Brian/Nate's Objective Performance

deanvogs said:
Ask Wisconsin or Georgia if wins should be expected over teams with sub .500 conference records.

Quit parsing things, you have an argument without doing all the stupid ass parsing. Under Brain we are 12-11 in B1G play, that AINT GREAT!!!!!!!!! That is all that ****ING matters. Quit trying to act like going 10-0 vs teams with winning records matters more or less, all that matters is your overall record. You want to win every ****ing game you play, not just ones vs X or Y.

Plus quit trying to act like non conference games don't matter. It really makes me think I am talking to a crazy person who doesn't understand the current landscape of college football.
Click to expand...

Mr T against Ivan the Russian. Better than a Rocky 14 could ever be. Thx guys.... Great entertainment.
 
deanvogs said:
Listen, I am the only one that is sane in this thread. I said early on I get that conference games mean MORE! The issue is idiots trying to say that non conference games DON'T MATTER AT ALL ARE ****ING DUMB AS SHIT.
Click to expand...

10th round and it's 5 each. No knock out punches but plenty of pawing.... Or is it petting. Lassie v Gentle Ben. Lots of back and growls. No blood.
 
Fryowa said:
A lot of folks here have offered the opinion that (assumedly because of his stats) Nateski should be considered one of the greats at least as far as Hawkeye QBs go.

Others have said that Kirk Jr. has started to "turn things around" and that he should be given a bunch more time to try to produce results.

I saw some stats on twitter lately that have made me step back and try to look at this as objectively as possible.

BF has been the OC for two and a half years, and Nate has been the starter that entire time. In that span we've played 23 conference games. Conference games, no matter what anyone says, are the only thing that matter to Iowa football, because it's the conference record that determines whether you play in the Big Ten title game, and subsequently whether you get into the CFP (lol). Games against Miami (OH), North Texas, etc. are ridiculous to consider; bowl games are strictly for funsies and don't mean dick except to players, which I understand.

So what would be considered a "good win" in conference? For argument's sake, let's say a win against a team with a record greater than .500 in conference. That obviously indicates a team that wins more conference games than it loses, and is a team that should be tough to beat.

Since BF took over in 2017, we are 1 for 11 against teams that finished the season with an above .500 conference record. We have won exactly ONE big game in the last two and a half years. I included this year's games against Michigan and PSU because it looks like Michigan will be above .500 and PSU already is. And before anyone goes and says the defense is part of it too...that's a ridiculous thing to even consider. Iowa was 17th in the country in points allowed in '17, 11th in 2018, and they sit at 3rd in the nation right now.

That's one game in the last two and a half years against a good conference opponent. The teams the Hawks have beat since September of '17 have a combined record of 32-73.

Brian has had a pretty good period of time to start winning games that count and he's completely flopped just about every chance he's had. Stanley also shares part of that (although I'd say a smaller part), and he's likewise had tons of chances to make big games happen but didn't pull it out. Bad OLs are part of the equation, but guys like CJ have had equally bad lines at different times and had no where near the WR talent that Stanley has. Regardless of where his yards and TDs turn out, I don't think anyone should go rushing to put him up there with Long, Banks, Tate, or Stanzi. How long will it take before people can admit that these two choke in every single meaningful game?

Is this seriously the guy you want running the show for the next 25 years?
Click to expand...
This is powerful evidence of our mediocrity against our peers.
Who on here can defend this consistent mediocrity?
 
deanvogs said:
Listen, I am the only one that is sane in this thread. I said early on I get that conference games mean MORE! The issue is idiots trying to say that non conference games DON'T MATTER AT ALL ARE ****ING DUMB AS SHIT.
Click to expand...
Fine . They matter but that aren’t really that important . Speaking of da haterz . BF hates beating good Big 10 teams lol
 
deanvogs said:
Because then the picture doesn't look the way Da Haters want. It is very typical, and they do this all the time. Certain things don't matter, certain wins don't count, blah, blah, blah.
Click to expand...
So you think Brian is doing a good job when our offense is ranked what 85? That is dog shit. Look where our defense is ranked year after year, and you want to make excuses for our offense being as pathetic as it is year after year? Why shouldn't our offense be ranked much much higher than it is? There is no reason it shouldn't. He is terrible and has no business being the OC at Iowa.
 
dirtwrap said:
In Nate's defense, he has not had any semblence of a competent running game. He should be able to just drop back and hand that thing off and get some production to help the offense. But in all those games that we have lost, the opponent stuffed our run and made Nate win it by himself. Quality receivers or not, doesn't matter if you cant run.

