Concerns coming into the yr

[trj]

Gavin Williams isn't elusive, but does have sprinters speed. If he hits a seam he can pull off some long runs.

I am going to disagree that it balances out. I think I read somewhere that TG lead the B10 in negative runs.
Now with how the offense, as a whole, was playing last year, 2nd and 13 would, more often than not, turn into 3rd and 13+. No offense is going to be able to routinely sustain drives playing that far off schedule

Now if they could have replaced 2nd and 13s with 2nd and 7s, I think you would have seen a dramatic improvement with the offensive efficiency.

That said, TG was our best offensive weapon last year.

I'm not disputing TG took too many hits behind the LOS. He led the nation with runningbacks tackled behind the LOS at 47. That number seems high, I have not done the homework and that number has come up on multiple occasions so I am going to roll with it.

My only counter is that TG was 2nd on the team in receptions and probably 1st on plays of 20 or more yards. You need explosive plays on offense and now that CJ and TG are gone it is an issue.

IMO, Gavin Williams runs stiff and robotic as if he doesn't want to make a mistake. Don't get it twisted, you need that type of guy who is going to fall forward no matter what, but hawkod saying GW has a 2nd gear does have me excited. He can grind out yardage and also turn a screen pass into a 40 yard play.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

Iowa was very youthful last year, and honestly we could've gone 7-6. They return the most (tied with tOSU) production in the big ten this year. I'm not sure if that translates into another visit to Indy or not, but it was pretty amazing Iowa won some of the games it did last year.

Iowa's defense is going to be pretty solid, with better D line depth. I HOPE Iowa's offense has matured a bit and will be significantly better. It was clear that Iowa had a couple of lost recruiting years on that line.

Will ol' Spence be up to the task? That's a great question. I just hope we can get more than 2 yards on running plays, which will help the boy out a bunch.

How many offenses rated in the 90s or lower win 9 plus games? I'd say we were an abnormality. I mean that's crazy talk to have a bottom 20 offense in all of college football and yet still win (and expect to) most of the time. If we had just a middle of the road offense what should our expectations be?

 

[Fryowa]

How many offenses rated in the 90s or lower win 9 plus games? I'd say we were an abnormality. I mean that's crazy talk to have a bottom 20 offense in all of college football and yet still win (and expect to) most of the time. If we had just a middle of the road offense what should our expectations be?

Kinda like the opposite problem we've had in basketball for several years. No D and an elite offense.

 

[HawkGold]

How many offenses rated in the 90s or lower win 9 plus games? I'd say we were an abnormality. I mean that's crazy talk to have a bottom 20 offense in all of college football and yet still win (and expect to) most of the time. If we had just a middle of the road offense what should our expectations be?

A good look at the schedule indicates the Hawks had 2 good wins. Add to that the "Ferentzing" of PSU which happens on more than just occasions. The other wins were primarily over not so good of teams. Actually wins over teams not very good at all. Good Special Teams, Good Defense can beat a lot of not very good teams unless you shoot yourself in the foot.

Look for teams to throw under coverage like crazy this fall and then throw a Kentucky pass into the mix.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

Kinda like the opposite problem we've had in basketball for several years. No D and an elite offense.

Pretty much yup. If the football teams O was say 50-60 something we still aren't beating the OSU and Bamas most likely. But it gives us a punchers chance if we get in the playoffs. And instead of sweating through so many one possession last second wins we might actually beat teams by double digits more often.

 

[racerhawk]

How many offenses rated in the 90s or lower win 9 plus games? I'd say we were an abnormality. I mean that's crazy talk to have a bottom 20 offense in all of college football and yet still win (and expect to) most of the time. If we had just a middle of the road offense what should our expectations be?

Dare to dream for an offense ranked 50th in the country!!! If we just have a pedestrian (not dreadful) offense, we'll be pretty damn good. Not holding my breath.

 

[CP87]

Pretty much yup. If the football teams O was say 50-60 something we still aren't beating the OSU and Bamas most likely. But it gives us a punchers chance if we get in the playoffs. And instead of sweating through so many one possession last second wins we might actually beat teams by double digits more often.

The crazy thing is that our offense was ranked decently (by efficiency metrics) in 2017 - 2019. We ranked 44th, 41st, and 53rd in the nation, respectively. And we won 8, 7, and 8 games in the regular season.

In 2020 we were 64th, yet we were on pace to win 9 games in a full season. In 2021 we were 90th, and yet we won 10 games. Perhaps if the offense drops even further, we can go undefeated again?

What it probably means is that there is not a whole lot of difference between having the 40th best offense and the 60th best offense...either way, you are probably not winning your games on that side of the ball. The only offense of the KF era that the team could lean on to win games was 2002. The next best offense was likely 2010, but the results of that season prove that the O wasn't good enough to overcome some deficiencies in other areas.

We need to have an offense that isn't abysmal. Last year, it was mostly abysmal, but it could pull out plays just often enough to eek out a lot of wins.

