Conservative football doesnt equal wins

[AZHAWKFAN1]

"Supper clubs" are pretty much been phased out and replaced with the Outbacks of the world. My favorite place is the Village Bar in Kieler Wisconsin. Great prime rib with the king big enough to feed a family! It has gotten smaller, but is still around 24-32oz. I get mine med/rare, my mouth is watering!!!

 

[PCHawk]

I'm sorry, PC, but the quality if the steaks at Outback have really been going in the toilet for at least the last 4 years. Their menu changed. The steaks are smaller and even the filet was crappy. They probably use Tahoe fake filets now. You gotta find a new place.

That's crazy talk. Outback is awesome

 

[ShadasRevenge]

Does it equal losses?

 

[OUTofTOWNHAWK]

Does it equal losses?

Nope.....thats the point of the thread. Look at the list good teams are in the negatives and bad teams are in the plus. It is funny watching how butthurt everyone is when I make a thread so I just let them be. This stat shows me that Iowa could stand to take a lot more chances because just winning the TO margin isnt cutting it.

On the other hand many people on here seem to be very happy to watch boring losing football as long as the game stays close.

 

[hwk23]

Nope.....thats the point of the thread. Look at the list good teams are in the negatives and bad teams are in the plus. It is funny watching how butthurt everyone is when I make a thread so I just let them be. This stat shows me that Iowa could stand to take a lot more chances because just winning the TO margin isnt cutting it.

On the other hand many people on here seem to be very happy to watch boring losing football as long as the game stays close.

Specifically, I think we need more aggressive play at the QB position. I don't mind KFs other conservative tendencies (for the most part) but we do better when the QB is allowed to make plays. Last year JVB looked afraid to throw anything but 2 yards check-down passes. That wasn't the JVB that played tOSU in 2009.

Of course JVB didn't throw many INTs (2nd least in the B1G per attempt) but he had a very high number of 3 and outs, which I think is worse. If we could have a normal amount of INTs and a normal amount of 3 and outs that would be a very good trade-off.

BTW, JC was also very good at not throwing INTs and Stanzi was dead last (worst) in INTs in 2009 and went to best in 2010.

Ironically, Iowa tends to have better seasons when we throw more INTs. I think it's because the QB attempts a wider range of throws and we assume a more optimum level of risk. That puts more pressure on the opposing defense.

 

[dave3912]

People love to make this counter, but Iowa isn't playing with that caliber of player. And in any case, I think Alabama plays more aggressively, especially on defense, than Iowa does. More blitzing, more physical pass coverage, etc.

bama can be more aggressive because of their superior talent, speed and skill. If Sabah didn't have players that could do those things I don't think he would be as aggressive defensively.

 

[FreedComanche]

People really need to quit dissing outback.

I never get a steak when I go out. Nobody can grill a steak better than me.

By the way, while you guys got on the food topic, who serves the best new york style pizza in the state of Iowa? I'm serious. I don't think I've had real good, authentic pizza in Iowa.

FreedComanche

 

[deanvogs]

Nope.....thats the point of the thread. Look at the list good teams are in the negatives and bad teams are in the plus. It is funny watching how butthurt everyone is when I make a thread so I just let them be. This stat shows me that Iowa could stand to take a lot more chances because just winning the TO margin isnt cutting it.

On the other hand many people on here seem to be very happy to watch boring losing football as long as the game stays close.

It is your OPINION that this stat shows that Iowa could take a lot more chances. As another poster pointed out, being aggressive or conservative doesn't = turnovers. Making a bad play, a bad read, running the wrong route, not holding onto the ball and fumbling = turnovers. You could run WR reverses all game long, why would they = more turnovers? You could run the ball 40 times playing conservative, and the RB could fumble 4 times (See Nebraska VS ISU when they turned it over 9 time, it wasn't because of "aggressive play calling). I bet you can't find a statistical correlation relating more aggressive play calling = more turnovers.

KF doesn't run a conservative offense to limit TO. KF runs a conservative offense to take advantage of usually superior defenses that he has. What kind of idiot wouldn't play to his teams strengths? Why come out in a spread O when your offense is very average, and your D is very good?

