D-Line Loaded

[#1DieHardHawk]

Myers wasn't any better than Jackson and one could argue that Boettger wasn't all that much better than Wirfs (at least toward the end of the season). The OT excuse is weak.

Completely agree. Nothing against Myers and Boettger, but it's not as if they were playing like all-americans when they got hurt. Jackson and Wirfs, except for some expected hiccups, were a better combo IMO, and have much higher ceilings.

Go back and watch last season's games. Neither Myers or Boettger played all that well, and they weren't facing 9-man fronts nearly as often as we suffered with this season. Both were turnstiles that almost got CJ killed at times.

Myers may have been a better run blocker, but that was at guard, so Jackson probably would have started at RT even if Myers was healthy. Myers is a step up from Render. No doubt about that, but to think that our run game would have been drastically better with either in the line-up is wishful thinking at best. Better play-calling to make teams pay for stacking the box and attacking the zone scheme is what would have helped the running game.

 

[tksirius]

Completely agree. Nothing against Myers and Boettger, but it's not as if they were playing like all-americans when they got hurt. Jackson and Wirfs, except for some expected hiccups, were a better combo IMO, and have much higher ceilings.

Go back and watch last season's games. Neither Myers or Boettger played all that well, and they weren't facing 9-man fronts nearly as often as we suffered with this season. Both were turnstiles that almost got CJ killed at times.

Myers may have been a better run blocker, but that was at guard, so Jackson probably would have started at RT even if Myers was healthy. Myers is a step up from Render. No doubt about that, but to think that our run game would have been drastically better with either in the line-up is wishful thinking at best. Better play-calling to make teams pay for stacking the box and attacking the zone scheme is what would have helped the running game.

Truth ^^

 

[BigD]

What are you talking about? Do you even understand that over 38 years to have this average is pretty freaking good? Only 16 P5 teams have averaged 8 wins or more over the last 38 years, they are: Virginia Tech, Tennessee, Texas, USC, Auburn, Clemson, Penn St., Georgia, Michigan, Alabama, Florida, Miami, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Ohio St. and Florida St.

Mostly Blue Bloods can average 8 or more wins per year over this kind of extended period. Iowa is just behind that group at 7.3 wins per year. And no, I don't think Iowa is going to move up to a blue blood type program.

Take note of some teams NOT on this list: Notre Dame, LSU, Texas A&M, Oregon, Washingon, UCLA, Wisconsin. They are all right around where Iowa is at. 7.3-7.9 Wins per year.

So your answer is no apparently we shouldn’t try to do better. If Kirk were to coach another ten years and go 7-5 and lose badly in all ten bowl games and end the year 7-6 you would be fine with that.

Well here’s the funny thing about this type of thinking. If Kirk had done this 7-5 thingy you are talking about in year four, five, and six he would have NEVER gotten the huge contract and pay increase that he did. Absolutely no way, no way. After year six he also had several highly rated commits. Without any doubt it was anticipated that he would maintain that momentum. He did not. He was paid to do just that. The AD is just trying to save face by keeping him around and hope the pitchforks don’t come out. 7.5 which includes four weak nonconference teams to juice up his over all record so actually against power five teams he averages 3.5 wins a year. I’m breathless, should we all bow down and kiss the emperor’s ring? At almost all of the teams you named he would have been fired long ago with maybe the exception of Wisconsin. They would have never tolerated 7-5 regular seasons from a coach whose salary has been in the top ten for almost twelve years. Players play to not just win seven games, they play to win it all. It will NEVER EVER happen with Kirk. I would at least like to think it’s a possibly but all long as he is here it’s a pipe dream. Obviously this isn’t just about football for you but some thing else.

Is there something about Kirk that may garner special consideration? Actually yes. The program is pretty clean from appearance. The kids seem pretty descent when they get here and when they leave. They seem pretty good hearted as does Kirk. There nothing wrong with that. I get it. I like that about him. That’s where we are at now. Thank s why he is still here. However he was never paid to be preacher Kirk. As I said he was given the raise and the money because it was expected for him to keep us into the top ten on a regular basis. Our offense doesn’t even rank in the top fifty. The defense has been much more solid and has been his saving grace. Frankly I find his offense extremely boring to watch and I think most coaches making what he does puts a much better offensive product on the field.

Wisconsin is the team to beat each year in the western division. Hayden would have won it every year with the exception of his last couple of years due to medical problems. So far Kirk has one under his belt with an extremely favorable schedule which by the way didn’t include playing Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, or Michigan State that year which traditionally are the power teams of the conference. How convenient for the KF supporters to conveniently forget that. When we finally played one of these teams we lost. Then got pummeled in the Rose bowl.

