I just want to get this post out of the way now

[HawkeyeWalker]

Isn't this the case now? I don't know who on here that doesn't think less than 7 wins is a terrible year, and a epic fail. The staff doesn't want this, the fans don't want this, nobody wants this.

Here is what you aren't looking at though. Those are the absolute low water marks. Then the other years we are winning 9, 10, 11 games. Four seasons with 10+ wins, and top 10 finishes in the ranking.

Now I don't want to say we are "little old Iowa" and we can't do better. I'm saying that it is tough for ANY COLLEGE program to be a top 10 team for 10 years. Look at all the blue bloods, they all fall off, it happens to all of them.

If we were getting 7 wins, and saying it was a good year for Iowa I would be p!ssed....but its not, 7 wins causes a melt down, because it isn't a good year. 8 wins more people can live with and 9+ wins is a good year. It was the same way with Fry, and hopefully it will be the same way after Ferentz.

Last 10 years:
5 seasons of 9 wins + (good years)
4 seasons of 6 or 7 wins (low water years, and still making bowl games all of those years but 1)
1 season of 8 wins (avg. season)

If I could sign up for that decade again with 2 BCS games, and those records I probably would. This is what we had under Hayden, and what we now have under Ferentz. Not because I don't want to be top 10 every year, but because the reality it only the elite of elite (Ohio St., Texas, USC) that have soooo many built in recruiting advantages, can finish top 10 in 6, 7, or 8 years out of 10.

Well Said. Agreed.

 

[Billso]

This is completely unacceptable!

 

[archiehawk]

Your posts in football forum are as inane and insipid as your posts in the off-topic/politics forum(s).

So your another moronic con?

 

[racerhawk]

Isn't this the case now? I don't know who on here that doesn't think less than 7 wins is a terrible year, and a epic fail. The staff doesn't want this, the fans don't want this, nobody wants this.

Here is what you aren't looking at though. Those are the absolute low water marks. Then the other years we are winning 9, 10, 11 games. Four seasons with 10+ wins, and top 10 finishes in the ranking.

Now I don't want to say we are "little old Iowa" and we can't do better. I'm saying that it is tough for ANY COLLEGE program to be a top 10 team for 10 years. Look at all the blue bloods, they all fall off, it happens to all of them.

If we were getting 7 wins, and saying it was a good year for Iowa I would be p!ssed....but its not, 7 wins causes a melt down, because it isn't a good year. 8 wins more people can live with and 9+ wins is a good year. It was the same way with Fry, and hopefully it will be the same way after Ferentz.

Last 10 years:
5 seasons of 9 wins + (good years)
4 seasons of 6 or 7 wins (low water years, and still making bowl games all of those years but 1)
1 season of 8 wins (avg. season)

If I could sign up for that decade again with 2 BCS games, and those records I probably would. This is what we had under Hayden, and what we now have under Ferentz. Not because I don't want to be top 10 every year, but because the reality it only the elite of elite (Ohio St., Texas, USC) that have soooo many built in recruiting advantages, can finish top 10 in 6, 7, or 8 years out of 10.

Great points. Very logical. Refreshing.

Now back to...

I'm a donor. I know important people. I demand results. I golf. Derk er derr!

 

[Golfer]

Great points. Very logical. Refreshing.

Now back to...

I'm a donor. I know important people. I demand results. I golf. Derk er derr!

.

If you're trying to insult me sir, please do not do that. I have never insulted you, nor will I.

 

[Section136]

.

If you're trying to insult me sir, please do not do that. I have never insulted you, nor will I.

How is he insulting you? That is pretty much the substance of most of your posts. You come with some good stuff once in awhile about whats going on behind the scenes in the program.

We know you are a donor and you have choice seats in Kinnick.

 

[hogeye]

How is he insulting you? That is pretty much the substance of most of your posts. You come with some good stuff once in awhile about whats going on behind the scenes in the program.

We know you are a donor and you have choice seats in Kinnick.

Mocking a person is generally considered insulting. Even if it's qualified with an emoticon. The point Golfer makes I think is a fair one...I don't think I've ever seen him mock someone. And he did qualify it, he said 'if' that's the intent of the post.

It's one thing to mock someone when they bring questionable or blatantly facetious credentials to the boards to defend their stance, but as you've pointed out he generally has proven to be right, or at least proven to have the legitimate ability to shed some light on some things. It's probably fair to say he's earned a right of passage to point this fact out since he'd probably been questioned and the only way to defend himself is to be honest about how he knows.

 

[Section136]

Mocking a person is generally considered insulting. Even if it's qualified with an emoticon. The point Golfer makes I think is a fair one...I don't think I've ever seen him mock someone. And he did qualify it, he said 'if' that's the intent of the post.

It's one thing to mock someone when they bring questionable or blatantly facetious credentials to the boards to defend their stance, but as you've pointed out he generally has proven to be right, or at least proven to have the legitimate ability to shed some light on some things. It's probably fair to say he's earned a right of passage to point this fact out since he'd probably been questioned and the only way to defend himself is to be honest about how he knows.

Fair enough. I like reading most of Golfer's posts, just thought he was quick to get defensive is all. I also get extremely jealous constantly reading about how sweet of seats he has at Kinnick and the away games he goes to.

 

[hogeye]

Fair enough. I like reading most of Golfer's posts, just thought he was quick to get defensive is all.

I guess I thought it was a reasonable reply for having any level of defensiveness. He did preface it by stating 'if that was the intent' or something to that effect.

I also get extremely jealous constantly reading about how sweet of seats he has at Kinnick and the away games he goes to.