I know you like to give credit to Norm, for past success. Yet good coaches use what they have. Rich Rod was an idiot, and tried to make over an entire program to his gimmick offense, and it was a complete failure. There is a fine line between success and failure at this level. Rich Rod didn't fail because he was a bad offensive football mind, he failed because he tried to take a square peg and shove it in a round hole. That is exactly what would have happened to KF if he would have been running some high octane offenses when he defenses were awesome under Norm.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

Specifically, I think we need more aggressive play at the QB position. I don't mind KFs other conservative tendencies (for the most part) but we do better when the QB is allowed to make plays. Last year JVB looked afraid to throw anything but 2 yards check-down passes. That wasn't the JVB that played tOSU in 2009.

Of course JVB didn't throw many INTs (2nd least in the B1G per attempt) but he had a very high number of 3 and outs, which I think is worse. If we could have a normal amount of INTs and a normal amount of 3 and outs that would be a very good trade-off.

BTW, JC was also very good at not throwing INTs and Stanzi was dead last (worst) in INTs in 2009 and went to best in 2010.

Ironically, Iowa tends to have better seasons when we throw more INTs. I think it's because the QB attempts a wider range of throws and we assume a more optimum level of risk. That puts more pressure on the opposing defense.

Good post.

I'm amazed how many people want to lay 2012 on Vandy's shoulders and completely ignore the 2011 season he put up. There's a good reason for the huge difference in those two years. Vandy didn't just become a bad QB suddenly for no reason.

You can avoid a lot of risk by never leaving your house...but your ceiling is pretty low (metaphorically speaking). KFz needs to understand that risk is not inherently bad, it's a necessary component of greater reward. Nobody cares how many turnovers you had...if you get the W. But it's often the focus if you lose, even though there may be plenty of other factors. (what good is an extra possession or two, if you pizz them away by not attacking offensively). Turnovers are an easy one to lean on. The subtle "turnovers" are every bit as damaging...just not as obvious.

As tired a cliche as this may be for some...it's the same old thing. Playing to win... vs playing "not to lose". Let's shorten the game, let's keep it close, let's focus on not turning the ball over etc etc... are all playing from fear, instead of "going for the win". I think KFz's perception or belief of how risk affects the outcome, is out of balance with the reality. But as with many things...his perception becomes his reality.

 

[OUTofTOWNHAWK]

It is your OPINION that this stat shows that Iowa could take a lot more chances. As another poster pointed out, being aggressive or conservative doesn't = turnovers. Making a bad play, a bad read, running the wrong route, not holding onto the ball and fumbling = turnovers. You could run WR reverses all game long, why would they = more turnovers? You could run the ball 40 times playing conservative, and the RB could fumble 4 times (See Nebraska VS ISU when they turned it over 9 time, it wasn't because of "aggressive play calling). I bet you can't find a statistical correlation relating more aggressive play calling = more turnovers.

KF doesn't run a conservative offense to limit TO. KF runs a conservative offense to take advantage of usually superior defenses that he has. What kind of idiot wouldn't play to his teams strengths? Why come out in a spread O when your offense is very average, and your D is very good?

I know you like to give credit to Norm, for past success. Yet good coaches use what they have. Rich Rod was an idiot, and tried to make over an entire program to his gimmick offense, and it was a complete failure. There is a fine line between success and failure at this level. Rich Rod didn't fail because he was a bad offensive football mind, he failed because he tried to take a square peg and shove it in a round hole. That is exactly what would have happened to KF if he would have been running some high octane offenses when he defenses were awesome under Norm.

Lets compare RichRod to Kirk they both didnt have the players to run their offense. Kirks been here for how many years?

So an offense that takes no chances and has a lot of 3 n outs is good for whose defense?

Are you trying to tell me that Kirks conservative offense has been helping Iowas defense?

 

[LASBUR]

Your right, Iowa had a lot of problems last year that JV took the blame for. Having said that I do think he lost confidence as the year went along. Not just in himself. But maybe the system his WRs his OL maybe not in that order.

 

[wundergrape]

I never get a steak when I go out. Nobody can grill a steak better than me.

By the way, while you guys got on the food topic, who serves the best new york style pizza in the state of Iowa? I'm serious. I don't think I've had real good, authentic pizza in Iowa.

