I'm not really sure why people are surprised

L

lightning1

Well-Known Member
The holes in the roster and recruiting are obvious. And I'm not sure that any of the players committed in the next 2 classes, fill the holes that we have. We need athletic PGs/Combo guards that can handle the ball and play defense. They are not on the roster and they are not currently committed to Iowa for '18/19.
It's a guard driven game at this level.
 
Unfortunately I agree. As a good example ISU will struggle mightily this season without Morris running the point. Iowa will also struggle as we don't seem to have either the coaching or desire to play the defensive schemes necessary to make up for not being as fast and athletic.
 
I'm not surprised at the loss last night. Fran's teams are more likely to let games get out of hand due to pace of play. It's frustrating at the time, but it still only counts as one loss. I'm really surprised at how we looked last week. That defense was as bad as the beginning of last year.
 
I'm more surprised how good they played in the first half. Used their size and mismatches and played good D and blocked out. Thought the refs were suspect on a few calls and non-calls but expected that on the road. Was then disappointed to see Moss and Bohannon flinging up shots instead of grinding on D in the second half. Horrible transition D, panic, and Baer getting winded. I don't like to single out players but if Moss can't step up against quality competition it will be a tough year. The first half was something Fran can build on.
 
lightning1 said:
The holes in the roster and recruiting are obvious. And I'm not sure that any of the players committed in the next 2 classes, fill the holes that we have. We need athletic PGs/Combo guards that can handle the ball and play defense. They are not on the roster and they are not currently committed to Iowa for '18/19.
It's a guard driven game at this level.
Click to expand...

While I agree that we need quicker guards that can handle the ball, if you look at our second half shot chart (just the misses) you can see that quicker guards aren't really going to change the fact that we missed a lot of bunnies. Yeah, they might be contested, but I saw far too many layups roll off the rim. Here's the second half shot chart showing the missed FG only:

view
 
Last edited:
Knight78 said:
While I agree that we need quicker guards that can handle the ball, if you look at our second half shot chart (just the misses) you can see that quicker guards aren't really going to change the fact that we missed a lot of bunnies. Yeah, they might be contested, but I saw far too many layups roll off the rim. Here's the second half shot chart showing the missed FG only:
view
Click to expand...

Yeah the shooting in the 2nd half was horrendous but I have more confidence in their offense bouncing back than the defense making significant strides. I brought up the defensive issues I seen in the guard play during the exhibition games, hoping that it was because it was exhibition. Unfortunately I've seen no progress.

This team is going to be able to score points, we do have a lot of potential in the post positions. I like Nunge and Garza, just get them a point guard.
 
We need more athletes at each position minus the PF spot with Cook. We need a more athletic PG and SG. As @lightning1 pointed out in another thread Moss could play the 3, and an athletic and shot blocking C would be great.

Fran has always obviously favored long athletes over quick twitch athletes. Now it seems like he prefers length period, as the guys he is bringing in lately are not even long athletes, they are just long (Connor, Nunge, Garza).
 
deanvogs said:
We need more athletes at each position minus the PF spot with Cook. We need a more athletic PG and SG. As @lightning1 pointed out in another thread Moss could play the 3, and an athletic and shot blocking C would be great.

Fran has always obviously favored long athletes over quick twitch athletes. Now it seems like he prefers length period, as the guys he is bringing in lately are not even long athletes, they are just long (Connor, Nunge, Garza).
Click to expand...

Isn't Nunge pretty darn athletic for a guy his height?
 
PCHawk said:
Isn't Nunge pretty darn athletic for a guy his height?
Click to expand...
We have enough athleticism on the team in my opinion, we just have to get the right guys out there. That’s why I started the thread earlier today about going smaller (getting more athletic players minutes). I think it starts with sliding Nunge to the 4, and getting more minutes to Dailey at the 2/3.
 
NikeHawk21 said:
We have enough athleticism on the team in my opinion, we just have to get the right guys out there. That’s why I started the thread earlier today about going smaller (getting more athletic players minutes). I think it starts with sliding Nunge to the 4, and getting more minutes to Dailey at the 2/3.
Click to expand...

This Garza/Nunge saga is crazy isn't it? At first, Garza was the prized recruit. Then Nunge had a huge season and started getting all the hype. Then in the PTL, they were both great but maybe Nunge a little more so. Then the over seas trip, Nunge sucked and Garza was awesome again. Then the first few games, Garza was awesome and Nunge was ok. Right now, Garza looks terrible and Nunge looks great again. I don't remember a back and forth like this with two other recruits.
 