 

[racerhawk]

The crazy thing is that our offense was ranked decently (by efficiency metrics) in 2017 - 2019. We ranked 44th, 41st, and 53rd in the nation, respectively. And we won 8, 7, and 8 games in the regular season.

In 2020 we were 64th, yet we were on pace to win 9 games in a full season. In 2021 we were 90th, and yet we won 10 games. Perhaps if the offense drops even further, we can go undefeated again?

What it probably means is that there is not a whole lot of difference between having the 40th best offense and the 60th best offense...either way, you are probably not winning your games on that side of the ball. The only offense of the KF era that the team could lean on to win games was 2002. The next best offense was likely 2010, but the results of that season prove that the O wasn't good enough to overcome some deficiencies in other areas.

We need to have an offense that isn't abysmal. Last year, it was mostly abysmal, but it could pull out plays just often enough to eek out a lot of wins.

I didn't realize that we were ranked in the 40's those years. Thanks.

 

[okeefe4prez]

Pretty much yup. If the football teams O was say 50-60 something we still aren't beating the OSU and Bamas most likely. But it gives us a punchers chance if we get in the playoffs. And instead of sweating through so many one possession last second wins we might actually beat teams by double digits more often.

I disagree. If we had the fiftieth best offense and a typical Iowa defense we still wouldn't have three guys in the defensive backfield who could cover the stud WRs those teams have and we'd get housed by 20+ points. Watch a Purdue game under Brohm and then imagine that instead of Purdue we were playing some team with 6 first through third round guys on defense, a better QB and even better WRs and think about how bad we would get shit trucked. I don't want to poo poo our defense because we've had some good ones, but weather, our schedule and offensive style really helps the defense stay near the top statistically.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

I disagree. If we had the fiftieth best offense and a typical Iowa defense we still wouldn't have three guys in the defensive backfield who could cover the stud WRs those teams have and we'd get housed by 20+ points. Watch a Purdue game under Brohm and then imagine that instead of Purdue we were playing some team with 6 first through third round guys on defense, a better QB and even better WRs and think about how bad we would get shit trucked. I don't want to poo poo our defense because we've had some good ones, but weather, our schedule and offensive style really helps the defense stay near the top statistically.

Define typical I guess. Last yr and this next yr we are supposed to have a top 15-top 10ish D (maybe better). Don't get it twisted I'm not saying we should be favored against those top teams either. Just gives us a punchers chance where if say on our best day against them having a bad one with say a stud or two of theirs hurt who knows anything can happen. All I know is last yr our O had no shot at keeping us in any game against a Bama, GA, OSU. Our D would give up 35 plus to em all and our O struggled to get to 20 against medicore teams

 

[DrKnipe]

The QB is the biggest concern going into the year. Everything else is filler.

 

[GesterHawk]

The crazy thing is that our offense was ranked decently (by efficiency metrics) in 2017 - 2019. We ranked 44th, 41st, and 53rd in the nation, respectively. And we won 8, 7, and 8 games in the regular season.

In 2020 we were 64th, yet we were on pace to win 9 games in a full season. In 2021 we were 90th, and yet we won 10 games. Perhaps if the offense drops even further, we can go undefeated again?

What it probably means is that there is not a whole lot of difference between having the 40th best offense and the 60th best offense...either way, you are probably not winning your games on that side of the ball. The only offense of the KF era that the team could lean on to win games was 2002. The next best offense was likely 2010, but the results of that season prove that the O wasn't good enough to overcome some deficiencies in other areas.

We need to have an offense that isn't abysmal. Last year, it was mostly abysmal, but it could pull out plays just often enough to eek out a lot of wins.

How was the defense rated in those years? I bet much lower than last year's.

 

[GesterHawk]

The crazy thing is that our offense was ranked decently (by efficiency metrics) in 2017 - 2019. We ranked 44th, 41st, and 53rd in the nation, respectively. And we won 8, 7, and 8 games in the regular season.

In 2020 we were 64th, yet we were on pace to win 9 games in a full season. In 2021 we were 90th, and yet we won 10 games. Perhaps if the offense drops even further, we can go undefeated again?

What it probably means is that there is not a whole lot of difference between having the 40th best offense and the 60th best offense...either way, you are probably not winning your games on that side of the ball. The only offense of the KF era that the team could lean on to win games was 2002. The next best offense was likely 2010, but the results of that season prove that the O wasn't good enough to overcome some deficiencies in other areas.

We need to have an offense that isn't abysmal. Last year, it was mostly abysmal, but it could pull out plays just often enough to eek out a lot of wins.

I also wonder about kick-off return and punt return.

 

[CP87]

How was the defense rated in those years? I bet much lower than last year's.

I actually checked that, D and special teams were ranked similarly in 17-19 as during the last 2 year (anywhere from low teens to low single-digits). I think a lot of it is just dumb luck.

 

[CP87]

I also wonder about kick-off return and punt return.

I think kicker performance was a HUGE part of last year's success, as well.

 

[Gander Hawk]

A good look at the schedule indicates the Hawks had 2 good wins. Add to that the "Ferentzing" of PSU which happens on more than just occasions. The other wins were primarily over not so good of teams. Actually wins over teams not very good at all. Good Special Teams, Good Defense can beat a lot of not very good teams unless you shoot yourself in the foot.

