn good defense. If our offense wasn't able to hang onto the ball and give it rest though, it would give the opposing team more time on the field. More time on the field would make those sterling statistics...less sterling. We would probably sit somewhere in the 15-40 range like we were last year when we had a defense with very similar components that ended the season ranked 36th in total defense and 17th in scoring defense. For reference, Iowa ranked 66th in time of possession last year with 3 minutes less per game.

 

[CP87]

That is the counterpoint to what I'm saying, but the other part of the reason why our offense doesn't put up many yards is that they don't need to. When they have good field position given to them by the defense, they don't have as much field to move the ball (currently 28th in the country).



We would also have an entirely different strategy as a team, so yes, it would look quite different, but not in the way you're saying. We'd probably score around the same or less, but move the ball quite a bit more as we lose the field position battle. So higher total offense ranking and lower scoring offense ranking.



Our defense is top 5 in the country primarily because it's a really damn good defense. If our offense wasn't able to hang onto the ball and give it rest though, it would give the opposing team more time on the field. More time on the field would make those sterling statistics...less sterling. We would probably sit somewhere in the 15-40 range like we were last year when we had a defense with very similar components that ended the season ranked 36th in total defense and 17th in scoring defense. For reference, Iowa ranked 66th in time of possession last year with 3 minutes less per game.

I am sure Iowa being near the tops in the nation in 3rd down and conversions and in fewest punts is greatly appreciated by the defense.

@tksirius , I don't think anyone is claiming the offense is the strength of the team. But you keep trying to make them out to be a below average unit, and neither the eye test nor the most relevant metrics supports that. And I am not sure why you are so dead set on convincing everyone that an important part of your favorite team sucks.

 

[tksirius]

I am sure Iowa being near the tops in the nation in 3rd down and conversions and in fewest punts is greatly appreciated by the defense.

@tksirius , I don't think anyone is claiming the offense is the strength of the team. But you keep trying to make them out to be a below average unit, and neither the eye test nor the most relevant metrics supports that. And I am not sure why you are so dead set on convincing everyone that an important part of your favorite team sucks.

I'm not trying to make them out to be a below average unit, but truth be told, most metrics show them to be average to below average. I've said multiple times and I still believe that Brian is doing a better job this year, but our offense is still worse than what it was under KOK. Maybe in a few years, Brian's O will surpass KOK, who knows?

What I'm really curious about is how all the Ferentz nut huggers continually spout off about Brian doing such a great job this year, yet nearly all of those people are never found giving Parker any props. A very small number of them do, but the vast majority do not. I don't dislike the Ferentz family nearly as much as the Ferentz fan club loves Kirk & Brian. It's true; there is a very large contingent among the Iowa fan base that are bigger Ferentz fans than Iowa fans.

 

[DBAHawkFan]

I'm curious which version of the offense we'll get this week assuming the weather isn't a factor.

There's a lot on the line now with the West in play.

So do we play old school KF ball, which is not to lose....run on every first down....

Or

Do we play like the Indiana game....pass to set up the run, break some tendencies....actually try to score

Will be very telling to see if KF changes

 

[CP87]

I'm not trying to make them out to be a below average unit, but truth be told, most metrics show them to be average to below average. I've said multiple times and I still believe that Brian is doing a better job this year, but our offense is still worse than what it was under KOK. Maybe in a few years, Brian's O will surpass KOK, who knows?

What I'm really curious about is how all the Ferentz nut huggers continually spout off about Brian doing such a great job this year, yet nearly all of those people are never found giving Parker any props. A very small number of them do, but the vast majority do not. I don't dislike the Ferentz family nearly as much as the Ferentz fan club loves Kirk & Brian. It's true; there is a very large contingent among the Iowa fan base that are bigger Ferentz fans than Iowa fans.

I don't think they talk about Parker because others aren't constantly tearing him down, thus no need to rush to his defense. I for one am all-in on Parker as the KF-successor, I think it would be well-deserved, I think he would be interested, and I think he would do well.

