Expect status quo even without O’Keefe

[cmhawks99]

I think the frustrating thing is everyone defends this staff with passion and execution arguments but in the end they are responsible for both. They are stuck playing the older players because the have "paid their dues". (Neilsen last year, playing at 50 percent all year).

I guess if players can't execute then let the younger players have a chance. If the starters don't play with emotion or fire then find someone who will. But I guess they are all a product of the 4 million dollar coach who doesn't execute or have any passion.

Incidentally you are of course right....it does ultimately come back to the coaches feet. And if the team doesn't execute well enuff, long enuff it is them who lose their jobs and the cool thing about KF is....he has always readily admitted that it ultimately falls on him. He is a great role model of accountability to us and our kids, not someone to complain about.
　
And Nielsen missed lots of time this past year too. And we played probably in the neighborhood of 20 to 22 different Lbers over the last 2 years...that's a lot of letting the guys play...IMO

 

[Cory]

Three things.......man have I seen a LOT of new and young faces playing this year and last and over the last several really, so I guess I don't get the people who suggest we don't play enuff guys. Especially in lieu of seeing them in posts latter complaining about us burning Redshirts...talk about being awful confusing and hard to understand...
　
　
2nd people lacking in passion and emotion don't tear up and have their voice crack on a regular basis like KF, so if people really think that they are way off base...
　
　
3rd I want a guy who is paid A LOT leading my team, business etc....in business and football alike, when you are really well paid, its a lot easier to go waaayyyy down in pay if you aren't "in it"...thought I'd try a more "real" approach with those who can't help but bring "money" in to these conversations....I remember chuckling with my uncle about how when you reach that upper pay echelon were a small percentage enter into, it gets harder to replace that income quite as easily....KF isn't coasting because he makes 4 mill, I know that's what many believe, but all it shows is a limited understanding of those who reach that height.

I agree with some things you say but showing emotion when you beat Northwestern makes it seem like you are over emotional due to some sort of realization that they are a better program than you oversee. The tearing up after wins against bottom half programs is starting to get stale.

 

[cmhawks99]

I agree with some things you say but showing emotion when you beat Northwestern makes it seem like you are over emotional due to some sort of realization that they are a better program than you oversee. The tearing up after wins against bottom half programs is starting to get stale.

Doesn't change what it is friend, its emotion pure and simple. Choose not to like it if you want but doesn't change what it is. Its there a lot actually if you are watching and as for NW, I can't stand them, but they have beat a lot Wiscy's and MSU's and even Michigan, PSU and tOSU's over the years so maybe you better get behind them being at worst the 6th, 7th or 8th best team (which means pretty salty) pretty much every year...

 

[tm3308]

Doesn't change what it is friend, its emotion pure and simple. Choose not to like it if you want but doesn't change what it is. Its there a lot actually if you are watching and as for NW, I can't stand them, but they have beat a lot Wiscy's and MSU's and even Michigan, PSU and tOSU's over the years so maybe you better get behind them being at worst the 6th, 7th or 8th best team (which means pretty salty) pretty much every year...

There's a difference between a passion for winning and the visible signs of it, and the kind of emotion we see from Ferentz. I'm not b*tching about Ferentz on this point, just pointing out the difference.

When Kirk has those moments, there's usually something else going on (father sick/passed away, health issues with Norm, etc.). Anybody would get emotional in those situations, if they're human at all. That's not the sort of emotion people are talking about.

I don't think it's really that big of an issue, though. Just saying that what you describe isn't what people are getting at when they talk about emotion.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

You see, to the naysayers of KOK who were on this board, Iowa's offense being ranked 70th in the nation is a problem ONLY if Iowa's defense is ineffective.

I guess if you try hard enough, you can convince yourself of anything. 70th is 70th. That is not good - no way to sugar coat that.

It's not just that Iowa's D spends too much time on the field, which limits the number of opportunities for the offense. Just look at Iowa's 3rd down conversion ratios on offense.. It typically has not been a good stat.

For 2011:
2011 NCAA Division I-A College Football Team Statistics Leaders for Downs - ESPN

Iowa was 64th in the country at around 38%. So Iowa's offense is also not doing a very good job of staying on the field when they have the ball.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

Some offensive stats regarding 3rd down conversion, points per game, and yards per game. Slice and dice as you will. I am not sure if defensive or special teams scores are included in the PPG stat.


