Expect status quo even without O’Keefe

[seepig]

Im sure the sunburned JackArse CMhawks99 (who believes his is the only opinion that counts) would counter that kmurp.

 

[cmhawks99]

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.

Friend I AM that guy and you don't get one without the other....furthermore I thgt he was going to tear uopduring the Insight bowl vs Missouri just because they were playing so hard...

 

[cmhawks99]

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.

Obvioulsy Iowa has molded to their talent, as evidenced by diff QBs and Rbers and quite frankly the idea that Oregon or OU completely revamps or tweaks their O ever couple years because you can't stay with the staus quoe is....well it ain't happening. Ill just say that...

 

[cmhawks99]

Im sure the sunburned JackArse CMhawks99 (who believes his is the only opinion that counts) would counter that kmurp.

Ironically enuff, I am the poster above who referenced the special teams....I got a good chuckle out of that, thanks. Oh and this post says a great deal more about who you are than me....

 

[hawkfan33]

Friend I AM that guy and you don't get one without the other....furthermore I thgt he was going to tear uopduring the Insight bowl vs Missouri just because they were playing so hard...

It took one sentence for Chad to turn this thread into talking about himself. Impressive.

 

[Golfer]

How come the defensive scheme thread was interesting and respectful?

How come threads like this one, well, turn into threads like this one?

 

[ColoradoHAWKEYE]

Re: Expect status quo even without O�Keefe

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.

=

very good analysis spider. It stands to reason that those are very telling stats, you made it come to life. I've always maintained, turnovers and penalties are huge keys to wins. special teams play is the real kicker that gets so overlooked by our past coaching shortcomings. hopefully we can address that with more attention to that area with the coaching tweaks.

 

[cmhawks99]

It took one sentence for Chad to turn this thread into talking about himself. Impressive.

Really....that is the best you can come up with. Of all the crappy things that you, me and many others have said, that is what you came up with. My reference to getting that kind of emotion because I AM that guy....not a very strong effort there....

Incidentally if everyone could have their opinion without the nastiness and bitterness, we'd all do much better. Some on here are so naive and so jaded, they honestly think its "opinions" that people don't like....which really I don't even no what to say. Its tough to even try and reason with someone that tunneled in.....

 

[ColoradoHAWKEYE]

Re: Expect status quo even without O�Keefe

Im sure the sunburned JackArse CMhawks99 (who believes his is the only opinion that counts) would counter that kmurp.

Ironically enuff, I am the poster above who referenced the special teams....I got a good chuckle out of that, thanks. Oh and this post says a great deal more about who you are than me....

so you are saying you are spiderrico?

 

[cmhawks99]

Re: Expect status quo even without O�Keefe

so you are saying you are spiderrico?

Not at all....I'm saying at the very start of this thread I mentioned it was all a composite and I would START with the speical teams....that's all

 

[cmhawks99]

How come the defensive scheme thread was interesting and respectful?

How come threads like this one, well, turn into threads like this one?

Honestly Golfer we can all be very rammy, me included. For my part I do get irritated and then purposely try and make them mad (I shouldn't do that) and then because they really don't have anything witty to say they have to resort to barbs...
　
　
I mean honestly we have people on here, who really think its their opinions that people don't like.....We have people on here, either because of limited scope or just an inability to look behind things believe I or people who share my thoughts....only like our own opinions. Its actually sad....its what and how people say things and treat others that bother us....and on that note you'll see several people in this thread who weren't in the other one.....right?!??!
　
So I know my challenge is to try and be nicer and I can only control me, I can't control them. The same goes for you and I've seen you say as much about your own attitude and I admire that.
　
I guess I wish people watched enuff other teams play that they would have a broader perspective to really formulate their opinions, but if we could all just express ourselves better it would help. But most of those in question don't seem to think they are wrong, but they really enjoy calling others names and questioning their character. But I have come to realize that is on them and I don't have to even worry about it.

