if the rumor is true about Coordinators

hawkeye2011 said:
Too late. Clemson going to pay their OC $1.3 million to keep him.

I thought Malzahn was around that figure too, too lazy to look it up.

Why is there such a desire to hire Campbell as OC?

Everything I hear inside is that he isn't coordinator material. I am just curious what others are basing their opinion on as for him being a competent OC.

EDIT: Malzahn is at 1.3 as well. Clemson OC is 1.3 per for SIX YEARS! Wow.
Click to expand...

Should have said first in the Big Ten.
 
hawkfaninTX said:
Who gets the credit for pinning the other team deep inside thier own 20, you would have to agree that it increases the odds for the events quoted above to take place? So, does the credit for the opponents drive that stalls partially go the Offense for advancing the ball to mid-field which results in horrible field position for the opponent after the punt?

I only took the other side of the argument to point out that you are in a 50/50 prop here. You could argue yourself into a circle.

I think what you both want is more accountability.

Someone to impose or at least rekindle the fire in the Coaching staff's collective bellies. You put Stoops in there and every coach under Ferentz hopefully goes through a thorough self-check or some sort of personal assessment.

Example: Have you ever welcomed a new peer to your management team (or similarly had to welcome a coworker on a same level as you?).

With almost an uncanny certainty you (and your other peers/co-workers) will act more professionally and be more "on top" of your typical duties in an effort to not be shown up by the new guy/gal. This happens for a while then complacency sets back in, but you may have added something to your repertoire. Bottom Line, casual (or even drastic) changes are needed to keep people eager/hungry/professional/<insert adjective>

This does not come from being jealous or envious, not even out of resentment for the new hire, but from the old saying "we are what we repeatedly do."

That quote in it's entirety is actually:

"We are what we repeatedly do. EXCELLENCE, then, it is not an act, but a Habit." -Aristotle

That quote sums up what this Staff has strived/is striving for. Substitute Execution for Excellence. I remember my coach always saying the phrase "Paralysis by Analysis." And Iowa Players and coaches are usually at their best when they just act, not analyze the situationals to death. Or even more simply put, "fly under the radar."

When we are in big games, or are underdogs, we just go out and try to impose our will (by playing the "Iowa" way) on the other teams. When we seem to have the edge, or are favored- we tend to be caught on our heels trying to be safe/practical.

Any historian, military mind, politician will tell you that nothing good comes to those who wait, or who are passive/non-confrontational. The cunning aggressor is usually the victor.

Iowa Possesses no cunning or aggression at the current moment. Stoops carries both of those genes. It is a phone call that needs to be made, regardless of what Norm plans to do (and that is meant with no disrespect towards Norm.) Something could be made from loyalty, but the best leader is feared/resented, not loved/cherished- the Machiavellian way.
Click to expand...

FINALLY someone who appears to have 1) Actually graduated from Iowa and 2) paid attention in his classes.
This is basic leadership/management 101, as as long as the Tavern Hawk brigade dominates the discussion, there will be no pressure on KF to step up and make the changes THE ANY CEO WORTH THEIR SALT are paid the big bucks to do.
 
VHSHAWK said:
FINALLY someone who appears to have 1) Actually graduated from Iowa and 2) paid attention in his classes.
This is basic leadership/management 101, as as long as the Tavern Hawk brigade dominates the discussion, there will be no pressure on KF to step up and make the changes THE ANY CEO WORTH THEIR SALT are paid the big bucks to do.
Click to expand...


Partially true, I'm from Iowa. Attended classes at both UNI & Iowa
 
hawkfaninTX said:
I'd be interested hearing you surmise the topic. But to cover my own tracks: that is why I said usually.
Click to expand...

Well, one would surmise that you cannot boil down the entirety of military history to a single attribute, particularly one that is so subjective. For a person to believe this would mean they completely forgot about the battle of Thermopylae, the Fabian Strategy in the Punic Wars, the Battle of Tours, the Spanish Armada, World War I, Operation Barbarossa, and Gandhi.

I surmise trying to compare things like this to football strategy is foolhardy.
 