3rd down %:
2011 - 38.6 (64th)
2010 - 42.4 (31st)
2009 - 37.2 (63rd)
2008 - 39.6 (40th)
2007 - 31.0 (105th)
2006 - 38.1 (45th)
2005 - 38.1 (47th)
2004 - 34.6 (77th)

PPG:
2011 - 27.5 (58th)
2010 - 28.9 (48th)
2009 - 23.2 (87th)
2008 - 30.3 (33rd)
2007 - 18.5 (111th)
2006 - 23.8 (58th)
2005 - 30.0 (36th)
2004 - 24.3 (68th)

YPG:
2011 - 372.5 (76th)
2010 - 382.9 (57th)
2009 - 336.3 (89th)
2008 - 370.4 (53rd)
2007 - 339.4 (106th)
2006 - 392.5 (29th)
2005 - 442.0 (23rd)
2004 - 336.6 (98th)

 

[SpiderRico]

If you look back over the history of Iowa football under Kirk Ferentz, two things are usually the barometer of whether or not we will have a good season.....special teams and turnovers.

If you look back at our really good/great seasons.....2002, 2003, 2004, 2008 and 2009.....they are marked by those two things.

When looking at 2002, our offense was pretty good, sure.....but a lot of those scoring opportunities happened because our defense forced 31 turnovers and often gave the offense a short field...and on the flipside our offense had the fewest turnovers in the conference. In addition, our kickoff return game was 1st in the conference, our net punting was second in the conference, our punt returns were 3rd in the conference (and we scored 3 tds off of punt returns, 1st in the conference) and we had the best field goal kicker in the college football (sorry Mike Nugent fans).

In 2003 our offense was fairly anemic from a yards standpoint (although we were 3rd in scoring offense due mainly to short fields), but we forced 25 turnovers, were 3rd in punt returns (and 1st in tds off of punt returns with 4), 2nd in kickoff returns, 3rd in net punting, and still had the best field goal kicker in college football.

In 2004, we lost 17 running backs, and were middle of the pack in terms of scoring offense, but we forced 32 turnovers (tops in the league), were 2nd in the league in punt returns (and scored 2 tds off of punt returns), was 2nd in the league in made field goals.

2005 was one of the more prolific offenses in school history. We gained over 5000 yards of offense and averaged more than 30 points per game. But we only got 16 turnovers (8th in the league), were last in kickoff returns, middle of the road (6th) in net punting and missed field goals at inopportune times. This was a year of lost opportunities as 30ppg and over 400yds/game, along with being 4th in the league in scoring defense, should have translated to more than 7 wins. But as history has shown, if we aren't creating turnovers or winning the hidden yardage battles (kickoff and punts) or capitalizing on field goal opportunities, we struggle.

I'm not even going to go into 2006 or 2007 as those years were AWFUL!! Except to just say that those two years combined we only created 41 turnovers and lost 44!!

In 2008, we were back on track as we created 32 turnovers, came back to the middle of the pack in kickoff returns, 4th in punting and 3rd in punt returns. The games we lost came down to special teams mistakes though (fumble on punt return against NW, missed field goal against Illinois, no field goal attempt against MSU due to lack of confidence).

In 2009, we once against created a ton of turnovers (30), were 4th in kickoff returns, and 3rd in net punting and scored 2 tds on special teams (one on kickoff and one on punt return). An injury caused this from being a "special" season instead of a great season.

2010 was the year that should have been, especially based on the "stats". We only created 24 turnovers, but lost only 11, for a net of 13 (3rd in the league and 7th nationally). We were 2nd in the league and 12th nationally in kickoff returns. We were 3rd in the league and top 30 in net punting. We averaged 30ppg on offense and were 2nd in the league in scoring defense. All stats that should correspond to a great season, so what happened? This was the year of the special teams meltdowns. Against AZ, we give up a kickoff for a touchdown and miss a field goal. Against Wisc, we miss an extra point and allow a fake punt that resulted in a touchdown, against OSU we miss a field goal and against Minn we just gave up.