He will never bring a championship team to Iowa. It will never happen. For those who support this it’s obviously not really that important to you. It must be the other thing I already brought up. That’s not a terrible value, but own it. Admit it. I am actually torn between both. I wouldn’t want to win if we have to do it by cheating or buying players. It’s just that at this point it’s not even a point of discussion. Appaerently you are happy with that and that’s you right. I am not one who feels that we have to concede to never doing it or that we should concede and keep Father Kirk around. Amen

 

[PCHawk]

So your answer is no apparently we shouldn’t try to do better. If Kirk were to coach another ten years and go 7-5 and lose badly in all ten bowl games and end the year 7-6 you would be fine with that.

Well here’s the funny thing about this type of thinking. If Kirk had done this 7-5 thingy you are talking about in year four, five, and six he would have NEVER gotten the huge contract and pay increase that he did. Absolutely no way, no way. After year six he also had several highly rated commits. Without any doubt it was anticipated that he would maintain that momentum. He did not. He was paid to do just that. The AD is just trying to save face by keeping him around and hope the pitchforks don’t come out. 7.5 which includes four weak nonconference teams to juice up his over all record so actually against power five teams he averages 3.5 wins a year. I’m breathless, should we all bow down and kiss the emperor’s ring? At almost all of the teams you named he would have been fired long ago with maybe the exception of Wisconsin. They would have never tolerated 7-5 regular seasons from a coach whose salary has been in the top ten for almost twelve years. Players play to not just win seven games, they play to win it all. It will NEVER EVER happen with Kirk. I would at least like to think it’s a possibly but all long as he is here it’s a pipe dream. Obviously this isn’t just about football for you but some thing else.

Is there something about Kirk that may garner special consideration? Actually yes. The program is pretty clean from appearance. The kids seem pretty descent when they get here and when they leave. They seem pretty good hearted as does Kirk. There nothing wrong with that. I get it. I like that about him. That’s where we are at now. Thank s why he is still here. However he was never paid to be preacher Kirk. As I said he was given the raise and the money because it was expected for him to keep us into the top ten on a regular basis. Our offense doesn’t even rank in the top fifty. The defense has been much more solid and has been his saving grace. Frankly I find his offense extremely boring to watch and I think most coaches making what he does puts a much better offensive product on the field.

Wisconsin is the team to beat each year in the western division. Hayden would have won it every year with the exception of his last couple of years due to medical problems. So far Kirk has one under his belt with an extremely favorable schedule which by the way didn’t include playing Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, or Michigan State that year which traditionally are the power teams of the conference. How convenient for the KF supporters to conveniently forget that. When we finally played one of these teams we lost. Then got pummeled in the Rose bowl.

He will never bring a championship team to Iowa. It will never happen. For those who support this it’s obviously not really that important to you. It must be the other thing I already brought up. That’s not a terrible value, but own it. Admit it. I am actually torn between both. I wouldn’t want to win if we have to do it by cheating or buying players. It’s just that at this point it’s not even a point of discussion. Appaerently you are happy with that and that’s you right. I am not one who feels that we have to concede to never doing it or that we should concede and keep Father Kirk around. Amen

Firing coach after coach for the pipe dream of a national championship will get you one maybe 1 in 100 times. The other 99 times it will destroy your program. You want to destroy the program for a 1 in 100 shot at best?

If you want to fire him because you want to get to an 8 win average, then that's fine. If you want to fire him because his football is boring as hell, then I'm right there with you. But if you want to fire a coach at the University of Iowa because he doesn't win national championships, then you're crazy and I'm glad as hell you aren't our AD.

 

[tksirius]

Firing coach after coach for the pipe dream of a national championship will get you one maybe 1 in 100 times. The other 99 times it will destroy your program. You want to destroy the program for a 1 in 100 shot at best?

If you want to fire him because you want to get to an 8 win average, then that's fine. If you want to fire him because his football is boring as hell, then I'm right there with you. But if you want to fire a coach at the University of Iowa because he doesn't win national championships, then you're crazy and I'm glad as hell you aren't our AD.

Yep, firing KF will destroy the program.

 

[BVHawk95]

Yep, firing KF will destroy the program.

Maybe, maybe not. But turning Iowa into a national championship contender would take a hell of a lot more than just a new coaching staff.

 

[deanvogs]

So your answer is no apparently we shouldn’t try to do better. If Kirk were to coach another ten years and go 7-5 and lose badly in all ten bowl games and end the year 7-6 you would be fine with that.