At least you're honest about it.

 

[Golfer]

I might have over reacted. I'm fairly new on here, and there is sort of an old boy, gang up, mentality sometimes. I understand that. Some of you guys have met, or known each other on here for years. What I don't like sometimes is how we react to folks who post on here. Even if they're dead wrong, I'm uncomfortable with some of the insults thrown around.

Read the thread about the politics forum being shut down. I make a couple of jokes, and all of the sudden I'm accused of not adding anything to the forums, but rather subtracting. Probably true, but coming from folks that also post things that probably subtract, I just don't get it. And then I comment that the forum should just be shut down, and I get a response stating basically, "how long have you been on here?" Like anything else matters, including length of time on this board, except what this board's owner decides.

I think, and I can't speak for him, he wants us all to treat each other better on here.

All right enough from me, I'm not perfect either. Far from it. At least I recognize it.

If I over reacted, I apologize.

 

[racerhawk]

I apologize if I offended anyone. Peace!

My post was admittedly over the top, and I generally pride myself on being relatively reasonable.

Having said that, I find the sense of entitlement amongst donors to be a bit tiring. Giving money doesn't entitle one to a certain number of wins. I'm also a donor, alum, and season ticket holder for many years. My comment was indeed sarcastic, and I'm truly sorry if I offended anyone in particular.

Golfer, I apologize and I appreciate your candor. It is not my intent to offend you or any other donors. I'm just tired of the negativity and entitlement that is so prevalent on this board these days.

Have a good Friday, y'all.

 

[racerhawk]

I'd like to add that I enjoy Golfer's posts as well, as they are informative.

 

[hogeye]

Group hug.

 

[HawkfaninWA]

I'm not going to read this entire thread, but I take offense to this and I'm sick of the excuses. There are consistently players that come out of the woodwork for teams every year and I believe that Iowa does a good job of finding such players. We have cleaned house and it's about time we have a "surprise" season again.

I'm hoping for a surprise and that this attrition means nothing.

Go Hawks!

 

[goods10]

Exactly, so look out in a year or two. And it wouldn't be out of the question to expect another three years of what we all have missed the last few years.

to continue...and without attrition on Defense I see no reason to not continue the upward trend. Iowa has to avoid attrition. It all starts there.

 

[DarthKinnick]

as to save some headaches this fall.

The 2012 Iowa defense is going to approach 2000 levels. This group is in a rebuilding mode, not reloading. The attrition they have had up front is coming home to roost this year and it's going to be painful. That bill was going to come due, and this is the year of the payment.

Iowa may have to be more aggressive on offense than Kirk typically likes to have a chance to win games this year, because the defense is not going to do it. I think after the 2012 season ends, we'll look back fondly at the 2011 numbers, which are the 'worst' of the KF era outside of 1999 and 2000.

That said, I see a brighter 2013, where the DL starts to resemble its old self. Hopefully one of the young safeties can channel his inner Bob Sanders in run support next year, as Iowa is really, really going to need it.

So, no calls for Phil Parker's head. You can see this train coming down the track in March. Heck, you could hear the whistle blowing back in January.

In 2000, Iowa's defense allowed:

440 yards per game. It will not be that bad. Was 378 in 2011
27.50 points per game...I think it could be like that. It was 23.85 in 2011
194 rushing yards per game...I could see 175+ in 2012. It was 156 in 2011

Amazing. 4 million per to suck.

 

[CAARHawk]

to continue...and without attrition on Defense I see no reason to not continue the upward trend. Iowa has to avoid attrition. It all starts there.

A big part of the attrition stems from the execution over experience factor. Running a system so heavily based on the need for perfect execution means that fewer players get on the field. Guys see this and know if an experienced player is ahead of them, the odds of getting on the field are slim. And, when they do get on the field, they are bound to make a mistake, because they don't have experience.

Then you end up graduating entire units and end up like this year giving players the benefit of the doubt, because the coaches just have to suck it up and except the situation as it is.

The important thing will be that they work in the younger players, so that you don't end up with situations where you have entire units with very little experience.

 

[DDThompson]

]1 So I'll ask the question again: How does a program this mature, with a coach and staff this established... allow the ranks to get so thin? Yeah, I know we've lost some players.. but somebody isn't doin' their job.

I think that somebody who was a big part in why there was such a revolving door on the DL is now in Lincoln. KF has gone out of his way to talk up Reese Morgan's abilities and how he builds players up and develops them on at least three separate occasions and Brian Ferentz one other time.

If true then taking five seasons to rectify the DL flight situation falls not on "the one who is not named and now in Lincoln", but on "the one who is not named in Iowa City".

Right?

We can't say the one who is not named in Iowa City has a short leash on offensive strategy and that assistant coaches will do it his way except for "the one who is not named and now in Lincoln".

So the answer to hawkdrummers question is "the one who is not named and in Iowa City."

 

[Cory]

I always find it funny how people pull out certain years to make claims about KF's tenure at Iowa. He goes 3 years 7 or fewer wins, 3 years 8 or more wins. That is the only stat that holds up over his entire HC career at Iowa.

The question is, or you fine with 8 wins being the mark of a successful year at Iowa? I am. But I know some of you are not.

Im one of the few that think 8 wins in a year is not a high note considering what has been invested.

 

[Hawkeye11en1]

Im one of the few that think 8 wins in a year is not a high note considering what has been invested.

That's fine, you are entitled to that opinion. I am of the opinion that if you told me we would have the same 10 years that we just had, I would jump on it in a heartbeat. And I'd enjoy every bit of it.