So I guess I'm not all that concerned about what we do for an OC based on past history. We've had good offenses and bad offenses and still had good/great seasons. But it seems like if we aren't good on special teams and aren't creating turnovers on defense, we pretty much know we'll end up with about 7 wins.

 

[HomerChampless]

Don't forget about good defense SRico. Year in and year out in the Ferentz era, if you want to point to 1 unit determining whether Iowa has a good or bad season, look to the performance of the defense. In the Ferentz era, it's always been the defense.

That's always been Ferentz's plan. Have a good defense and a conservative offense that doesn't make mistakes.

That's why, IMO, so many were predicting a breakout year for Iowa in 2010. They extrapolated the great performance of Iowa's defense in 2009 into 2010. Unfortunately in 2010, the defense couldn't get stops and the offense was expected to outscore opponents.
That's why Iowa didn't have a breakout year in 2010 - the defense. Even though 3 DLine players went to the pros.

Iowa's defense hasn't been too hot the last 2 years.

 

[HomerChampless]

I guess if you try hard enough, you can convince yourself of anything. 70th is 70th. That is not good - no way to sugar coat that.

It's not just that Iowa's D spends too much time on the field, which limits the number of opportunities for the offense. Just look at Iowa's 3rd down conversion ratios on offense.. It typically has not been a good stat.

For 2011:
2011 NCAA Division I-A College Football Team Statistics Leaders for Downs - ESPN

Iowa was 64th in the country at around 38%. So Iowa's offense is also not doing a very good job of staying on the field when they have the ball.

You and many others on this thread are saying a pro-style ball and clock control offense is somehow going to be good enough to win games with 'a few tweaks'? Seriously?

If you truly want the offense to get better, why do you accept roadblocks to the offense getting better like the ball and clock control of Iowa's bend-but-don't-break pass defense? EDIT: guess what Iowa's 3rd down percentage ratio is when Iowa's bend-but-don't-break pass defense has the ball. It's not 38 percent, it's 0 percent.

Why not even suggest a major offensive scheme change like a spread offense?

Maybe you wouldn't suggest a spread offense because you know Ferentz wouldn't go for a spread offense? Which is the same reason why the offense is the way it is. Ferentz is a conservative coach and he relies on the defense to win games.

Since you like the defense (for the life of me, I don't understand why some Iowa 'fans' like the defense and some like the offense), I'd automatically assume you'd like the fact that Ferentz relies on the defense to win games. Instead, I realize you disagree with Ferentz because you think it's too much pressure to put on the defense.

 

[hogeye]

You and many others on this thread are saying a pro-style ball and clock control offense is somehow going to be good enough to win games with 'a few tweaks'? Seriously?

I'll take it a step further. You don't need to add any tweaks, period.

 

[HomerChampless]

I'll take it a step further. You don't need to add any tweaks, period.

Then Iowa will need a good defense. There hasn't been a good defense at Iowa for 2 years.
What will you 'tweak' on defense?

 

[hogeye]

Then Iowa will need a good defense. There hasn't been a good defense at Iowa for 2 years.
What will you 'tweak' on defense?

We were the 7th rated defense in 2010, PPG. 17th, YPG.

But, yes...we'll need good defense. I am not contesting that. Iowa's success has largely been predicated on good defense. Success in the B10 in general is predicated on good defense.

 

[83Hawk]

I'll take it a step further. You don't need to add any tweaks, period.

So you are ok with a mediocre offense, mediocre 3rd down percentage, and inability to run a 2 minute offense (when Kirk decides to run one...which is usually at the end of the game when Iowa is behind)? You are ok with playing not to lose on offense and hoping the defense is able to keep the other team from scoring more points than the anemic offense?

I'm all for having a great defense, but count me a someone who would also like to have an offense that can win games when the defense is playing poorly (or doesn't have the talent). Kirk's offenses, for most of his years at Iowa....has not been one of them.

I'm not calling for wholesale changes...but it definitely DOES need tweaking.

 

[hogeye]

So you are ok with a mediocre offense, mediocre 3rd down percentage, and inability to run a 2 minute offense (when Kirk decides to run one...which is usually at the end of the game when Iowa is behind)? You are ok with playing not to lose on offense and hoping the defense is able to keep the other team from scoring more points than the anemic offense?