Well here’s the funny thing about this type of thinking. If Kirk had done this 7-5 thingy you are talking about in year four, five, and six he would have NEVER gotten the huge contract and pay increase that he did. Absolutely no way, no way. After year six he also had several highly rated commits. Without any doubt it was anticipated that he would maintain that momentum. He did not. He was paid to do just that. The AD is just trying to save face by keeping him around and hope the pitchforks don’t come out. 7.5 which includes four weak nonconference teams to juice up his over all record so actually against power five teams he averages 3.5 wins a year. I’m breathless, should we all bow down and kiss the emperor’s ring? At almost all of the teams you named he would have been fired long ago with maybe the exception of Wisconsin. They would have never tolerated 7-5 regular seasons from a coach whose salary has been in the top ten for almost twelve years. Players play to not just win seven games, they play to win it all. It will NEVER EVER happen with Kirk. I would at least like to think it’s a possibly but all long as he is here it’s a pipe dream. Obviously this isn’t just about football for you but some thing else.

Is there something about Kirk that may garner special consideration? Actually yes. The program is pretty clean from appearance. The kids seem pretty descent when they get here and when they leave. They seem pretty good hearted as does Kirk. There nothing wrong with that. I get it. I like that about him. That’s where we are at now. Thank s why he is still here. However he was never paid to be preacher Kirk. As I said he was given the raise and the money because it was expected for him to keep us into the top ten on a regular basis. Our offense doesn’t even rank in the top fifty. The defense has been much more solid and has been his saving grace. Frankly I find his offense extremely boring to watch and I think most coaches making what he does puts a much better offensive product on the field.

Wisconsin is the team to beat each year in the western division. Hayden would have won it every year with the exception of his last couple of years due to medical problems. So far Kirk has one under his belt with an extremely favorable schedule which by the way didn’t include playing Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, or Michigan State that year which traditionally are the power teams of the conference. How convenient for the KF supporters to conveniently forget that. When we finally played one of these teams we lost. Then got pummeled in the Rose bowl.

He will never bring a championship team to Iowa. It will never happen. For those who support this it’s obviously not really that important to you. It must be the other thing I already brought up. That’s not a terrible value, but own it. Admit it. I am actually torn between both. I wouldn’t want to win if we have to do it by cheating or buying players. It’s just that at this point it’s not even a point of discussion. Appaerently you are happy with that and that’s you right. I am not one who feels that we have to concede to never doing it or that we should concede and keep Father Kirk around. Amen

Listen I called for Ferentz head in 2014, because the stretch of 7 wins without a 9+ win season was too long in my opinion. I get it that it is only my opinion, but I don't think you ditch a coach for a stretch of 12 wins, 8 win and 7/8 win season. Especially when that is historically better (at least 2 times) than they have been over the last 38 years.

Now if Ferentz goes 8, 7, 4, 8 and 7 wins like he did from '10-'14 I think that is fireable when you underperform Iowa's 38 year historical win average for 5 years. If Ferentz goes 7 wins next year I'm going to be getting very unsatisfied again. Also honestly I wouldn't mind a change at all, I have Ferentz fatigue as well. I just don't think you fire a guy for putting up the same results that his 20 year predecessor did and a 12, 8 and 7/8 win run certainly isn't fireable in my opinion anyway.

 

[BigD]

Listen I called for Ferentz head in 2014, because the stretch of 7 wins without a 9+ win season was too long in my opinion. I get it that it is only my opinion, but I don't think you ditch a coach for a stretch of 12 wins, 8 win and 7/8 win season. Especially when that is historically better (at least 2 times) than they have been over the last 38 years.

Now if Ferentz goes 8, 7, 4, 8 and 7 wins like he did from '10-'14 I think that is fireable when you underperform Iowa's 38 year historical win average for 5 years. If Ferentz goes 7 wins next year I'm going to be getting very unsatisfied again. Also honestly I wouldn't mind a change at all, I have Ferentz fatigue as well. I just don't think you fire a guy for putting up the same results that his 20 year predecessor did and a 12, 8 and 7/8 win run certainly isn't fireable in my opinion anyway.

Thank you for expressing that to me. What your saying seems totally reasonable and I can see where your coming from. I respect your perspective and that you do have expectations and limitations on your patience and that you do have a fervor for winning.

It gets scary when people appear to be the types that are willing to sign a blank check blindly without reservations or much thought into the process. Doing that can be very dangerous in other aspects of life like religion.

Those who followed Jim Jones and David Karesh are now all dead because of this mindset. Politics goes the same way. I am not going to expound on politics as Rob has asked not to. I will only say this about politics and myself. I do not consider myself a Democrat or a Republican. I indentify myself as an independent. I don’t want to be tied down to some political organization who controls my will and my ability to be open minded and fair. To declare yourself as one or the other severely limits yourself and ties you down to either parties ideologies.