PCHawk said:
Isn't Nunge pretty darn athletic for a guy his height?
Click to expand...

He is just another long athlete who is nowhere near as quick as the players Fran is trying to match him up with. At the 3 spots, I'd bet he is in the bottom 10% of quickness. Sure he can make up for some of that with length, but it seems that is all this roster is all length and no quickness.
 
deanvogs said:
He is just another long athlete who is nowhere near as quick as the players Fran is trying to match him up with. At the 3 spots, I'd bet he is in the bottom 10% of quickness. Sure he can make up for some of that with length, but it seems that is all this roster is all length and no quickness.
Click to expand...
Wish I didnt agree with you. But you are pointing out the obvious. Why so against the obvious with football. Dual personality? Are you Mary?
 
HawkGold said:
Wish I didnt agree with you. But you are pointing out the obvious. Why so against the obvious with football. Dual personality? Are you Mary?
Click to expand...

You are the football apologist, not me.

When I think a guy should be fired, or have big issues with them, I let it be known. You weren't around here when I was ripping on Greg Davis, and calling for Ferentz to be fired after the 2014 season. I have just learned that KF is who he is, and I don't agree with the zealots portrait of KF, saying he doesn't care, he is a lazy recruiter, etc. So I just don't go down those allies. There are lots of things I like about KF, and lots I don't like.

Overall bottom line is now matter how much people don't want it to be true, his career arc has followed Fry. You can say they got there in much different ways, but the fact is that their similar results just sticks in my head:

I am taking out the first two year for both coaches as they were building their programs.

Years '81-'87 of Fry: 62-23-1 (73% winning %) with 2 Rose Bowls with teams that finished ranked in the top 20 6 times.
Last 11 years of Fry: 72-53-5 (57% winning %) with 1 Rose Bowl game

Years '01-'09 Ferentz 77-36 (68% winning %) with 2 BCS bowl teams that finished ranked in the top 25 5 times.
Last 8 years of Ferentz 61-42 (59 % winning %) with 1 Rose Bowl game
 
I'm surprised because Iowa was semi decent last year. All they lost was Jok, who played very little defense and they brought in a true 5. I expected them to at least pick up where they left off last year, not backslide.

I'm hoping that Baer will make a difference when he gets back to form. Otherwise, WBB is an entertaining team to watch..
 
deanvogs said:
You are the football apologist, not me.

When I think a guy should be fired, or have big issues with them, I let it be known. You weren't around here when I was ripping on Greg Davis, and calling for Ferentz to be fired after the 2014 season. I have just learned that KF is who he is, and I don't agree with the zealots portrait of KF, saying he doesn't care, he is a lazy recruiter, etc. So I just don't go down those allies. There are lots of things I like about KF, and lots I don't like.

Overall bottom line is now matter how much people don't want it to be true, his career arc has followed Fry. You can say they got there in much different ways, but the fact is that their similar results just sticks in my head:

I am taking out the first two year for both coaches as they were building their programs.

Years '81-'87 of Fry: 62-23-1 (73% winning %) with 2 Rose Bowls with teams that finished ranked in the top 20 6 times.
Last 11 years of Fry: 72-53-5 (57% winning %) with 1 Rose Bowl game

Years '01-'09 Ferentz 77-36 (68% winning %) with 2 BCS bowl teams that finished ranked in the top 25 5 times.
Last 8 years of Ferentz 61-42 (59 % winning %) with 1 Rose Bowl game
Click to expand...

In some ways you are right about tracking (gulp). The style and how they got there are vastly different, except that both were very conservative....just different in how that played out and was marketed.

Blaming GD is a little silly in my opinion. He was hired to be GD and he acted like GD.

To clarify, I wish KF was never hired. Didn't like it from the start. Firing him at this point would not be good. I would be OK with incentifying him to influence his blindspots.

The problem I have in marketing myself is that I was also not a fan of the FM hire. It's going to go down in flames. Interestingly, Licks biggest downfall was his son. KF's son remains to be seen, but not a positive review after 1 year (with a big asterisk or 2). I do think FM has behaved himself so he could be around to coach his son's. This could unfold very interestingly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top