 

[hogeye]

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.

I somewhat agree, but every argument is a double-edged sword and frankly in the type of games that we play there is a legitimate argument to be made about not making a stupid turnover at the end of the half that could result in a larger deficit. Going into half down by 7 is manageable.

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.

You're on your iPad, fair enough, but I keep hearing terms like "wrinkles" and "tweaks", but it's really sounding like the bulk of your argument is much larger than a few minor changes.

 

[hogeye]

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.

My point hasn't ever really been defense. My main point is that it's not the "system" on Offense that is the problem nor the general philosophy of playing close games.

That said, anytime you play conservative on offense it's a given that you need good defense. We've had a very good defense for the most part with Kirk.

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)...

Again, my point in general has largely been on the offense bashing. Special teams and the turnover battle, which is offense and defense, is key. Not insinuating otherwise here.

 

[83Hawk]

I somewhat agree, but every argument is a double-edged sword and frankly in the type of games that we play there is a legitimate argument to be made about not making a stupid turnover at the end of the half that could result in a larger deficit. Going into half down by 7 is manageable.



You're on your iPad, fair enough, but I keep hearing terms like "wrinkles" and "tweaks", but it's really sounding like the bulk of your argument is much larger than a few minor changes.

Learning to run a two minute offense is a major change? Hmmm......

Look....your posts imply you want everything to stay the same, and that Kirk should never take any chances or do anything different because it would be "too risky". That's fine. But that doesn't mean that when someone makes suggestions for a few tweaks or wrinkles that they are "major" changes.

Being afraid to run a two minute offense because you might turn the ball over is...well, rather ridiculous IMO. So what happens....when you really NEED to run it...at the end of a game when you are behind...then you CAN'T. And you end up losing. So what is worse....a turnover at the end of the first half, or losing the game?

Being less predictable is NOT a major change. When it is 4th and short, what play seems to be called the majority of the time? Off tackle. And what usually happens? They get stuffed. I know you can blame "execution", but you might also consider the defense expects that play. How about the "hurry up" QB sneak that Iowa repeatedly had a flag thrown on?

My point is....you CAN spice things up a bit in playcalling, running a 2 minute offense, etc. without changing your overall scheme and philosophy. And these are NOT major changes.

Yes, Kirk's ultraconservatism has worked at times in the past....particularly when he has an overpowering defense. But the ultraconservatism hasn't worked so well the past couple of seasons.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. You want Kirk to continue playing it safe. I'd like to see something a little different and less predicatable once in awhile.

 

[cmhawks99]

Learning to run a two minute offense is a major change? Hmmm......

Look....your posts imply you want everything to stay the same, and that Kirk should never take any chances or do anything different because it would be "too risky". That's fine. But that doesn't mean that when someone makes suggestions for a few tweaks or wrinkles that they are "major" changes.

Being afraid to run a two minute offense because you might turn the ball over is...well, rather ridiculous IMO. So what happens....when you really NEED to run it...at the end of a game when you are behind...then you CAN'T. And you end up losing. So what is worse....a turnover at the end of the first half, or losing the game?

Being less predictable is NOT a major change. When it is 4th and short, what play seems to be called the majority of the time? Off tackle. And what usually happens? They get stuffed. I know you can blame "execution", but you might also consider the defense expects that play. How about the "hurry up" QB sneak that Iowa repeatedly had a flag thrown on?

My point is....you CAN spice things up a bit in playcalling, running a 2 minute offense, etc. without changing your overall scheme and philosophy. And these are NOT major changes.

Yes, Kirk's ultraconservatism has worked at times in the past....particularly when he has an overpowering defense. But the ultraconservatism hasn't worked so well the past couple of seasons.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. You want Kirk to continue playing it safe. I'd like to see something a little different and less predicatable once in awhile.

