Honest question for Rob and Jon

Joshbrown

Joshbrown

Well-Known Member
You've both said you felt Greg Davis was never a good fit at Iowa. I assume you both felt that way from day one or shortly thereafter.

I'm not here to dispute that.

I have a simple question. Since I suspect almost everyone agrees with you, I would like your opinion on why he was hired. Now you might get angry thinking this is an insincere snarky question . . . but it's not. What logic-process was responsible for him being chosen as KOK's replacement? And what logic was employed deciding that his time at Iowa needed to end?

I would truly appreciate a thoughtful, reasoned reply.
 
Greg Davis, OC/QB, 1998-2010 @ Texas

1998 9–3–0 15 16
1999 9–5–0 21 23
2000 9–3–0 12 12
2001 11–2–0 5 5
2002 11–2–0 6 7
2003 10–3–0 12 11
2004 11–1–0 5 4
2005 13–0–0 1 1
2006 10–3–0 13 13
2007 10–3–0 10 10
2008 12–1–0 4 3
2009 13–1–0 2 2

Part of it I would assume. Since OC is a pretty important position....I guess youd say he had a track record for success?
 
Look, it didn't work out, but, this answers the question I believe. It was a gamble. End of his career. We were looking to see if the lamp had any magic left, it didn't.

Plus he was a proven good soldier. Program supporter. Yes man with good coaching knowledge, track record. Not hard to see why he was hired.
 
Proudhawk brings up some good points. I think in addition to what he/she said, there are a couple of other factors that led to Greg Davis being brought in. The first was to add a little more something to the offense in terms of ideas and strategy. What ended up happening was a mesh of two different philosophy's that never seemed to got together very well. Instead we saw an offense that tried to be a little bit of a lot of things instead of having a clear cut identity. I think that was the biggest issue in regards to X's and O's during the Davis era. Davis had a knack of calling a really good individual play call here and there, but the offense never seemed to have a "flow" to it. The second thing I think he was brought in for was to help open up recruiting opportunities. His addition may have not brought in a flood of productive players from Texas, but I suppose it may have made coaches in the state aware that Iowa would like to recruit there. If both of the things I stated were among the top reasons why Greg Davis was brought in, then I'd have a hard time saying that Iowa accomplished either of those things. I don't think Greg Davis is or was a bad coach and I think he tried his best as a true professional would, but it ended up not being the right long term fit.
 
Joshbrown said:
You've both said you felt Greg Davis was never a good fit at Iowa. I assume you both felt that way from day one or shortly thereafter.

I'm not here to dispute that.

I have a simple question. Since I suspect almost everyone agrees with you, I would like your opinion on why he was hired. Now you might get angry thinking this is an insincere snarky question . . . but it's not. What logic-process was responsible for him being chosen as KOK's replacement? And what logic was employed deciding that his time at Iowa needed to end?

I would truly appreciate a thoughtful, reasoned reply.
Click to expand...

I think "time to end" was two-fold.

First, things were inconsistent, at best, on that side of the ball. Second, and possibly more relevant, were the non-renewals of contracts for White and Kennedy and the events that precipitated same. They were GD hires, essentially, and their handling of The Eno Affair reflected on GD, as well.
 
Last edited:
Joshbrown said:
You've both said you felt Greg Davis was never a good fit at Iowa. I assume you both felt that way from day one or shortly thereafter.

I'm not here to dispute that.

I have a simple question. Since I suspect almost everyone agrees with you, I would like your opinion on why he was hired. Now you might get angry thinking this is an insincere snarky question . . . but it's not. What logic-process was responsible for him being chosen as KOK's replacement? And what logic was employed deciding that his time at Iowa needed to end?

I would truly appreciate a thoughtful, reasoned reply.
Click to expand...

because i don't think kirk knew KOK was going to leave and the timing didn't leave a whole lot of candidates out there and, my very honest opinion is, kirk probably scared off others who knew they'd have to adapt to kirk's "run it into 9 men fronts" mentality. GD was the only one willing to bite.

Now, why did GD survive 5 seasons? Look no further than our current OC.
 
I think Kirk wanted a guy who could show Brian the ropes and hand him the job when GD was done. I was saying that a long time ago, long before GDGD was gone.
 
ArvadaHawk said:
because i don't think kirk knew KOK was going to leave and the timing didn't leave a whole lot of candidates out there and, my very honest opinion is, kirk probably scared off others who knew they'd have to adapt to kirk's "run it into 9 men fronts" mentality. GD was the only one willing to bite.

Now, why did GD survive 5 seasons? Look no further than our current OC.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt there are a lot of prospective or current OCs out there who are sitting around and thinking, "Damn I love running the ball! I love designing run plays off tackle!"