Now we know Nate cant run, but it isn't like he came here with the promise of doing so. Banks had Freddie and jermelle. Long had Harmon. Guys in between had sedrick shaw, nick bell, the guy who played for the Redskins for a long time who's name escapes me. Stanzi had shonn greene for a year and even with dual backs in 09 we had production there. The outlier is drew in 04 which is still probably my favorite season just because of how depleted we were and how the coaches adjusted on the fly and changing that gameplan.

Now us not being able to run the ball is on someone, just not on Nate. Brian is the OC so it starts there.
Click to expand...
Teams know Stanley and our receiving group cannot beat them consistently so they bring everyone up and stuff the run. Pretty simple way to stuff our offense, especially when the OC is clueless and cannot counter what opposing DC's are doing.
 
smitharooney said:
Dean is missing the point. If we win the Big 10 we are in the news years six . If we are in that we are in the hunt . To win the Big 10 you have to do good against good Big 10 teams. The better we do against the conference the better position we have in the national landscape
Click to expand...

I get the point just fine. You are wrong though about the NY6. Northwestern was 8-1 last year in the B1G, and went to the B1G championship game. They ended up in the Holiday bowl, NOT the NY6. That is because they went 0-3 in the non conference. But how could that be, I'm told they are just "scrimmages" that they "don't really count"?????? Oh yeah, because they DO COUNT, and they are IMPORTANT.
 
Caddy said:
So you think Brian is doing a good job when our offense is ranked what 85? That is dog shit. Look where our defense is ranked year after year, and you want to make excuses for our offense being as pathetic as it is year after year? Why shouldn't our offense be ranked much much higher than it is? There is no reason it shouldn't. He is terrible and has no business being the OC at Iowa.
Click to expand...

The offense has been disappointing this year for sure.

Brian was left with nothing when he came in, and is transitioning the Offense. Year 1 was rough, year 2 was better, year 3 so far has been disappointing, as I thought they would continue to improve, but they haven't.
 
deanvogs said:
I get the point just fine. You are wrong though about the NY6. Northwestern was 8-1 last year in the B1G, and went to the B1G championship game. They ended up in the Holiday bowl, NOT the NY6. That is because they went 0-3 in the non conference. But how could that be, I'm told they are just "scrimmages" that they "don't really count"?????? Oh yeah, because they DO COUNT, and they are IMPORTANT.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t aware that Northwestern won the Big 10 last year and got screwed out of the NY6
 
Fryowa said:
A lot of folks here have offered the opinion that (assumedly because of his stats) Nateski should be considered one of the greats at least as far as Hawkeye QBs go.

Others have said that Kirk Jr. has started to "turn things around" and that he should be given a bunch more time to try to produce results.

I saw some stats on twitter lately that have made me step back and try to look at this as objectively as possible.

BF has been the OC for two and a half years, and Nate has been the starter that entire time. In that span we've played 23 conference games. Conference games, no matter what anyone says, are the only thing that matter to Iowa football, because it's the conference record that determines whether you play in the Big Ten title game, and subsequently whether you get into the CFP (lol). Games against Miami (OH), North Texas, etc. are ridiculous to consider; bowl games are strictly for funsies and don't mean dick except to players, which I understand.

So what would be considered a "good win" in conference? For argument's sake, let's say a win against a team with a record greater than .500 in conference. That obviously indicates a team that wins more conference games than it loses, and is a team that should be tough to beat.

Since BF took over in 2017, we are 1 for 11 against teams that finished the season with an above .500 conference record. We have won exactly ONE big game in the last two and a half years. I included this year's games against Michigan and PSU because it looks like Michigan will be above .500 and PSU already is. And before anyone goes and says the defense is part of it too...that's a ridiculous thing to even consider. Iowa was 17th in the country in points allowed in '17, 11th in 2018, and they sit at 3rd in the nation right now.

That's one game in the last two and a half years against a good conference opponent. The teams the Hawks have beat since September of '17 have a combined record of 32-73.

