Developmental program is no excuse

[homes]

Here's my beef with the "developmental" program label as a reason for mediocre seasons. Fine, be a developmental program. But that suggests the guys you bring in aren't ready to go, but in 2-3 years, they will be ready to take over, i.e., you've "developed" them into Big Ten players. After 19 seasons (heck, way before that), you should always have guys ready, who have been "developed" to be ready to go. There should be no gap. The current year's seniors should be replaced by the "developed" juniors, and the current sophomores will be "developed" juniors and so on. No gaps, replace a developed player with a newly developed player. With Iowa, there are always gaps. Always. That means, to me, that they are not prpeparing players well enough. Or, if they are being physically developed, they aren't equipped with the right plays to demonstrate that development. Either way, it's more on the coaches than the players.

To say that Iowa is a "development" program for a reason for middling/mediocre seasons is a complete cop out. I'm done hearing that, it's a lame excuse.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

Here's my beef with the "developmental" program label as a reason for mediocre seasons. Fine, be a developmental program. But that suggests the guys you bring in aren't ready to go, but in 2-3 years, they will be ready to take over, i.e., you've "developed" them into Big Ten players. After 19 seasons (heck, way before that), you should always have guys ready, who have been "developed" to be ready to go. There should be no gap. The current year's seniors should be replaced by the "developed" juniors, and the current sophomores will be "developed" juniors and so on. No gaps, replace a developed player with a newly developed player. With Iowa, there are always gaps. Always. That means, to me, that they are not prpeparing players well enough. Or, if they are being physically developed, they aren't equipped with the right plays to demonstrate that development. Either way, it's more on the coaches than the players.

To say that Iowa is a "development" program for a reason for middling/mediocre seasons is a complete cop out. I'm done hearing that, it's a lame excuse.

After 18 off seasons, we should be plugging and playing with "developed" guys. I agree with you. It's double speak or an excuse; one or the other.

 

[Caddy]

It's nothing more than a built in excuse for poor recruiting and lack of development. Not sure how anyone can still buy this excuse when nobody is developing and the team regresses as the year goes on.

 

[hawkeye23]

It's nothing more than a built in excuse for poor recruiting and lack of development. Not sure how anyone can still buy this excuse when nobody is developing and the team regresses as the year goes on.

But that's the problem....they are banking on the fact that they can take these under the radar guys and turn them into something. There is such little room for error that when you get several that don't pan out, then your program takes a hit. Work ethic has to be there but they need to recruit talent.

 

[Xerxes]

Developmental in the way the OP described it is like only two programs I know of: Wisconsin and Michigan St. They seem to graduate players and keep to the same system with guys just coming up and filling gaps by departing SRs. Both programs have down years every so often, usually when the QB and/or D struggles but aside from that have been top notch for the last decade.

Iowa is a developmental program in terms of developing guys who get to the NFL. But on the field they're just a middling program where the stars need to align for them to have a really successful season. For Iowa and other middling programs, the words "developmental", "rebuilding year", "transitional period" etc are just nice ways of saying its not a good year.

Developmental programs do not have 3 subpar seasons in a row and rarely have 2 in a row. 2016 was a dud for Iowa. Worse than this season only with an easier schedule. 2017 have had two bright spots in a very forgettable year. And they are losing at least 9 starters so 2018 could be more of the same.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

The "gaps" no doubt are very frustrating, and that has been a problem for years. I honestly don't think the issue is development though.

The issue is more related to recruiting and attrition. This program simply cannot be successful in the setting of inordinate attrition. We went through a period not too long ago - I think it was approximately '07 - '13 - where we suffered a huge amount of attrition. I read an article that showed that, over that time period, we had lost literally seven or eight times the number of players that Wisconsin lost. It was eye-opening. The bigger question is why? How is it that Wisconsin seemingly is immune from transfers, dismissals and early entrees, while we struggle to avoid them?

As far as recruiting, the fact is we miss on a lot of players that would be filling those gaps. DT is a good current example, The staff aggressively recruited at DT knowing that we would be losing Davis, JJ and Faith, but missed on every significant target (two are now starting for MSU btw). Add in the attrition of Darian Cooper, and we end up with Bazata and Lattimore, and that's basically it. Reiff gets pushed into service early, and we move a slow-twitch 6'8" end to tackle to shore up the depth. Not trying to be critical of those players at all, but, they are a far cry from JJ, or Davis, or any number of disruptive DTs we've had over the years.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

Devolve-mental program.

 

[EstronHawkKing]

What is sad, 7 out of the last 8 years Iowa has looked physically weaker than most opponents.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

What is sad, 7 out of the last 8 years Iowa has looked physically weaker than most opponents.

really is a good point.

