RobHowe
Administrator
Did you read my column?
Howe: Hawkeyes' Signature Win Highlights What Might Have Been
- Thread starter RobHowe
- Start date
Did you read my column?
10-3 should be the bottom bar type of season when you're likely to lose at least 4 if not 5/6 guys early to the pros.
I fully understand that Iowa doesn't win 10 games often and it should be celebrated. But when you have as many NFL players as Iowa does and you're losing them early, you better make it count when you have them. Because other programs that lose as many guys as Iowa does early are winning a lot of games.
Robowe
Well-Known Member
A year after losing 4 more (Hooker, Nelson, Hockenson, and Fant) early to the NFL draft ...
Sure. But of course it is all about the comparison.
Compared to the absolute standard of other P5 teams, a 9-3 record is very good, especially against a tough schedule (this site lists a bunch of SOS rankings, Iowa is generally between about 17-22 across the various lists).
Compared to the relative standard of what we think they were capable of (based upon our perception of their talent, which is of course heavily influenced by the high draft-ratings of several players), 9-3 is disappointing, and this comes on the heels of a disappointing 8-4 last year. I think last year should have been 10-2. I wouldn't say this year SHOULD HAVE been 10-2, but it very easily COULD HAVE been 10-2.
Since ultimately the staff is responsible for creating the expectations (by the talent they recruit and develop), and for utilizing the talent to meet those expectations, they should be graded on an absolute standard when trying to make decisions like, "Should we retain this coach?"
But regarding the satisfaction that any season brings as a fan, it is always about how you do relative to expectations. That is why the general feeling of the fan-base is pretty down from the last 2 years. Objectively, Iowa should finish both years ranked, and hopefully with some decent Bowl wins to show for their trouble. But subjectively, we all know they could have been so much better.
ChosenChildren
Well-Known Member
What a great video. It really looked to me like Morgan FUMBLED on the last sack by Epeneza.
ChosenChildren
Well-Known Member
Yes I did. It was terrific.
I just think that replaying football (and life) is awfully tough. Sometimes the ball doesn't bounce your way. Look to the future.
I actually think Iowa came out with aggressive game plans against Michigan and Penn State. Their defenses (and our weakened OL) had other ideas.
I think the return of Schott made a big difference in our offensive line play the past two weeks.
I thought so too, in real time, but they never really replayed it from a good vantage point during the game.
ChosenChildren
Well-Known Member
Rob - I've said it before but I certainly want to repeat it. Your reporting and the articles that you and your associates write are the reason I love this message board. Sure, the bantering and back and forth is fun (most of the time) but the vast majority of the people who hang out here are not football experts -- we are just Iowa fans who love the Hawkeyes and want them to do well.
I think the information you provide during and after the games is as good as anything a person can find on the internet about the Hawkeyes.
I'm an old man and I now have a lifetime of out-of-state acquaintances and friends who root for other Big Ten teams. Most of those folks are envious of Kirk Ferentz and the program he has built here (and Hayden before him; 40 years of winning seasons and bowl games!). Our fans take 8-4 seasons and bowl championships for granted now. It wasn't always that way. I hope Ferentz and company stay at Iowa for many more years to come.....although it would be nice to win that darn West Division once in a while!! We certainly could have done it this season.
True. Or it could have resulted in a few more losses. The thing that people often forget is that being more aggressive doesn't guarantee positive results, otherwise everyone would do it (even KF).
Generally speaking, a more aggressive strategy increases the VARIANCE of outcomes. That is, it raises the ceiling, but it also lowers the floor.
Iowa scores 2.19 pts/drive, 74th in the nation (oof). If they employ more aggressive strategies (e.g. taking more deep shots, which is a low-percentage play with a high reward), they have more long TDs, but likely also more 3-and-outs, so fewer FGs. Those things balance out, so the overall number is not guaranteed to go up. Employeeing this strategy game-in and game-out would lead to more really good games, but also more really bad games.
We see that with Brohm from Purdue. I actually really like him as a coach; but in the last 3 seasons he has lost games to Rutgers, Eastern Michigan, and Nevada that he absolutely should not have lost, and probably wouldn't had he not been so aggressive. But he has also played some really good teams very tough for that same reason.
Obviously there is an "optimal" level of aggression that KF probably falls short of. But his strategy ensures consistency, and if the talent-level is high enough, helps us reach our potential (Goliatch-strategy). I think many on here would prefer a higher variance strategy (a few more 10 win seasons even if the cost is a few 6 win seasons). After the Wisconsin game, I just wanted to see Iowa lose differently (I was sick of watching the same old plot unfold).
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
Michigan....no would be better.
Wisc ..hard to say.
PSU likel
Wins...
ISU..Better off no doubt.
MN Better off likely.
The point I think you are missing is that we had a championship caliber talent at 20 of the 22 positions and all of the special teams.
The inability of our OG’s to pick up the blitz, stunts, delayed blitz,etc... were the reasons we did not win those games. The Penn State game was more on just one of those 2 OG’s being incapable of blocking #54 and the coaching staff not making an adjustment to help out whichever LG was in there.
Chad Leistikow has several articles after those losses about how WR downfield were wide open against Michigan and Penn State, but Stanley didn’t have a chance to see them. The play designs were good. OG play and handling delayed blitzes killed our chances of beating Michigan and PSU. After all, how many times did we cross the 50 at Michigan, but end up going backwards?
I will leave it to the reader to decide if the blame falls on our OG’s or the guy coaching them, or OC not making the adjustments when it is clear they were outmatched. I have my own opinion. #hirebettercoaches.
The inability of our OG’s to pick up the blitz, stunts, delayed blitz,etc... were the reasons we did not win those games. The Penn State game was more on just one of those 2 OG’s being incapable of blocking #54 and the coaching staff not making an adjustment to help out whichever LG was in there.
Chad Leistikow has several articles after those losses about how WR downfield were wide open against Michigan and Penn State, but Stanley didn’t have a chance to see them. The play designs were good. OG play and handling delayed blitzes killed our chances of beating Michigan and PSU. After all, how many times did we cross the 50 at Michigan, but end up going backwards?
I will leave it to the reader to decide if the blame falls on our OG’s or the guy coaching them, or OC not making the adjustments when it is clear they were outmatched. I have my own opinion. #hirebettercoaches.
RobHowe
Administrator
Thank you. We appreciate you coming here for Hawkeye content.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Yes, and I do not understand this. In the second half when the hawks were pinned down deep it seemed Young could have been a good sub also if Goodson was nicked up
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
Iowa is best set up to do it. That is all.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Wisconsin is actually better set up. Their run game schemes and their 3-4 provide better match-ups. Our D may "perform" better across the scope of a season, but against O$U, neither our base 4-3 or 4-2-5 is ideal.
Then again, scheme doesn't really matter against an O$U as much as going off-schedule and catching them napping does.