GhostofBTT said:
Well, one would surmise that you cannot boil down the entirety of military history to a single attribute, particularly one that is so subjective. For a person to believe this would mean they completely forgot about the battle of Thermopylae, the Fabian Strategy in the Punic Wars, the Battle of Tours, the Spanish Armada, World War I, Operation Barbarossa, and Gandhi.

I surmise trying to compare things like this to football strategy is foolhardy.
Click to expand...

You could argue the actions of the Spartans were "cunning" & "aggressive." In fact, their assembly of elders all but begged them not to go and meet the persians. now once the landscape and battlefield was chosen, yes they were not the aggressor. But it depends if you look at things on a macro or micro level. I would say from a campaign standpoint- the Spartans were aggressive. BTW, the Battle of Marathon was pretty aggressive for the Athenians, given their MO for that time frame as "politicians & artisans" -not warriors.

Could you look at any game from a macro point-of-view and claim Ferentz was the aggressor? i would bet that its fewer than 10%.

I would agree that The Fabian Strategy would not apply, but that strategy calls for endless time, where as in a football game you are contained to just 60 minutes. The Fabian Strategy would ultimately lead to an outright forfiet if you decided to "avoid" the field of play alltogether, so in football that is a losing approach.

World War I was aggressive from its start. Partly because of unchecked millitary industrialization, but as soon as the Archduke was assasinated, all the major European powers were pulled into conflict by a network of alliances. Germany's Shlieffen Plan is the biggest culprit in WWI. An example of preemption drawn off of millitary and political theory about isolating frontal warfare. It's tough to fight a two front war (AKA a very capable running/passing attack). After meticulous planning you have to choose to take away one option (stack the box-or for the Germans take out the French), and anticipate what the other threat will do.

Operation Barabossa is not what you could caragorize as "cunning" aggression. Typically you have to remove EGO from the equation, something many brilliant Generals/Leaders couldnt do (Napoleon, Hitler, <etc>) or even Coaches that go for a fake punt/fourth and short in their own territory. The winter played a huge part in both of the losing sides decision making for the Germans in Operation Barabossa and the Umayyad faction in the Battle of Tours. Weather is something that both teams have to deal with within a set time, equally effecting both teams execution.

In your mind was D-Day conservative? How about our controversial "Island Hopping" approach in the Pacific? Should we have waited to drop the Bomb on Hiroshima/Nagasaki?

Ghandi may be the one example that is inpenetrable. The man had no alternative.
 
Last edited:
Summation: Given that Football is played in a time bound sequence, by nature- USUALLY, the aggressor is the victor. That was my only point in my post on the last page.
 
This is so simple, I almost missed it:

In general, for any sport, who would you say has the overall advantage? Is it the team with the ball? I could now have an endless list of sporting situations where the offense has the advantage over the defense. Just like in warfare, typically those on the offensive have an advantage over those on the defensive.

(ceteris paribus)
O-line vs D-line
pitcher vs batter
Set play in Basketball/soccer/
Server in Tennis
"Honors" in golf
<etc>
 
hawkfaninTX said:
Summation: Given that Football is played in a time bound sequence, by nature- USUALLY, the aggressor is the victor. That was my only point in my post on the last page.
Click to expand...
Make sure to cover your Butt. And actually the Persians were the aggressors in that war. The Spartans just defended their land once the Persians arrived. So USUALLY its the person who exploits the weeknesses or surroundings of the one who attacks early.
 
truehawk said:
Make sure to cover your Butt. And actually the Persians were the aggressors in that war. The Spartans just defended their land once the Persians arrived. So USUALLY its the person who exploits the weeknesses or surroundings of the one who attacks early.
Click to expand...

I agree, but their decision to leave behind greece and go out and Meet the persians- that could be viewed as aggressive. Of course they were on the defense, but it was agressive in nature.

Call it a "blitz" - can you tell me the word origin of blitz? (trick question) Its a millitary term, meaning a quick and sudden attack- even while on defense a blitz is aggressive.
 
Ever hear the old adage that "more football games are lost than won"?

There was a time when Defense and punting were the name of the game. Ultra conservative, 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Field position, Field position, Field position, Field position, Field position.