 

[HawkGold]

Since you liked this post, I'm assuming you misunderstood it. All non blue bloods have things they can point to as reasons they don't win more. If they didn't have those reasons, they would be blue bloods. If everyone was a blue blood, then no one would be.

It looks like you were arguing with yourself. If you were talking to me, I liked it as I thought it was funny. The last one though is difficult to understand.

What I fail to understand is this.

Anything human is a bit dysfunctional. KF has one "ok" being very dysfunctional. That is what I fail to understand. Why so much dysfunctionality is OK. Again, if you referred to me, you read too much into that.

You brought up Dean. I have no real big issues with his overall analysis. He's much more forgiving on football than basketball when in fact the outcome is about the same...only completely different in so many ways. My issues with him are his attacks. He also has been guilty of changing "replies" and will say things out of context. He's an abuser.

 

[deanvogs]

It looks like you were arguing with yourself. If you were talking to me, I liked it as I thought it was funny. The last one though is difficult to understand.

What I fail to understand is this.

Anything human is a bit dysfunctional. KF has one "ok" being very dysfunctional. That is what I fail to understand. Why so much dysfunctionality is OK. Again, if you referred to me, you read too much into that.

You brought up Dean. I have no real big issues with his overall analysis. He's much more forgiving on football than basketball when in fact the outcome is about the same...only completely different in so many ways. My issues with him are his attacks. He also has been guilty of changing "replies" and will say things out of context. He's an abuser.

It looks like you were arguing with yourself. If you were talking to me, I liked it as I thought it was funny. The last one though is difficult to understand.

What I fail to understand is this.

Anything human is a bit dysfunctional. KF has one "ok" being very dysfunctional. That is what I fail to understand. Why so much dysfunctionality is OK. Again, if you referred to me, you read too much into that.

You brought up Dean. I have no real big issues with his overall analysis. He's much more forgiving on football than basketball when in fact the outcome is about the same...only completely different in so many ways. My issues with him are his attacks. He also has been guilty of changing "replies" and will say things out of context. He's an abuser.

 

[HawkGold]

No.

 

[HawkGold]

But,

 

[deanvogs]

But,

I already know you stalk me, that is the issue here.

 

[HawkGold]

I already know you stalk me, that is the issue here.

 

[PCHawk]

Yep, firing KF will destroy the program.

Maybe you misread my post, but I said "firing coach after coach will more than likely destroy a program". It was in response to a post that said we should want national championships and keep trying until we find a coach that gets us one. Try to keep up.

 

[Joshbrown]

Maybe you misread my post, but I said "firing coach after coach will more than likely destroy a program". It was in response to a post that said we should want national championships and keep trying until we find a coach that gets us one. Try to keep up.

Fire a coach willy nilly=destroys program

Let a coach take ownership of the athletic department=guarantee never to realize potential

There's a middle ground and you can't see it. But Barry Alvarez can see it. And he knows waaaayyyyyy more than you or Dean or me . . . wait for it . . . OR KIRK FERENTZ!!

 

[PCHawk]

Fire a coach willy nilly=destroys program

Let a coach take ownership of the athletic department=guarantee never to realize potential

There's a middle ground and you can't see it. But Barry Alvarez can see it. And he knows waaaayyyyyy more than you or Dean or me . . . wait for it . . . OR KIRK FERENTZ!!

Oh I know there is a middle ground. We've been watching it for 18 years.

 

[tksirius]

Maybe you misread my post, but I said "firing coach after coach will more than likely destroy a program". It was in response to a post that said we should want national championships and keep trying until we find a coach that gets us one. Try to keep up.

Iowa has had 2 coaches in the last 4 decades. I think we can experiment a little lol.

 

[PCHawk]

I will say tho that Barry Alvarez is the shit. It's crazy what they've done with so many different coaches. But it's even crazier what those coaches have done after they've left. It really makes me wonder how they are doing it. Maybe Wisconsin kids are even more under rated out of high school than Iowa kids are?

 

[PCHawk]

Iowa has had 2 coaches in the last 4 decades. I think we can experiment a little lol.

I know we can, and I'm not even against it. I'm just saying there is probably a 5% chance we will do a little better, a 5% chance we will do a little worse, a 5% chance we will do way worse, almost 85% chance we will do the exact same, and almost no chance we will do way better. Those odds (that I just made up) mean it's a bad idea to hire a new coach. But I want to anyway because 85% of the time we will be the exact same, but way less boring.