I'm all for having a great defense, but count me a someone who would also like to have an offense that can win games when the defense is playing poorly (or doesn't have the talent). Kirk's offenses, for most of his years at Iowa....has not been one of them.

I'm not calling for wholesale changes...but it definitely DOES need tweaking.

The offense itself, the pro-style ball control offense, isn't the problem. You're confounding issues in that response. Some of which pertain to the offense that I was referring to. Some of which pertain to coaching philosophy that in a macro sense I don't believe need changed. And lastly, some of which pertains to execution.

My point is that Iowa has already proven the general offensive philosophy works. I never said everything has been perfect, but generally speaking we don't need to tweak the scheme or the general philosophy that we've already proven can be extremely successful.

 

[83Hawk]

The offense itself, the pro-style ball control offense, isn't the problem. You're confounding issues in that response. Some of which pertain to the offense that I was referring to. Some of which pertain to coaching philosophy that in a macro sense I don't believe need changed. And lastly, some of which pertains to execution.

My point is that Iowa has already proven the general offensive philosophy works. I never said everything has been perfect, but generally speaking we don't need to tweak the scheme or the general philosophy that we've already proven can be extremely successful.

How can the offense be considered a "proven" success? Iowa's offensive rank in the Big 10 has been mediocre at best most years.

I must respectively disagree that it doesn't need "tweeked". There is a reason Iowa's offense usually finishes in the middle or bottom of the Big 10....be it coaching philosophy, playcalling, execution...whatever. Again, I'm not saying Iowa needs to revamp their offense...but to say no tweeks are needed really makes no sense. SOMETHING needs to be done. As for coaching philosophy....refusing to run a 2 minute offense at the end of the first half is just plain ridiculous.

You simply cannot do things the same way year in and year out. Adjustments MUST be made based on existing personnel, etc. Otherwise you get exactly what happened in 2010 and 2011: an anemic offense that cannot come up with a sustained drive or a score when needed to close out/win ball games. It is nice to have a dominating defense that can shut down the opponent any time it wants to....but Iowa is just not going to have the luxury every year. And even when they do....there are still games where the offense needs to step up.

 

[hogeye]

How can the offense be considered a "proven" success? Iowa's offensive rank in the Big 10 has been mediocre at best most years.

The only stat I care about is wins and losses. Iowa has won with this offense many years and out-performed expectations most years.

I think at the end of the day most of your issue revolves around accepting the basic premise of who we are as a team and that we're not USC, Ohio State or some other power house.

I must respectively disagree that it doesn't need "tweeked". There is a reason Iowa's offense usually finishes in the middle or bottom of the Big 10....be it coaching philosophy, playcalling, execution...whatever. Again, I'm not saying Iowa needs to revamp their offense...but to say no tweeks are needed really makes no sense. SOMETHING needs to be done. As for coaching philosophy....refusing to run a 2 minute offense at the end of the first half is just plain ridiculous.

You simply cannot do things the same way year in and year out. Adjustments MUST be made based on existing personnel, etc. Otherwise you get exactly what happened in 2010 and 2011: an anemic offense that cannot come up with a sustained drive or a score when needed to close out/win ball games. It is nice to have a dominating defense that can shut down the opponent any time it wants to....but Iowa is just not going to have the luxury every year. And even when they do....there are still games where the offense needs to step up.

Since you're failing to acknowledge my last response in context I'll simply reply that your response to my comment has remained largely out of context.

In a general sense, we mostly agree. My main point with the reply is that the "offense", in the narrow sense, doesn't need to change. And, also I don't believe the that pro-style, ball control philosophy needs to change, that's what I was referring to when I said it doesn't need tweaked.

Most of the rest of the crap you're referring to are largely minor aspects, in the grand scheme of things, that are just assumed to be reactive by nature from year to year.

I am not insinuating Iowa doesn't need to do things differently year in and year out or change things based on personnel, but if you're argument is that they are not then you're sadly mistaken. It's pretty disingenuous to not acknowledge replacing JC with Stanzi was keeping status quo (even though I thought they took too long), or not acknowledging that the offense under Stanzi in his second year was much more open and then to see yet another set of changes this past year when we didn't have a strong TE, but had more talent at WR.