Yes, the game has changed and moved on to a large degree. Playing aggressive is in. But obviously there are traditionalists who believe in playing field position, and trying to lessen to number of turnovers by running the football and limiting the extent of risk taking in the pass game, as well as playing a conservative brand of defense to limit the big play.

When you throw the football three things can happen and two of them are bad. That was another classic football nugget of wisdom.

But for decades (or really nearly a century) of football historically you won games by not losing them.
 
or you could be like Custer and get wiped out at your Little Big Horn
or be on the defensive at Pearl Harbor and get you @ss handed to you
not sure how this thread got hijacked from a discussion about potential OC & DC
into a military statrigist discussion
 
hawkfaninTX said:
I agree, but their decision to leave behind greece and go out and Meet the persians- that could be viewed as aggressive. Of course they were on the defense, but it was agressive in nature.

Call it a "blitz" - can you tell me the word origin of blitz? (trick question) Its a millitary term, meaning a quick and sudden attack- even while on defense a blitz is aggressive.
Click to expand...
Blitz=German for lightning. Blitzkrieg=lightning-war(quick-strike).
 
hawkfaninTX>

I'm enjoying the mental exercise that your theory evokes. I think some delineation of variables is necessary. First, in a military engagement, typically battles are structured as conflicts of attrition, whereby the use and deployment of military capital is used (or withheld) with the goal of making an opponent surrender.

Surrender is not the goal of sport, however, which as you mentioned is a closed system based on how many successful "strikes" opponents can score within an allotted time. Therefore, sport is structured more like military exercises than actual battles.

I think this changes the math a little bit. First of all, because time is a factor, sport provides a "stall" option. If you have an efficient defense, you can keep your opponent from striking until the "time" runs out. Additionally, if you also have an effective run game, you can even skew the time metric, and therefore do not have to be a lethal - or even decent "striker." In a word, offensive maneuvers can be rendered moot within the context of sport if a side is proficient enough at defense and time manipulation.

You mentioned soccer, and the same dynamic exists. The "cantenaccio" approach, whereby a team backloads on defense and uses a system of counter-attacks to wear down opponents has been so effective in recent decades, that many soccer purists believe it is ruining the sport.

Finally, it all depends on how you define aggression. Isn't offense inherently "aggressive"? If so, why hasn't a Mike Leach team ever won the National Championship? Why hasn't Grinnell College won the Division III basketball title? Is blitzing aggressive? You have to have the correct personnel to be successful blitzing.

I think "aggression", as a whole, may be a positive attribute in sport, but it is not necessarily an identifiable tactic, as in war. This is because sport is contextual while war is dynamic. In sport, because time functions as a manipulable variable (running the ball, passing around the key, taking time-outs), aggression can be countered, and in some, cases neutralized far more easily and predictably than in battle.

In summation, I think you're for the most part wrong. I think that championship calibur teams - LSU comes to mind - take calculated risks, but are for the most part, conservative. LSU's strength is a function of their ability to stop other teams' aggression, and then manipulate time by running the football effectively. Do they play with an aggressive mentality? Absolutely. But, do great teams employ aggressive tactics (which, to my way of thinking involves taking a lot of risks)? I don't think so.
 
Last edited:
wundergrape said:
hawkfaninTX>

In summation, I think you're for the most part wrong. I think that championship calibur teams - LSU comes to mind - take calculated risks, but are for the most part, conservative. LSU's strength is a function of their ability to stop other teams' aggression, and then manipulate time by running the football effectively. Do they play with an aggressive mentality? Absolutely. But, do great teams employ aggressive tactics (which, to my way of thinking involves taking a lot of risks)? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

This last part was mostly my point. Calculated/cunning -whichever way you word it. you have to be aggressive in attitude or mantra, but at the same time conservative acts are needed to ensure a victory, no matter if you are fighting pitched battles or scoring touchdowns.

My first and only point before I elaborated, was that a cunning leader who is agressive is usually the victor. Cue, LSU Head Coach Les Miles (AKA 'the Mad Hatter') nickname given for known risks taken throughout his career, but for the most part is conservative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top