I don’t know this for sure, but I’ll wager what you just said is an over simplification of what he really thinks. I sincerely doubt he is saying gee I hope KF plays it safe, I’ll bet he is thinking like me, man are we watching different games. He is probably remembering the Missouri game or the NW game this year or the myriad of other examples where we hardly just charged off tackle. And if he is really like me, he’d probably say on 4th and short the number 1, 2, 5, and 7th play should always be a sneak, with an occasional boot leg. Never off tackle (they do that in the NFL ALL the time, they must not have got the memo) never hand it off 5 yards backwards, or do what they did in the Iowa State/Kansas St game and all that guy got was promoted to tOSU.

So in short I’d guess what he really thinks is….OUR Offense hasn’t been nearly as poor as many of our fans have thought and yet, we could make some improvements in consistency and execution for sure. This isn’t a “predictable scheme†or play calling problem.

 

[hogeye]

Learning to run a two minute offense is a major change? Hmmm......

Look....your posts imply you want everything to stay the same, and that Kirk should never take any chances or do anything different because it would be "too risky". That's fine. But that doesn't mean that when someone makes suggestions for a few tweaks or wrinkles that they are "major" changes.

Being afraid to run a two minute offense because you might turn the ball over is...well, rather ridiculous IMO. So what happens....when you really NEED to run it...at the end of a game when you are behind...then you CAN'T. And you end up losing. So what is worse....a turnover at the end of the first half, or losing the game?

Being less predictable is NOT a major change. When it is 4th and short, what play seems to be called the majority of the time? Off tackle. And what usually happens? They get stuffed. I know you can blame "execution", but you might also consider the defense expects that play. How about the "hurry up" QB sneak that Iowa repeatedly had a flag thrown on?

My point is....you CAN spice things up a bit in playcalling, running a 2 minute offense, etc. without changing your overall scheme and philosophy. And these are NOT major changes.

Yes, Kirk's ultraconservatism has worked at times in the past....particularly when he has an overpowering defense. But the ultraconservatism hasn't worked so well the past couple of seasons.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. You want Kirk to continue playing it safe. I'd like to see something a little different and less predicatable once in awhile.

Don't put words in my mouth. And don't pretend like I said adding a 2 minute offense was a major change. You didn't stop there in previous replies, you went on and on and on about multiple changes that add up to more significant changes overall.

All I did with the 2 minute offense, specifically, was point out that you're not totally being objective about Iowa's current philosophy.

I get tired of these cliche argument being thrown around...we need more "wrinkles", "tweaks", "spice" and every other ambiguous terms being thrown out of frustration because our offense isn't the vaunted spread option run and shoot pass happy score board orgasm that everyone thinks it needs to be.

The challenges we've faced recently are honestly more talent-centric and lack of execution than they are anything else.

One of the biggest challenges we face that all you people think will be solved by adding "new formations" for new "twists" and "wrinkles" is quite frankly a talent and development issue at the QB position. Period. That simple.

JVB, serviceable. Stanzi, serviceable. JC, fail. Tate, developed nicely. Chandler, serviceable. Banks, developed nicely. We've had mostly marginal QB play or slightly better over the course of the KF era. We could argue where these QB's actually relate to one another indefinitely, but again...the main point is our over QB play has been lacking.

If I could change one thing about the offense and nothing else it would be QB development and that would translate into more success in most of the areas we've seen issues offensively.

 

[HomerChampless]

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.

These 2010 defense statistics rating Iowa 7th in defense and 17th in scoring defense are, IMO, misleading statistics.

Here are the results of the 2010 season for Iowa:
*Iowa 37 Eastern Illinois 7 - good showing by the Iowa defense.
*Iowa 35 Iowa State 7 - good showing by the Iowa defense.

Arizona 34 Iowa 27 - bad showing by the Iowa defense on that last Arizona scoring drive (the big play was a passing play).

*Iowa 45 Ball State 0 - good showing by the Iowa defense.
*Iowa 24 Penn State 3 - good showing by the Iowa defense.