The problem is that a lot of the things you are actually complaining about aren't really totally fair assessments either.

So, in summary, we agree on a macro level. However, I think the changes you want to see on the underlying issues that do exists are much larger in scale than you want to acknowledge.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

You and many others on this thread are saying a pro-style ball and clock control offense is somehow going to be good enough to win games with 'a few tweaks'? Seriously?

If you truly want the offense to get better, why do you accept roadblocks to the offense getting better like the ball and clock control of Iowa's bend-but-don't-break pass defense? EDIT: guess what Iowa's 3rd down percentage ratio is when Iowa's bend-but-don't-break pass defense has the ball. It's not 38 percent, it's 0 percent.

Why not even suggest a major offensive scheme change like a spread offense?

Maybe you wouldn't suggest a spread offense because you know Ferentz wouldn't go for a spread offense? Which is the same reason why the offense is the way it is. Ferentz is a conservative coach and he relies on the defense to win games.

Since you like the defense (for the life of me, I don't understand why some Iowa 'fans' like the defense and some like the offense), I'd automatically assume you'd like the fact that Ferentz relies on the defense to win games. Instead, I realize you disagree with Ferentz because you think it's too much pressure to put on the defense.

You're putting an awful lot of words in my mouth, Homer. The vast majority of what you just wrote is not the way I feel.

My post was saying that the offense doesn't do itself any favors by not converting on 3rd downs. Nothing more, nothing less.

Nevermind the stats for the defense that have FAR outperformed those of the offense over the years.

 

[SpiderRico]

Look, there are years we've had good offenses and not had a good record and there are years we've had a mediocre defense and had a good record.

We aren't the type of program that is going to be getting studs at the skill positions on either side of the ball that allow you to gamble and take some chances. Therefore, we are going to be ball control and play-action on offense and "bend don't break....keep the play in front of you" on defense.

Therefore, the best barometers for us are:

1. Turnovers created. This does two things for us, it gets our "bend don't break" defense off the field and rested and it often times gives our "ball control" offense that has a tough time going 80 yds for a score a short field in which to work. In the years we've had big takeaway numbers (2002, 2003, 2004, 2008 and 2009) we've had a good/great record.

2. Special Teams. Pinning the opponent back with good punts/punt coverage, getting good field position with kickoff returns, keeping the opponent on the wrong side of the 20 on their kick returns, blocking punts/field goals, and making our field goals. The years we've been good, more often than not we've been in the top 4 in the conference in those categories.

Our offense is what it is, schematically, that isn't going to change. Our defense is what it is schematically, that isn't going to change. The unit rankings of those two units don't always predict the record (2010 anyone), but I can tell you with almost absolute certainty that if we get between 25-30 takeaways and are solid in the kicking and return games, we will be at 9-11 wins at the end of the year.

 

[83Hawk]

Hog eye...yes, I'm sure we agree in principle on a macro level. I'm not advocating getting rid of the pro style offense. However, I do not agree that some of the things I would like to see are "large scale" changes. For example....the 2 minute offense. Just because you run a pro-style ball control offense doesn't mean you can't try to score at the end of the half! And by not doing it consistently at the end of the first half, they find themselves unable to do it when they really need to.

There are others....but I'm on my iPad and it sucks to do any extended writing.

Kirk has become too rigid and the offense too predictable...it is not a major change to put in a few wrinkles. Even Lombardi did it from time to time.

 

[kmurp]

We were the 7th rated defense in 2010, PPG. 17th, YPG.

But, yes...we'll need good defense. I am not contesting that. Iowa's success has largely been predicated on good defense. Success in the B10 in general is predicated on good defense.

Although I agree with you, I think some of our defensive success is predicated on the fact that we are playing against Bigten offenses and the conference is just not all that good overall.

Also, I agree wholeheartedly with the poster above regarding special teams. Iowa has generally lost the special teams battles (or at least hasn't won them) more often than not the last few years. Didn't we lose at Pitt because of special teams errors ?(I know Jake played but still)...