SmokeTownHawk
Well-Known Member
I just get the feeling that Brian wants to open things up a bit and be more aggressive on offense but Kirk pulls him back. A big reason why an up and coming offensive mind would never work at Iowa as long as KF is HC.
Howe: It’s Brian Ferentz’s Time to Be Iowa’s Offensive Coordinator
- Thread starter RobHowe
- Start date
Motigerhawk
Well-Known Member
Shoot, established OCs struggled under KF
Regarding big plays (as you defined it, 30+ yards), Iowa had the 95th most runs of 30+ in the nation, but they were okay in passes of 30+ (41st in the nation, or roughly 20th among the P5, basically top third).
If only we could somehow merge the 2016 running game (6 runs of 50+, and another couple called back by penalty) with the current passing game. You could go so far as to call us explosive!
You must be talking about Greg Davis? With a scheme designed to take advantage of the superior talent and speed at receiver without one mismatch at receiver while he was here at Iowa?
pythagoras
Well-Known Member
Because that's the norm in football? We're not running the air raid here
kameltoez102
Well-Known Member
It is a very hard argument to have about BF without knowing what is going on in the game. I posted in another thread a few weeks ago that it is really hard to make a definite decision without some key information.
1) How often did Stanley check out of plays into something that yielded a poor gain (less than 3 yards) where the called play was set-up to work
2) How many times did Stanley or a receiver make the incorrect read on pass plays or running plays? (I know Cooper had one for sure in the Nebraska game)
3) The other X factor is how many dropped balls did we have? Iowa is a ball control offense and when we have successful plays ran and we can't catch that really hurts us overall because typically we are not going to run that many plays during a game so those plays not only kill the drive but do not allow us to extend the drive and tire the defense and in essence we end up tiring our own out
One thing I am convinced of is my belief is they were asking Stanley to do too much thinking at the line and not allowing him to just play. Look at how he did in hurry up and/or no huddle situations?. From my observation it was much different.
I think he would even do better just going more no huddle (No necessarily playing fast) and allowing him that extra time at the LOS to evaluate the defense rather than huddle up and spend 15 seconds getting the play and calling it, then changing his blocking scheme based on the defense, then have the defense show something different and ultimately he doesn't have enough time to change the play again or he is confused and can't adjust.
I don't think Nate's strength was read progression at this point in his career. He was good for one maybe two reads then he had a tendency to hold the ball too long or over think things and make a poor throw. I am not saying Stanley is dumb but I don't believe I have ever heard it stated that he is a student of the game of someone that likes to sit and grind film on his spare time, which is different then what we heard about CJ and Stanzi to name a few recent guys.
Without these answers it is difficult to give an accurate assessment. You could also say that isn't it Brian's job as OC to prepare him and that is valid but in my opinion you can only do so much with what you have and maybe he hasn't done a good job adjusting to that.
1) How often did Stanley check out of plays into something that yielded a poor gain (less than 3 yards) where the called play was set-up to work
2) How many times did Stanley or a receiver make the incorrect read on pass plays or running plays? (I know Cooper had one for sure in the Nebraska game)
3) The other X factor is how many dropped balls did we have? Iowa is a ball control offense and when we have successful plays ran and we can't catch that really hurts us overall because typically we are not going to run that many plays during a game so those plays not only kill the drive but do not allow us to extend the drive and tire the defense and in essence we end up tiring our own out
One thing I am convinced of is my belief is they were asking Stanley to do too much thinking at the line and not allowing him to just play. Look at how he did in hurry up and/or no huddle situations?. From my observation it was much different.
I think he would even do better just going more no huddle (No necessarily playing fast) and allowing him that extra time at the LOS to evaluate the defense rather than huddle up and spend 15 seconds getting the play and calling it, then changing his blocking scheme based on the defense, then have the defense show something different and ultimately he doesn't have enough time to change the play again or he is confused and can't adjust.
I don't think Nate's strength was read progression at this point in his career. He was good for one maybe two reads then he had a tendency to hold the ball too long or over think things and make a poor throw. I am not saying Stanley is dumb but I don't believe I have ever heard it stated that he is a student of the game of someone that likes to sit and grind film on his spare time, which is different then what we heard about CJ and Stanzi to name a few recent guys.
Without these answers it is difficult to give an accurate assessment. You could also say that isn't it Brian's job as OC to prepare him and that is valid but in my opinion you can only do so much with what you have and maybe he hasn't done a good job adjusting to that.
blubberhawk
Well-Known Member
Had Goodson played more early on, you can be sure that Iowa would have had more big gainers from the running back position.