No disrespect to that way of thinking but that just doesn't exist in today's football landscape. The only way it works is if you have the best talent and Iowa doesn't. Alabama does and thats why they can play that way. Same with Georgia who is basically Iowa with supercharged talent on both sides of the ball.

The game has changed and the rules have changed to favor QBs and WRs. Most coaches who want to stay coaches have adapted to that. Kirk has not. Quite frankly he's lucky that two guys with NFL coaching experience, one his kid and the other his long time buddy, don't mind working for him.
 
Xerxes said:
I highly doubt there are a lot of prospective or current OCs out there who are sitting around and thinking, "Damn I love running the ball! I love designing run plays off tackle!"

No disrespect to that way of thinking but that just doesn't exist in today's football landscape. The only way it works is if you have the best talent and Iowa doesn't. Alabama does and thats why they can play that way. Same with Georgia who is basically Iowa with supercharged talent on both sides of the ball.

The game has changed and the rules have changed to favor QBs and WRs. Most coaches who want to stay coaches have adapted to that. Kirk has not. Quite frankly he's lucky that two guys with NFL coaching experience, one his kid and the other his long time buddy, don't mind working for him.
Click to expand...

agree. game has changed where you use the pass to set up the run, unless you're 'Bama.
 
The zone runs, draws, screens and other generic boring plays are used to set up the other plays. If they get yardage like three or four yards that is great, but its more about setting up the defense for the play you run from the same look.

Greg Davis had success at Georgia before hitching his wagon to Mack Brown at North Carolina and then Texas. He had players like Vince Young or Ricky Williams or Jamaal Charles in his system and the screens and zone runs could be house calls when those guys were running it. When you have the wide outs catching screens for three yards, then you have them run go routes and deep routes every fifth or tenth time you snap from the same formation it is a little more effective.
 
Lots of good points in this thread. I think it's a combo of many.

Davis came from a winning program. He had the experience to mentor BFz, if that was that plan... and he's a pretty solid guy once you get past his playcalling.

The downside was that unfortunately KFz's lack of vision on offense may have prevented him from seeing the potential mismatch with GDGD's approach (or landing someone younger and more dynamic). White and Kennedy also tainted the GDGD era a bit.
 
Always cracks me up when people add words like, "Honest Question, to tell the truth and so on". Does that mean that if you don't add that,, then you aren't telling the truth or being honest? Or should integrity be questioned? Honest Question :cool:
 
proudhawkfan21 said:
Greg Davis, OC/QB, 1998-2010 @ Texas

1998 9–3–0 15 16
1999 9–5–0 21 23
2000 9–3–0 12 12
2001 11–2–0 5 5
2002 11–2–0 6 7
2003 10–3–0 12 11
2004 11–1–0 5 4
2005 13–0–0 1 1
2006 10–3–0 13 13
2007 10–3–0 10 10
2008 12–1–0 4 3
2009 13–1–0 2 2

Part of it I would assume. Since OC is a pretty important position....I guess youd say he had a track record for success?
Click to expand...
Not disagreeing or disputing, but I wonder what his numbers were like as far as total offense, scoring, rushing, & passing. Particularly compared to KOK's time as OC at Iowa...
 
We will always have memories of that HN Podcast with JM melting down and saying Greg Davis should work at the Starbucks drive-thru and talk to customers about football on the intercom.
 
Greg Davis...perfect hire...

History of success...fired...but looking for work, will do what he is told, won't be around that long, won't make waves if Kirk wants to pound the ball into a granite wall, non charismatic personality cherished by Head Coach Vanilla...no competition for dad or the heir.
 
HawkGold said:
Always cracks me up when people add words like, "Honest Question, to tell the truth and so on". Does that mean that if you don't add that,, then you aren't telling the truth or being honest? Or should integrity be questioned? Honest Question :cool:
Click to expand...

This is the age of snark-asm. Sadly, sometimes one has to start a question by clarifying that it really is a straight up question instead of a set up or hit job... otherwise there are plenty immediately ready to attack or accuse him of a hidden motive.
 
hawkdrummer1 said:
This is the age of snark-asm. Sadly, sometimes one has to start a question by clarifying that it really is a straight up question instead of a set up or hit job... otherwise there are plenty immediately ready to attack or accuse him of a hidden motive.
Click to expand...

Ya I suppose you are right.
 
HawkGold said:
Always cracks me up when people add words like, "Honest Question, to tell the truth and so on". Does that mean that if you don't add that,, then you aren't telling the truth or being honest? Or should integrity be questioned? Honest Question :cool:
Click to expand...

Yes, it implies that people normally tell you only what you want to hear. What they tell you can actually be true, if what you want to hear is actually true. But if they are about to tell you something you won't like, well, they need to be careful how they say it.

This is not to be confused with a certain individuals deciding to add the words "believe me" after many of their statements, which should set off alarm bells that they probably have no idea if what they just said is true or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top