Imlivingthedream
Well-Known Member
angling for a raise?
Ferentz Won't Confirm/Deny KOK Indiana Talk
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
busabus114
Well-Known Member
We better lock him up with a lifetime deal in case he isnt bluffing
hawkfan2679
Well-Known Member
Here's a question I've always wondered...if KOK ran a wide open spread attack at the DIII stop where he was a national champion, why even take this job? And why would Ferentz even look at him for the job?
There's a phrase in coaching that you "coach what you know." That generally means that if you are an "I" guy, you don't try to coach the spread. In this case, why would a spread coach take on an offense that's seems such a diametric opposite to what he "knows?"
There's a phrase in coaching that you "coach what you know." That generally means that if you are an "I" guy, you don't try to coach the spread. In this case, why would a spread coach take on an offense that's seems such a diametric opposite to what he "knows?"
BSpringsteen
Well-Known Member
You mentioned the two poeple who I would predict would get the coordinator positions at Iowa should Parker retire and KOK leave.\
WindsorHawk
Well-Known Member
It could be...I doubt it...but could be that Ferentz "encouraged" KOK to look into opportunities.
hawkeyemark
Well-Known Member
We can only speculate as we don't know anything about this. I didn't mean to offer a theory about the situation in my post- and it would surprise me to see Kirk make anything more than cosmetic changes in his approach. I do think he will have to replace at least one coordinator before next season though. And I have gone through enough in life to expect the unexpected. I never thought about KOK himself maybe wanting to do his own thing but that idea may have some validity as well.
SwirlinLingerie
Well-Known Member
That very likely could be the case...but maybe the Norm situation hasn't cleared up yet and Phil Parker or Kaczenski don't want to wait. There also seems to be a few logical candidates for Iowa's potential OC and DC slots. For whoever on the staff doesn't get picked for them, a promotion to coordinator at Indiana would be tough to pass up.
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
I doubt Indiana pays their football coach $3 million per year.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
**Ending vacation on FB board**
I don't think O'Keefe is that bad of a hire. If you're Indiana, you've probably got $750k max to spend. You can get O'Keefe, who will be there tops 10 years if he works out, where working out would be 6-6 or 7-5, which with 4 cupcakes non-con and Illinois and Purdue on your side of the schedule, isn't outside the realm of possibility.
With $750k you can get one of three things - a failed head coach, a coordinator who isn't highly sought after as head coaching material by BCS level programs or an up and comer from D-IAA or a MAC/Sun Belt/WAC type school (but even those might be a stretch given IU's finances). So you hire O'Keefe, who like it or not, was a figure in our program's turnaround, and he ain't gonna get hired by anyone else if he has a few good years because he's too old. A failed HC or up and comer will bolt the second he gets them up to 6 or 7 wins and gets a better offer.
O'Keefe gets a lot of crap, but part of me thinks Ferentz is more to blame for the offense than O'Keefe. Ferentz is almost never willing to take a chance. We saw Oklahoma break out that diamond formation last night which they had just implemented. For all we know, O'Keefe wanted to implement some sort of alternative offense this year, but Ferentz wouldn't let him. I mean, we had the best set of WRs I can ever remember, and O'Keefe had to have wanted to open up the playbook a little more, the guy has shown some really impressive flashes as coordinator. That 2004 season really stands out as a good one given the injuries to the RBs and even 2003 was pretty good considering Chandler was the QB (defense won the games, but O'Keefe kept the O relatively mistake free and playing within itself).
I think the biggest problem is he doesn't appear to be much of a motivator - he doesn't really seem like an animated guy and I don't know how well that resonates with the kids. I also dislike his delays with play calls and things, but those things happen. I think part of his problem may be that Ferentz is so conservative that Ferentz is the one limiting the playbook so that there is more time to practice a limited set of plays rather than dedicating less time to each individual play, which would be more likely to lead to flaws in execution or costly mistakes. I'm kind of on the fence on this one, because I really fear that something Ferentz is doing is responsible for our offense rather than it being something O'Keefe is doing. We all need to remember that Ferentz came from the Ravens organization and the Ravens have always been content to play risk free offense and fantastic defense in the hopes of winning games 13-10 rather than getting into shootouts. As easy as it is to complain, O'Keefe could actually be the guy holding the O together and they could actually get worse without him. I kind of doubt it, but I don't think any of us know.