 

[N8theGr8]

I don't think they talk about Parker because others aren't constantly tearing him down, thus no need to rush to his defense. I for one am all-in on Parker as the KF-successor, I think it would be well-deserved, I think he would be interested, and I think he would do well.

The $64,000 question is: what would happen to Brian if Parker gets the job?

 

[CP87]

I'm not trying to make them out to be a below average unit, but truth be told, most metrics show them to be average to below average. I've said multiple times and I still believe that Brian is doing a better job this year, but our offense is still worse than what it was under KOK. Maybe in a few years, Brian's O will surpass KOK, who knows?

What I'm really curious about is how all the Ferentz nut huggers continually spout off about Brian doing such a great job this year, yet nearly all of those people are never found giving Parker any props. A very small number of them do, but the vast majority do not. I don't dislike the Ferentz family nearly as much as the Ferentz fan club loves Kirk & Brian. It's true; there is a very large contingent among the Iowa fan base that are bigger Ferentz fans than Iowa fans.

To your last sentence, I don't think there are many if any for whom that is true. People who defend/support Ferentz do it for some combination of the following reasons:

• They have difficulty separating a team from a coach who leads that team, and hence feel dissonance if claiming they like one and dislike the other.
• They react to unjust criticism (A). You (the royal "you") can argue that KF is no more than a slightly above average coach, and while I don't agree, I know you can make a valid case. But some try to make the case that he is an awful coach and is the single factor standing between Iowa and multiple national championships (exaggerated for effect, but you know you see the general sentiment expressed), and that just drives some of us nuts
  
• They react to unjust criticism (B). Many think that coaching football is easy, and that if any mistake is made, the coach is a moron. We see 5% of what a coach does (i.e. what happens on game day), and then we judge that 5% with the advantage of hindsight against the standard that is "the perfect game." A 4th down decision is criticized with no praise for the recruiting, talent-development, game-plan, etc. that put the team in a position where that decision even mattered. Again, if someone wants to argue that some other coaches around the country do the things that put a team in position to win better than our staff, I will not take them to task. But if they argue that KF is a moron because they question an in-game decision without recognizing that every other staff in the country makes questionable in-game decisions and appreciating that our staff is about as good as it gets from Sunday through Friday, I get annoyed.
• They want to be right. They have taken a position that KF is a very good coach, and they are not going to be swayed from that no matter what because they would have to admit they were wrong.

All 4 of those apply to me, and I would guess they apply to many of the others you would characterize as "nut huggers." Ultimately, I would rather hug their nuts then try to kick them in the nuts over and over again, that would bring me little joy (and oh, the sweet testicular aroma).

 

[deanvogs]

Furthermore, an offense's scoring statistics should be a lot better when their defense is consistently putting them in great field position. This isn't that difficult to understand.

Only a Ferentz groupie would attempt to give the offense credit for a spectacular performance by the defense.

I'm not trying to make them out to be a below average unit, but truth be told, most metrics show them to be average to below average. I've said multiple times and I still believe that Brian is doing a better job this year, but our offense is still worse than what it was under KOK. Maybe in a few years, Brian's O will surpass KOK, who knows?

What I'm really curious about is how all the Ferentz nut huggers continually spout off about Brian doing such a great job this year, yet nearly all of those people are never found giving Parker any props. A very small number of them do, but the vast majority do not. I don't dislike the Ferentz family nearly as much as the Ferentz fan club loves Kirk & Brian. It's true; there is a very large contingent among the Iowa fan base that are bigger Ferentz fans than Iowa fans.

Who is taking away credit from the defense? Who doesn't give Parker any props? Maybe there isn't as much praise here for Phil because year in and year out we have a very good defense, a top 25 caliber D. So yeah maybe the praise isn't there as much when you just expect that sort of defense. Obviously this D this year is even a step up from his past defenses, that is for sure. I pretty much give him the benefit of the doubt and assume no matter what we lose in the secondary he will get the new kids prepared to play and play well.