Look for teams to throw under coverage like crazy this fall and then throw a Kentucky pass into the mix.

That's where experienced LBs should pay off. The best Iowa teams have LBs who can jump those short passes for INTs.

 

[racerhawk]

I disagree. If we had the fiftieth best offense and a typical Iowa defense we still wouldn't have three guys in the defensive backfield who could cover the stud WRs those teams have and we'd get housed by 20+ points. Watch a Purdue game under Brohm and then imagine that instead of Purdue we were playing some team with 6 first through third round guys on defense, a better QB and even better WRs and think about how bad we would get shit trucked. I don't want to poo poo our defense because we've had some good ones, but weather, our schedule and offensive style really helps the defense stay near the top statistically.

I tend to agree. If the goal is to be a playoff level team, that just isn't happening with the talent level we have at skill positions. We would need a QB who is a difference maker, a few stellar, tall, fast receivers, and absolutely lockdown QBs and Safeties. We recruit the other positions very well, but we cannot compete with the top 4 teams with the talent we have at these positions on a consistent basis. We do tend to develop excellent CBs and Safeties, but we rely on low scoring games to win, as we have zero deep threats on offense (typically). Even with a great defense, and Alabama, Georgia, or An Ohio State will score points.

 

[okeefe4prez]

I tend to agree. If the goal is to be a playoff level team, that just isn't happening with the talent level we have at skill positions. We would need a QB who is a difference maker, a few stellar, tall, fast receivers, and absolutely lockdown QBs and Safeties. We recruit the other positions very well, but we cannot compete with the top 4 teams with the talent we have at these positions on a consistent basis. We do tend to develop excellent CBs and Safeties, but we rely on low scoring games to win, as we have zero deep threats on offense (typically). Even with a great defense, and Alabama, Georgia, or An Ohio State will score points.

Iowa had one scenario in my life where I honestly think we could have had a natty caliber team. That was if Shonn Greene had come back for 2009. You put Shonn on that 2009 team and we would have been as good as Bama or Tejas that year. Of course we wouldn't have had a shot at the title because that was back in the 2 team era and no way in hell we would have gotten the votes needed to participate, but we would have had a shot against either of those teams. Nick basically ran the same playbook as Iowa back then and that 2009 defense was legit. And the offense would have been just good enough to give us a chance. DJK and McNutt on the outside. Moeaki at TE. Stanzi at QB. Good o-line. We were weak at RB, though. I don't think we'll ever see another scenario develop like that where I could objectively say we were that close to the top. The separation of the top from the middle has become too immense. At this point the only way I could see us even getting close is if there was a Russell Wilson caliber QB in the grad transfer portal and we got him and had an otherwise stacked team.

 

[racerhawk]

Iowa had one scenario in my life where I honestly think we could have had a natty caliber team. That was if Shonn Greene had come back for 2009. You put Shonn on that 2009 team and we would have been as good as Bama or Tejas that year. Of course we wouldn't have had a shot at the title because that was back in the 2 team era and no way in hell we would have gotten the votes needed to participate, but we would have had a shot against either of those teams. Nick basically ran the same playbook as Iowa back then and that 2009 defense was legit. And the offense would have been just good enough to give us a chance. DJK and McNutt on the outside. Moeaki at TE. Stanzi at QB. Good o-line. We were weak at RB, though. I don't think we'll ever see another scenario develop like that where I could objectively say we were that close to the top. The separation of the top from the middle has become too immense. At this point the only way I could see us even getting close is if there was a Russell Wilson caliber QB in the grad transfer portal and we got him and had an otherwise stacked team.

Totally agree. The gap between the elite and everyone else is pretty huge these days. The 2009 scenario is interesting. They had some legit talent for a couple of years. There were some Big Ten Network replays on recently and a couple of good Iowa teams were featured. Some real talent!

WTF can't Iowa get a transfer Russell Wilson? F'n Wisconsin.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

I tend to agree. If the goal is to be a playoff level team, that just isn't happening with the talent level we have at skill positions. We would need a QB who is a difference maker, a few stellar, tall, fast receivers, and absolutely lockdown QBs and Safeties. We recruit the other positions very well, but we cannot compete with the top 4 teams with the talent we have at these positions on a consistent basis. We do tend to develop excellent CBs and Safeties, but we rely on low scoring games to win, as we have zero deep threats on offense (typically). Even with a great defense, and Alabama, Georgia, or An Ohio State will score points.

That's where getting a kid like Kasper woulda been damn near program changing... You can't hide your QB as much as KF likes to try. And QBs no matter how good they are can't do much if their Oline stinks with no explosive weapons. It's hard to have 10 play 80 yard drives. Sometimes you gotta hit big plays for scores too. How many plays of say 50 yards in the passing game did we have last yr? Did Johnson have a couple? Ragini had that 1 big one against PSU. But what we had for all season some teams are doing damn near every week. What you described is the why we don't...