I don't think O'Keefe is that bad of a hire. If you're Indiana, you've probably got $750k max to spend. You can get O'Keefe, who will be there tops 10 years if he works out, where working out would be 6-6 or 7-5, which with 4 cupcakes non-con and Illinois and Purdue on your side of the schedule, isn't outside the realm of possibility.
With $750k you can get one of three things - a failed head coach, a coordinator who isn't highly sought after as head coaching material by BCS level programs or an up and comer from D-IAA or a MAC/Sun Belt/WAC type school (but even those might be a stretch given IU's finances). So you hire O'Keefe, who like it or not, was a figure in our program's turnaround, and he ain't gonna get hired by anyone else if he has a few good years because he's too old. A failed HC or up and comer will bolt the second he gets them up to 6 or 7 wins and gets a better offer.
O'Keefe gets a lot of crap, but part of me thinks Ferentz is more to blame for the offense than O'Keefe. Ferentz is almost never willing to take a chance. We saw Oklahoma break out that diamond formation last night which they had just implemented. For all we know, O'Keefe wanted to implement some sort of alternative offense this year, but Ferentz wouldn't let him. I mean, we had the best set of WRs I can ever remember, and O'Keefe had to have wanted to open up the playbook a little more, the guy has shown some really impressive flashes as coordinator. That 2004 season really stands out as a good one given the injuries to the RBs and even 2003 was pretty good considering Chandler was the QB (defense won the games, but O'Keefe kept the O relatively mistake free and playing within itself).
I think the biggest problem is he doesn't appear to be much of a motivator - he doesn't really seem like an animated guy and I don't know how well that resonates with the kids. I also dislike his delays with play calls and things, but those things happen. I think part of his problem may be that Ferentz is so conservative that Ferentz is the one limiting the playbook so that there is more time to practice a limited set of plays rather than dedicating less time to each individual play, which would be more likely to lead to flaws in execution or costly mistakes. I'm kind of on the fence on this one, because I really fear that something Ferentz is doing is responsible for our offense rather than it being something O'Keefe is doing. We all need to remember that Ferentz came from the Ravens organization and the Ravens have always been content to play risk free offense and fantastic defense in the hopes of winning games 13-10 rather than getting into shootouts. As easy as it is to complain, O'Keefe could actually be the guy holding the O together and they could actually get worse without him. I kind of doubt it, but I don't think any of us know.
SwirlinLingerie
Well-Known Member
DT - $3 million total for 4 years.
busabus114
Well-Known Member
Good post
I think it would be very interesting to see if the offense changed at all if KOK did happen to leave. Wouldnt it be weird to play against KOK and have him bust out about 37 trick plays just because his advanced offensive mind has been limited by KF for all these years
Or, Indiana would just be uber conservative with less talent which would result in 3 or 4 wins every year
VenturaAce
Well-Known Member
Indiana AD: Hey Hoosier fans, you remember that anemic Iowa offense that came here a month ago? Well, how about we get their OC to jump aboard our team, bring O back to the stone ages, coupled with our awful D. You look ahead to Hoosier basketball now by October, we'll do our best to get you thinking about it by September!