 

[homes]

Attrition, recruiting are no doubt part of it; although I don't know Iowa's attrition rates compared to other like programs. However, I've grown weary of Iowa being referred to as a developmental program by commentators and others, to be taken as some sort of compliment or badge of honor, because I don't think it's an accurate assessment, as I see the term. Or, maybe it's just a patronizing way of saying Iowa is a slightly above average program, much like the children from Lake Wobegon. Everyone once in awhile they do something notable, but never stray too far from the mean for any appreciable period of time. If so, then the fault lies with everyone of us who have expectations above the mean. Instead, it should be - at least we're not below it. We're just looking at the wrong side of the prism I guess.

 

[Joshbrown]

"We are a player developmental program"<---------> Kirk's favorite phrase.












"We are a coach accountability program"<-----------> Barta's least favorite phrase.

 

[NCHawker]

ya'll paragraphs are too long. Didn't read.

maybe I should say - please consider using paragraphs.

 

[hawkinstl]

Here's my beef with the "developmental" program label as a reason for mediocre seasons. Fine, be a developmental program. But that suggests the guys you bring in aren't ready to go, but in 2-3 years, they will be ready to take over, i.e., you've "developed" them into Big Ten players. After 19 seasons (heck, way before that), you should always have guys ready, who have been "developed" to be ready to go. There should be no gap. The current year's seniors should be replaced by the "developed" juniors, and the current sophomores will be "developed" juniors and so on. No gaps, replace a developed player with a newly developed player. With Iowa, there are always gaps. Always. That means, to me, that they are not prpeparing players well enough. Or, if they are being physically developed, they aren't equipped with the right plays to demonstrate that development. Either way, it's more on the coaches than the players.

To say that Iowa is a "development" program for a reason for middling/mediocre seasons is a complete cop out. I'm done hearing that, it's a lame excuse.

Sadly a lot of idiots have bought into this crap.

 

[DJI9424]

It's an excuse, a throw away remark from the KF-speak repertoire. Again, it's a subtle way of saying that the players are inadequate until they are fully developed, which mostly depends on the players desire and work ethic to get better.

 

[HawkeyeWalker]

Here's my beef with the "developmental" program label as a reason for mediocre seasons. Fine, be a developmental program. But that suggests the guys you bring in aren't ready to go, but in 2-3 years, they will be ready to take over, i.e., you've "developed" them into Big Ten players. After 19 seasons (heck, way before that), you should always have guys ready, who have been "developed" to be ready to go. There should be no gap. The current year's seniors should be replaced by the "developed" juniors, and the current sophomores will be "developed" juniors and so on. No gaps, replace a developed player with a newly developed player. With Iowa, there are always gaps. Always. That means, to me, that they are not prpeparing players well enough. Or, if they are being physically developed, they aren't equipped with the right plays to demonstrate that development. Either way, it's more on the coaches than the players.

To say that Iowa is a "development" program for a reason for middling/mediocre seasons is a complete cop out. I'm done hearing that, it's a lame excuse.

Agreed. Talent is not currently a major issue, however, DEPTH of talent has been forever, and is why significant attrition due to injury or graduation at key Iowa positions seem to set things back so far.

That said, losing 2 lineman should not equal having to go all the way to Frosh...especially not on the Oline.

Punting, turnovers, Oline blitz pickup and overall, drops, and not seeing enough playcalling to make up for the above....

 

[koralakers]

NO COACH should be paid top 10 like KF for a decade and a half and be considered 'developmental'. That just shows what 'relative' garbage is produced (vs what is paid for)

 

[MoseSchrute]

Attrition, recruiting are no doubt part of it; although I don't know Iowa's attrition rates compared to other like programs

It's bad. Articles have been written about it. You can probably find them if you look around. BHGP did a good one a while back.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

Agreed. Talent is not currently a major issue, however, DEPTH of talent has been forever, and is why significant attrition due to injury or graduation at key Iowa positions seem to set things back so far.

That said, losing 2 lineman should not equal having to go all the way to Frosh...especially not on the Oline.

Punting, turnovers, Oline blitz pickup and overall, drops, and not seeing enough playcalling to make up for the above....

Exactly. It's especially galling when we see those gaps on the O-line. Our difficulties recruiting that unit are inexplicable when you consider our program and the success we've had.

Again, a lot of it boils down to recruiting and attrition. We missed on Ross P, who would be a senior now (probably would have been a tackle in our system), and lost Waechter to attrition. On top of that, we recruited on of the Paulsens at tackle, but really both are guards. Hence, we are where we are. I will say though that it appears to be improving with Jackson, Wirfs, Kallenberger, Jenkins, Endres and Miller. That's a solid group.

 

[NCHawker]

The ideas expressed in this thread... seems familiar

 

[peerok]

What is sad, 7 out of the last 8 years Iowa has looked physically weaker than most opponents.

Kind of seems to correspond with the rhabdo mess, doesn't it? I believe its been about seven years since that's happened. I've felt that the team and players have never been as physical since then.

A lot of people on this board wish the media would ask KF a bunch of "gotcha" questions. I coudn't care less about that, but I would really like to know how Iowa's strength and conditioning program changed after rhabdo. It's been my theory that Chris Doyle was ordered to tone down the intensity of the workout routines and has kind of been handcuffed ever since.