Fry / Ferentz offense, what so different

[nilekinnick]

I have been around for both. Without going thru 45 years of stats most would lean towards Fry wither better O and Ferentz teams with better D.

Other than the standing TE of Fry, both wanted to establish a run. Have a mix of run and pass. But I don't see drastic changes in offensive philosophy.

QB's not meant to run in either, though some RPO in Iowa with Sullivan, Gronkowski

With Ferentz, miss Banks, Tate, Stanzi, Beathard ( always had Nate a 1/2 step lower ) . Fry had Long & Hartlieb , Rodgers in the hey day years.

Neither put many WR's into the NFL.

My own opinion, the Draw seemed to have more success with Fry. Both coaches have had some really good RB's.

Last 6 plus years being frustrating, ( Hawks not perceived as upper tier ), I lean to the QB being the biggest delta.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

I see more differences than similarities. Both valued the tight end position and power I running. Both wore black and gold.

Fry's offense had the QB mostly under center. Iowa's offenses of late have a lot more shotgun.
Fry's passing game was more vertical.
Fry used a lot more gadget plays.
Fry did not sit on leads. He would score anytime he could.

 

[NCHawker]

Kirk has a blind spot when it comes to offense. That is a fact supported by years of emperical evidence.

He would never have put Brian in charge of the defense. But he was somehow ok with him as OC. why? Because he is defensive minded and will not compromise on defense.

Other coaches are the same way. I think Lincoln Riley, Mike Leach are two examples of coaches who will not compromise on offense. That guy at OU who was the DC at Clemson is like Ferentz.

 

[SCHawkeye2]

In general, I think Fry's (Snyder's) offense started with wider gaps on the OL spacing. This tended to make the defenses (of the era) have to spread out and created some natural gaps and openings in the line.
It was difficult for defenses to stuff the box with this wider spacing.
Of course the main difference was Fry's approach to take what the defense gave us. If they stacked the LoS with defenders, he would pass until the defense had to play honest. And vice versa.

Kirk is bound and determined to 'run the football' no matter the defense. No such thing as 'take what they give us'.
And our opponents know this.

 

[ChosenChildren]

Hayden was "scratch where it itches."

Kirk is " FU I'm going to scratch in the same place every time."

Kirk's offense really hasn't been any good since O'Keefe left. KOK was underrated.

With an average offense Kirk would have won 70% of his games at Iowa, and a one or two more Big Ten titles. As it is, he will finish with about a 62% winning percentage. Still great, but what could have been.....

 

[ChosenChildren]

Hayden also had the genius Bill Snyder coaching the offense. I met him once in his youth.....an incredibly impressive guy. Fry let Snyder do his thing. That was the genius of Hayden. Let the coaches coach!

Kirk plays not to lose. Sometimes it works, but it is a two-sided coin.

 

[BigD]

Fry’s QB’s were better in my opinion.

 

[BigD]

Hayden also had the genius Bill Snyder coaching the offense. I met him once in his youth.....an incredibly impressive guy. Fry let Snyder do his thing. That was the genius of Hayden. Let the coaches coach!

Kirk plays not to lose. Sometimes it works, but it is a two-sided coin.

Yeah Tim said in a interview that Kirk over ruled him on some of the things he wanted to do.

 

[Fryowa]

Fry’s QB’s were better in my opinion.

What in the absolute hell are you smoking?

Banks, Tate, Stanzi, Stanley, and Beathard were all better than any Iowa quarterback not named Chuck Long.

 

[Gibsonian]

What in the absolute hell are you smoking?

Banks, Tate, Stanzi, Stanley, and Beathard were all better than any Iowa quarterback not named Chuck Long.

Chuck Hartlieb is right up there with nearly anyone. 2 of the best 3 seasons and games ever I think.

 

[Fryowa]

Chuck Hartlieb is right up there with nearly anyone. 2 of the best 3 seasons and games ever I think.

Hartlieb had more yards than CJ, but that's it.

CJ had more passing touchdowns in fewer games, higher TD%, same INT %, and most of all Beathard could make things happen on the ground. He ended up with 429 yds rushing and 10 TDs, Hartlieb had -387 yds on the ground and 2 TDs.

 

[trj]

What I do know is that having a stand up tight end at line scrimmage doesn’t work in modern football. Off the line of scrimmage, it still works, but inline not so much.

Also, what doesn’t work is having your quarterback back pedal 7-10 yards from center, set his feet and throw the football.

Hayden had a very good offensive mind and the Hayden we got, roughly from 79-88, could easily make the adjustment to 2025 football, what we got after ‘88, not really.

 

[BigD]

What I do know is that having a stand up tight end at line scrimmage doesn’t work in modern football. Off the line of scrimmage, it still works, but inline not so much.

Also, what doesn’t work is having your quarterback back pedal 7-10 yards from center, set his feet and throw the football.

Hayden had a very good offensive mind and the Hayden we got, roughly from 79-88, could easily make the adjustment to 2025 football, what we got after ‘88, not really.

Entertainment wise

Hayden > Kirk

Not even close.

Banks???? Seriously????? If the previous QB before Banks would have had just half of a pulse everyone would be saying Brad who???????????

 

[hawkdrummer1]

Entertainment wise

Hayden > Kirk

Not even close.

Banks???? Seriously????? If the previous QB before Banks would have had just half of a pulse everyone would be saying Brad who???????????

What are you talking about? He was runner up for the Heisman trophy.

 

[ajdwhs87]

The offensive approach has changed. More similar in the beginning even with taking some chances and trick plays. Then Kirk changed more and more to the less risk, get a lead, and nurse it to the finish type. Slowly but surely taking the foot off the pedal sooner and playing the field position don't turn it over pull into your shell thing more.

 

[BigD]

What are you talking about? He was runner up for the Heisman trophy.

You’re reading that wrong. Fans (including myself) were pleading to get Banks in earlier the year before as we suffered through an ineffective QB playing in front of him.

After a lot of frustration and an ineffective QB, Kirk finally relented and let Banks take the helm.

What I am getting at is “if” the previous QB would have had even a game manager pulse then there it a high probability that Banks would have just sat on the bench and may not have ever be given a chance to shine. We all know how Kirk is stubborn when anointing a QB and not wanting to deviate from his decisions at that position.

I consider Banks one of the best QB’s to wear the Iowa uniform, and one of the few dual threat QB’s we have had. There were others too as Fryowa has mentioned, They too were somewhat mobile except for Long who was like a cement statue back in the pocket…………. but damn could long throw twenty-five yard passes on a rope.

 

[BigD]

The offensive approach has changed. More similar in the beginning even with taking some chances and trick plays. Then Kirk changed more and more to the less risk, get a lead, and nurse it to the finish type. Slowly but surely taking the foot off the pedal sooner and playing the field position don't turn it over pull into your shell thing more.

Agreed,

 

[BigD]

What in the absolute hell are you smoking?

Banks, Tate, Stanzi, Stanley, and Beathard were all better than any Iowa quarterback not named Chuck Long.

I stand corrected as I forgot about those guys. They definitely were good QB’s. Brian’s short tenure at OC seemed like a lifetime.