BigD
Well-Known Member
A couple of you have been referring to Norm leaving but in case you may not have heard, Norm went to the Idaho State vrs Iowa basketball game. After the game the basketball players went over to pay homage and to show respect. The players said he looked pretty good and healthy. Norm told them he has every intention of returing next season.
busabus114
Well-Known Member
With the year norm has had his intentions could change at any moment
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
You never know - though Stanzi kind of wilted down the stretch this year, other than Jake C., once the Ferentz regime was established, O'Keefe hasn't put a total bust of a QB on the field. That's pretty amazing to have only had one guy not work out in a run that long, and it is understandable that the staff was behind JC, we didn't have anyone else (Ricky wasn't ready) and the recruiting services had all anointed him the second coming. There's just a part of me that is very worried the problems we have seen on offense aren't O'Keefe's doing and Ferentz is more than happy to have the guy around because Ferentz knows that as long as O'Keefe is around, all offensive problems will be blamed on O'Keefe and not Ferentz. Ferentz may have ideas of a bruising, plain vanilla, ball control offense and O'Keefe is out there trying to run it, but we just don't have the horses up front to do what Ferentz wants to do.
SwirlinLingerie
Well-Known Member
Okeefe4prez, is that genuine or not?
If you are being genuine, I agree with some of your sentiments.
You recall the '06 Minnesota game in the dome? Right before half, Iowa was near the MN goal line. Tate ended up throwing an interception in the end zone, and Ferentz was supposedly irate at O'Keefe (behind the scenes) for calling a passing play. Regardless of how much Minnesota loaded up to stop the run, you know Kirk wanted to keep handing the ball off and then take the field goal.
You wonder how many times O'Keefe just says screw it...coach wants me to run the ball off tackle, we'll run the ball off tackle again.
My guess is he rarely chooses to risk getting his a$$ chewed out by Ferentz like he did in that MN game. How often can we surprise the defense with our play calling when our offensive coordinator is afraid to surprise the head coach?
If you are being genuine, I agree with some of your sentiments.
You recall the '06 Minnesota game in the dome? Right before half, Iowa was near the MN goal line. Tate ended up throwing an interception in the end zone, and Ferentz was supposedly irate at O'Keefe (behind the scenes) for calling a passing play. Regardless of how much Minnesota loaded up to stop the run, you know Kirk wanted to keep handing the ball off and then take the field goal.
You wonder how many times O'Keefe just says screw it...coach wants me to run the ball off tackle, we'll run the ball off tackle again.
My guess is he rarely chooses to risk getting his a$$ chewed out by Ferentz like he did in that MN game. How often can we surprise the defense with our play calling when our offensive coordinator is afraid to surprise the head coach?
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
No sarcasm tonight. Too depressed after NU landed their second consecutive January bowl berth and we've ended our streak of such bowls. Watching Stoops and Pelini out there gunning for each other by going for it on 4th downs (including that amazingly gutsy pass play by Pelini) made me remember when we had a coach who would roll the dice every few weeks, not every few years. When O'Keefe was forced to change the offense in 2004, he was up to the challenge and I am beginning to think the play not to lose mentality is as much to blame for the offense as anything else.
VenturaAce
Well-Known Member
ColoradoHAWKEYE
Well-Known Member
Okay, but...(these are "deep" thoughts)...if my wife is a free spirit spender and I'm a fiscal conservative, and together she is curtailed by me and the bills get paid and we still manage to have some good fun every so often, inter-tangled with a few bouts of "great" fun....
Then we cut our ties and separate to go our own ways, she, being the free spirit spender may get some (but not all) bills paid, enjoys her freedom and may seemingly have a bit more fun for a short while, until the lack of fiscal conservatism hits her back to reality, because she still doesn't know how to handle the bills....I meanwhile, am still fiscal conservative and still maintain that same philosophy I always have....with mostly good times and the great times every so often.
Who comes out ahead? (besides the fans, I mean attorney). Or more simply, Which was the better arrangement for the kids? (told you it was deep)
hawkeyemark
Well-Known Member
The play not to lose mentality may have had alot to do with all the various problems we had the second half of the season. We've spent years on these boards discussing how Kirk and KOK seemed joined at the hip. This discussion has offered food for thought to question whether the two really seem on the same page. KOK may want out or Kirk may want to make changes or maybe even both. We obviously don't know but KOK putting his hat in the ring for the Indiana job has started to make things look a little different than they did before.