Brian has had a pretty good period of time to start winning games that count and he's completely flopped just about every chance he's had. Stanley also shares part of that (although I'd say a smaller part), and he's likewise had tons of chances to make big games happen but didn't pull it out. Bad OLs are part of the equation, but guys like CJ have had equally bad lines at different times and had no where near the WR talent that Stanley has. Regardless of where his yards and TDs turn out, I don't think anyone should go rushing to put him up there with Long, Banks, Tate, or Stanzi. How long will it take before people can admit that these two choke in every single meaningful game?

Is this seriously the guy you want running the show for the next 25 years?

Capture.jpg
Click to expand...

Go peddle your Great American Novel on IowaLaw's blog site.

WTFLDEATR
(Way too f-ing long, didn't even attempt to read)
 
With Iowa, you can NOT simply look at Offensive or Defensive stats like YARDAGE or even POINTS to decide how “good” or “bad” each side of the ball is!!

Iowa does EVERYTHING it can to SHORTEN games (keep clock moving, bleed 39 seconds off every play clock, make the other team take 15 plays and 8 minutes to move down the field, etc)

This is in STARK CONTRAST to most other COLLEGE TEAMS...who spread field, run hurry up, try to score in 2 minutes or less. We really run a rare PRO-STYLE offense and defense. Heck even have plenty of fullbacks and tight ends, that most teams don’t even have or use.

Other coaches will iterate how important possession are vs Iowa cuz you have so few of them.

Bottom-line...you CANNOT compare yardage or points to determine how effective either side of ball, vs other teams yardage and points. It’s comparing apples to oranges!
 
You’re correct. Iowa’s scheme does make the offensive numbers a bit off when comparing against the rest of the nation.

still two points

first, this offense is disgusting to watch. They continually look lost, slow motion, clock mismanagement, lack of explosive plays, and lastly cannot score more than 1 TD a half...sometimes going entire games without.

second

This style of offense has worked what, 4x in Kirks tenure ??? 2001, 2002, 2005, and somewhat in 2008.

otherwise it’s been defense that’s kept this team above 500.

the results speak for themselves. One division title in 10 years with very few seasons it’s in play going into the last few weeks.

maybe change ????
 
DBAHawkFan said:
You’re correct. Iowa’s scheme does make the offensive numbers a bit off when comparing against the rest of the nation.

still two points

first, this offense is disgusting to watch. They continually look lost, slow motion, clock mismanagement, lack of explosive plays, and lastly cannot score more than 1 TD a half...sometimes going entire games without.

second

This style of offense has worked what, 4x in Kirks tenure ??? 2001, 2002, 2005, and somewhat in 2008.

otherwise it’s been defense that’s kept this team above 500.

the results speak for themselves. One division title in 10 years with very few seasons it’s in play going into the last few weeks.

maybe change ????
Click to expand...

You have to realize that the part of the defense being so good is the offensive scheme. Whether it is effective or not. To shorten the game is about limiting the number of plays out defense has to play, especially for our defensive line and edge rushers. We have typically not had a lot of depth on the d line and those guys effectiveness in rushing the passer and stopping the run is adversely affected by the number of plays they have to play. For teams that have a ton of quality depth like your Alabama's and Clemson's, they can get away with it. We cant. And the success of our defense is all about the d line, to stop the run and rush the passer with 4 guys. That way our secondary can drop in zones and out number the receivers. Without an effective d line, we are done.

As far as division titles, hasn't it pretty much been us once, nw once and wisconsin all the other times? Our problem is we cant beat wisconsin. They run the ball better. Their offensive line play is better. The control the game better. They do more things on defense than we do as far as getting pressure and negative plays. Go on and on. Wisconsin is just a better version of us because their scheme and style of play is the same as us.

Saying all that, I am defending the scheme which is sound, not the execution which is the lacking part. I know it sounds like kirk, but the difference between us winning 7.5 games per year and 10 games per year is execution.
 
Why has our defense generally ranked in the top half of FBS programs, while our offense is generally ranked in the lower half of FBS programs?
If both offense and defense have similar recruiting and talent challenges, then the cause would appear to be scheme / coaching.
If the OC name was not Ferentz, would this performance merit a promotion to a head coaching position at any school?
 
smitharooney said:
Dean is missing the point. If we win the Big 10 we are in the news years six . If we are in that we are in the hunt . To win the Big 10 you have to do good against good Big 10 teams. The better we do against the conference the better position we have in the national landscape
Click to expand...
Loss to North Dakota State NBD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top