I love Hawkeye football and I like Kirk and Brian and Phil, and all the coaches. If Kirk left tomorrow and Brian didn't get the job, I really wouldn't care where Brian landed, I would be pulling for whomever was the Iowa coach.

 

[CP87]

The $64,000 question is: what would happen to Brian if Parker gets the job?

Hopefully he would get a MAC head coaching job, prove his mettle and get his "rookie" mistakes out of the way, and then come back ready to take over for Phil in another 5-10 years. I will give KF through 2019 (just seems like such a logical point to step away, although things are on the upswing overall), Phil takes 2020-2026, and then Brian can have 2027-2046.

Could you imagine 1 school having 4 coaches over almost 70 years, and all descended from the same coaching tree?

 

[lightning1]

I can't completely place this loss (PSU) on BF's shoulders but he called a shit game. Back to running stretch plays into a 9 man front, I see. Not sure who I told "We'll revisit this after the PSU game". I'm too lazy to go back and read the thread. But this is me "revisiting" BF and his play calling. He had a couple of good play calls but was shit for the most part today.

 

[tksirius]

I can't completely place this loss (PSU) on BF's shoulders but he called a shit game. Back to running stretch plays into a 9 man front, I see. Not sure who I told "We'll revisit this after the PSU game". I'm too lazy to go back and read the thread. But this is me "revisiting" BF and his play calling. He had a couple of good play calls but was shit for the most part today.

Decent OCs would have pulled Stanley early in the 3rd quarter if not sooner.

 

[WinOneThisCentury]

I can't completely place this loss (PSU) on BF's shoulders but he called a shit game. Back to running stretch plays into a 9 man front, I see. Not sure who I told "We'll revisit this after the PSU game". I'm too lazy to go back and read the thread. But this is me "revisiting" BF and his play calling. He had a couple of good play calls but was shit for the most part today.

What a dumbass post. I wonder how you would feel if our starting QB could have hit wide open receivers all day. There was nothing wrong with the play selection. My god, the team had guys open all day. He was running the ball because he didn't trust his QB. That being said...at the end of the game...he called a few great series. Stanley just couldn't make any of the throws. Benching him may have been the call, but it's tough for a guy to come into that environment in the fourth quarter.

There is a good argument for pulling Stanley...If I fault BF for anything...I would say he should have pulled him. The other thing...the bench should have called a timeout on the interception...that I will give you. Those are on BF...but when your QB plays awful...you can't say it's poor play selection.

 

[pythagoras]

Decent OCs would have pulled Stanley early in the 3rd quarter if not sooner.

FWIW you're a troll and have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[tksirius]

FWIW you're a troll and have no idea what you're talking about.

You're a big Ferentz fan. Not so much of an Iowa fan. Why don't you go rake Brian's leaves or something? Bye.

 

[lightning1]

What a dumbass post. I wonder how you would feel if our starting QB could have hit wide open receivers all day. There was nothing wrong with the play selection. My god, the team had guys open all day. He was running the ball because he didn't trust his QB. That being said...at the end of the game...he called a few great series. Stanley just couldn't make any of the throws. Benching him may have been the call, but it's tough for a guy to come into that environment in the fourth quarter.

There is a good argument for pulling Stanley...If I fault BF for anything...I would say he should have pulled him. The other thing...the bench should have called a timeout on the interception...that I will give you. Those are on BF...but when your QB plays awful...you can't say it's poor play selection.

The play selection was shit, for the most part. Stanley sucked ass, no doubt. I can go through the game play by play and count up all of the shit calls, if you like. Stanley struggled and BF's answer was to go into his KF shell on offense. Run another stretch play into a 9 man front, Brian, WinNONE can't get enough, apparently. GTFO.

 

[lightning1]

FWIW you're a troll and have no idea what you're talking about.

I like Stanley and I have never until today, called for him to be benched. He should have been benched today. He couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat. He played awful.