Iowa 38 Michigan 28 - Iowa held on to win after a big lead at half. The defense knocked out the starting QB for Michigan.

Wisconsin 31 Iowa 30 - IMO, terrible showing by the Iowa defense.

*Iowa 37 Michigan St. 6 - great showing by the Iowa defense.

*Iowa 18 Indiana 13 - wide open dropped pass in the endzone costs Indiana the win - mediocre showing by the pass defense. IMO, a good example of how the bend but don't break defense can be successful or unsuccessful in a blink of an eye and is successful or unsuccessful to no fault or achievement of the BBDB pass defense.

Northwestern 21 Iowa 17 - Bend but don't break pass defense bent and broke (as it always does against Northwestern).

*Ohio State 20 Iowa 17 - good showing by the Iowa defense.

Minnesota 27 Iowa 24 - Iowa couldn't stop Minnesota's running attack (quite disturbing since stopping the run is the Iowa defense's forte)

Iowa 27 Missouri 24 - defense couldn't stop Missouri's pass offense until the last drive. Iowa's defense wasn't good.

Iowa's defense gave up a total of 7 + 7 + 0 + 3 = 17 points in 4 games or 4.25 points per game to teams their defense should have dominated: E. Illinois, Iowa State, Ball State, and Penn State (strong running offense and weak passing offense).

Iowa's defense gave up a total of 34 + 28 + 13 + 21 + 24 = 120 points in 5 games or 24 points per game to teams with good passing offenses: Arizona (I acknowledge some of those points were not given up by the defense), Michigan (who passed exclusively in the second half), Indiana, Northwestern, and Missouri.

Wisconsin was a team with running power, superior athletic abilities, and passing abilitites who manhandled Iowa's defense scoring 31 points.

Iowa's defense manhandled Michigan State allowing only 7 points. The difference, IMO, between MSU and Wisconsin was the one dimentionality of MSU's offense, their running game.

Iowa's defense did a good job against tOSU. tOSU couldn't effectively pass. Iowa stopped their running game. Unfortunately, the athleticism of Iowa's defense was outmatched by the athleticism of tOSU.

Then there's that Minnesota game. Iowa couldn't stop the run. Was that because the field in Minnesota was icy? Iowa gave up 27 points.

To recap:
Iowa's defense averaged 4.25 points against, teams with strictly running attacks and IMO, patsies.
Iowa's defense averaged 24 points against good passing teams.
Iowa's defense gave away 31 points to a good running, passing, and athletic team in Wisconsin.

Iowa's defense gave up 21 points to a strictly athletic team like tOSU.

Then there's that outlier game for Iowa's defense: the Minnesota game.

As you can see if you aren't yet bored, Iowa's defense is good against a running offense, is mediocre against a good passing offense and is awful against an offensive team with skills.

Is Iowa's defense good? It depends what kind of offense it is trying to defend.

What would I do to make Iowa's defense dominant? I'd get a lot more athleticism on defense. I'd try to prevent the pass completion.

 

[HomerChampless]

This is a far cry from the OP of this thread. I want to point out that KF wants the defense to win ball games.

I want to point out Iowa's defense is good or bad depending on the type of offense it is trying to defend. I want to point out offenses in the B1G are getting much more sophisticated than the 3 yards and a cloud of dust offenses from the 1960s to the first decade of the 21 century - where, IMO, Iowa's defense resides.

 

[cmhawks99]

Well fwiw worth, Iowa’s defensive personnel, at least according to Pro day and NFL combine numbers is typically one of the faster and more athletic out there, so that doesn’t hold water. Also Iowa’s D for the most part has always held the opposition below or even way below their season averages so that one doesn’t either.

Finally the Big 10 has been spread diversified for many years, so again, not really sure what you are basing your analysis on…..

 

[hogeye]

These 2010 defense statistics rating Iowa 7th in defense and 17th in scoring defense are, IMO, misleading statistics.

I would contend that the offensive woes caused the defense much of its problems.