FreedComanche

You don't buy restaurant steak for the way it's cooked, you buy it for the cut and quality. You're not going to find prime beef available for retail. That said, the ten bucks I spend on a high quaility choice porterhouse and cook at home is almost always going to trump spending $30 on a prime porterhouse cut by a highly skilled butcher.

So I agree with you. And I don't.

 

[deanvogs]

Lets compare RichRod to Kirk they both didnt have the players to run their offense. Kirks been here for how many years?

So an offense that takes no chances and has a lot of 3 n outs is good for whose defense?

Are you trying to tell me that Kirks conservative offense has been helping Iowas defense?

RichRod had the luxury of being at Michigan. I would bet you anything that KF were hired, he would have taken that program and kept it right at the level it was, or improved it. Granted, Michigan would have been the perfect setting for KF.

Never said an offense that takes no chances and has lots of 3 n outs is good for the D. I said you can't statistically correlate between "taking chance" and turnovers, especially in play calling. You do realize that QB's have multiple options on pass plays that are called, plus a fumble has absolutely ZERO to do with an "aggressive play, Vs a conservative play"

Listen, I have to deal with foreverdouchy changing the argument, and moving the bar all over the place.....don't be that guy as well OOTH. If you want to talk about how playing for field position with a good D can help the team, lets have at it.....Most offenses don't drive 80 yards for a score, and if the D can put the offense on the short field, it creates scoring opportunities. 3 and outs kill the D, as last year proved. We were terrible offensively, and if you think the coaches wanted to be that bad offensively, then there is no hope of having this discussion with you.

 

[HomerChampless]

Nice, very nice. Why people don't grasp that we don't have the speed of Oregon or the NFL talent of Bama is beyond me.

FreedComanche

If Iowa's offensive schemes weren't so darn conservative ALL THE TIME maybe Iowa could get the offensive athletes that Oregon gets or Oklahoma State gets. Or if Iowa requires the offense to be conservative, the defense better be dominant.. Or If Iowa's defense isn't dominant, Iowa's offense better be more creative. Yeah, right, to win games, that is. Executing to perfection in Iowa's current scheme of offense and defense usually puts Iowa close. Is that enough to win games consistently?

 

[LASBUR]

Homer I have to wonder if some of those guys could get into Iowa ?

 

[HomerChampless]

If they come to OKIE STATE why not Iowa? Iowa's impediment to recruiting talent is Iowa's refusal to use the athletic ability of its athletes.

 

[LASBUR]

OK, Didnt know that

 

[FreedComanche]

If Iowa's offensive schemes weren't so darn conservative ALL THE TIME maybe Iowa could get the offensive athletes that Oregon gets or Oklahoma State gets. Or if Iowa requires the offense to be conservative, the defense better be dominant.. Or If Iowa's defense isn't dominant, Iowa's offense better be more creative. Yeah, right, to win games, that is. Executing to perfection in Iowa's current scheme of offense and defense usually puts Iowa close. Is that enough to win games consistently?

No argument from me on that. I just mean that to implement that kinda offense now would be foolish because you don't have the athletes for it.

I agree with you that Iowa should not limit themselves to within 8 hours of Iowa city for recruiting. I am the biggest opponent of that.

FreedComanche

 

[ShadasRevenge]

Nope.....thats the point of the thread. Look at the list good teams are in the negatives and bad teams are in the plus. It is funny watching how butthurt everyone is when I make a thread so I just let them be. This stat shows me that Iowa could stand to take a lot more chances because just winning the TO margin isnt cutting it.

On the other hand many people on here seem to be very happy to watch boring losing football as long as the game stays close.

The stat - the way you presented it - doesn't mean anything without any context to it. For instance, what Iowa did with those 12 extra possessions would be interesting. Or maybe how many 3-and-outs Iowa had last year, which would possibly give a casual reader a better picture.

It's kind of like your signature. Never mind that Iowa didn't have many passes beyond 10 yards last year, let alone 13, and never mind that at that point of the game, the offense was moving right into the teeth of a 30 MPH wind.

 

[OLWPAORWWM]

If they come to OKIE STATE why not Iowa? Iowa's impediment to recruiting talent is Iowa's refusal to use the athletic ability of its athletes.

Oklahoma State is in a larger state which is closer to talent pools in the south, and they have a billionaire philanthropist supporting their program. Is that Kirk's fault too?